Minutes-PC 1973/05/140 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, I~IC.
. ._ , .~, , c., , ~..~~
,.,, ,~., ~ ~ , . ~
~
•
Ci ~y H a17.
7~nnhsim, Cali Pornia
Mey ld, 19~3
A RE(iUL11R MF8'fI_N_~ OF '~H1! AN1-HEIM CITX PLANNING COMMI88ION
REGULI~R ~ A r~qular me~tinq oY Ch~ Anahe~m City Plux-niny Cammis~ion vraa
MEETING caAlPd to order b!~ r.hairman Seymaur. •t Ls00 p.m., A quorum
being prAS~enti.
PRESL~NT - CHAiRN1-N ~ gey~ouz.
- COMMISSIONER51 Allzed, Fnrano, Oauar, Harbet, K~ywaod, Rowlend.
,At1SENT - COMMI55IONLRSi Nona.
Pl.a.~FNT - Aseietant D~velopment 3ervicea Diractor: Ronald Thompsun
peputy City Attornoy: FrAh1t Lowr~~
of~ice F;nginesr: Jay ~i~um
Planning 8upervisor.~ ~on MaDaniAl
Zoninq ~upervieor: Charl~ae p^~erto
Aasietant Plnnner Phil~ip Schwertze
Cnmmiesion SecreCsry; Ann Krsb~
PLEDGE OF - Commiseioner Allred led i~1 thd Pledge oE All~gi+~nc0 to the
A:,LEGIANCE Pla9.
APPROVAL OF - Approva~ nf the minutee of the meeting o! April 30, 1973. wae
THE MINUTl3S ~•.. `= rred to Mey 30 , 1~ 73 .
ENVZRONMENTAI, ~:'pAC`P - ~JNTINUED PUBLIC HEl~RSNG. THE MC CARTHY COMPl~NY, ettOn-
RFrPORT N0. 9 3 tion ~f Eugene R, F~..ller, 2535 Wert La P~-lma ~-vqnue,
~ A,.!heim, Ca. 92801, und HENRY F. t-ND ~THEL C. DEL GIOR~IO,
RLCLASBIFJCATION 21191 ~lohler Driva, Anaheim, Ca. 9280~, Ownera. FNG2NFE R:
NO. 72-73-39 .Tenninga Lngineerinq Company, ~413 Van Nuys Bou2evard,
Sherman A~ke, C~, 91403. Property da~cribed aes An
VA1tIAe1C~ :i0. 7.492 irzeqularly-eheped par.cel of land coaeietinq of approxi-
mately 35 acres, ha.ving a fron~a,fe of appzoximat~ly 687
~'ENTATIVE MAF~ OE' feeti on the south sicle of ~~nt ~na Canyon Road, having
TRACT N0. 4777, a maximum depth of appzoximat~ , 1500 feet, and bRinq
t3VISION NO. 1
~ located approximateiy 3070 ~eet east of the centerl3ne
. of An+sheim Hi11s Road. Prngerty presently claebifi.~d
R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLpSSIFICATION: R-l, ONE-FA:~III~Y RESID~NTIAL, ZONE.
IxEQUESTED VARYANCEx WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUP-. FRONT SETHfiCK, {B) MINIMUM LOT
WIDTti ON A Ci1L-D~--SAC, (C) MINIMi)M LOT WIDTH, AND (U)
REQUIREMENT THAT SINGZE-rAN,ILY RESIBENrIAL STRUCTURES
REAR Oti AR'PERlAL HIGKWAYS TO E~TABL'ISH A 135-LA'P, R-1
3UBUiVi5I0N.
Subject patitiona nnd tr~ct were continued trom the meeting of April 16, 1~T3,
to allow time for the submissio~n of revi.~ed plnna.
Aasietant Pla-nner Ph3111p Schwart~e adviaed tt~a Commieaion that the netitioner
had subm3tted a requeat !or a two-week onntihuance in or8es to reviee plane.
Commieeionox Kaywood offered a mation, ~econded by Commiaoioner ~'arano And
MOTiON CARRIED, to continue conai~lezation of 8nvironmontal Smpac~t Re~ort No. 93_
Rer.laseificetlon Aio. 72-73-39, Vari~nce No. 2492, end Tentative !~'a-q o! Traot
Ko. 4777, Reviaion No. l. to tha meeting ot May 30, 1973, as requ~sted by tha
peti tioner/d~~v~loper .
73-265
~.,.
~
MiN[~TB9, CITY PLANNING COMMT88ION ~ Map 14, 1973 73-Z66
CONDI'PxON!-L 'U9E - CONTINUFD PU9LiC H$ARxN~; . TH~ MC C1~RTHY COMFIINY, ntttn-
PSRMix~ N0. ~386 kion o! 8ugnn~ R. !'u].~.er, 2S3$ ~ieat La Palma 11v~nue,
Anul~~im, Ca. 91~01, ~M11Or~ requsrting p~rmi~~ion to ~BT1-B-
LI8li A d-UNIT PLIINNSU RSSZDENTIAL DSVaLOPN~Y~T TO 8$ UBED
1~8 71 MODEL HOME COM~LEX WITN SALEit OFliCR on d~roperl:y de~oribad ~~ ~ An
izreqularly-sh+-pec! psrosl ot land ac~n~lstinq of epprc,ximatioly ono •or• ~ppr~xi-
mately 6S0 ~o~t ~outharly o! 9anta Ana Cdnyc.n Roa~i, havi.nq a ma:cimum aspth o~
Rgproximetrly 17G leet, end b~i~g located approxim~tsS.y 14Q lsot w~~t of the
c~nter.line oY M~hler Driva. prop~erty preoently clAasifird R~A, IGRICUY.TURAL,
xONE.
8ubject pet~tlon wa~ continued txom the maeting of A~ril 16, 1473, to ellow
time for. the aubmiesion o! ~la~ns.
A~distant Planner Phillip Schaart~e adviso,~ the Cammia.ian that tiho patitianar
had submitt~d a requaat for e twa-week continusnce in ordsr to revi~e pi.ane .
Commiaeioner Kr~ywood offered a motion, seacandad by Cammiowionsz ^ar~na and
MOTiON CARRIED, to continiae coneideration o~ Conditio*~al UsA Pe~rm1C Nn. 138~ ti
to the meeting of Mle•~ 30, 1973, as requoste~d by th~ petition~x/dovolap~~r. -
RECLA38IFICATION - PUBLIC ElEARING. A. J. SCHUTTE ~ C~o 1-llea R. T1~~lt~ No. fi06
N0. 72-73-3H Wilahire-Flower Building, 615 South Flo~oer Stret,t, Log
Anq~lee, Ca. 90017; Own~r~ HOLM, T11YT &~Sl9C1C.IATEB, SNC. ,
attontion of Tom Turner, 900 OranqePe~ir ~.ane, Anaheim, Ca.
92801, Agentj propoeing that property ~eACribed ae: ~-n irzayularly-ehapod
pAZCel of land aonsistinq of r~pproximat9ly .25 acre, ha-ving a lront~aqe of
approximataly 1+~6 feet or, the south si•' of Dall Road, huva.n~ n lrunkaqa of.
approximate7.y 149 feat on the eaet eid ,f Sunkiet Street~ k~e rec].a~a4Piod
from the COUNTY OF ORANGE ~1, GENSRA~, AGRICUL~'Ui.~~L, DYSTRICT CO thi CJTX 4F
!-NAHEIM C-1, GENERAL COMMERCYAL, 'LON~.
Aetsistant Planner Phillip Schwartze e-dvised the Planninq Cor~mlo~ion ~nat• the
petitionera had submit~ed u requeat ear].ier in the day t~r s si.x-monthc~ cor.-
tinuance of subjeot petition.
The Commiesion digcueeed the requeat !or a lengthy :ontinu,nncy ari~ determinrii
that rather th~n continue it for such a long time~ that i~: be i:emovati lraw the
Agenda and at such time as the peti~ioner was d0eirous o~ proa+'sd:lA~q with the
rezaninq requeat, that it be readvertised at the pet.lti.on~r'e ~~,p~na~ !or
public haaring aY. that time.
Commiasionor Rowland offexed a motion to remove Pet:ltian far Raaaa~e~~ication
No. 72-73-38 from the Plxnning Commission agondu and to k+e re,ac1vartieed f.or
public hea.rinq 3t. the petitioner'~ expense dt a~xch time as tt-~a pet~t:lv~•~rr. ~a~
deairaus of ~xocAoeinq the reclassification. Comn-i~~sion~r Ka~•yood aa o-,Aea
the motion. MJTION CARRIED.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - c'.ONTINUED PUBLIC H~':ARING. ANAH~IM HILLS, xNC. %~NQ
REPORT N0. 7.2 r~~~CO VENTURES, IN ~., J80 Anah~im H:11~ Rofld, t~nahe.'_m,
~ Ca. 92806 Qwnera. DEVEx,UPER: R. H. y~i.t12~T CO;NPR~.iY OF
V~1RiANCE N0. 2455 CAT.~,'~RN7.A, 50(1 Neaport Center Drive, t~eWpori: 14eac:~ .
Ca, 92E6.~. ~tvGTNEERs VTN, 2301 Campu~s Drive; Irvine,
TENTATIVE MAP OF C:A. Q266~. Property described as: An ~rrsqcilarly-
TRA~T NOS. 8115, shaped parce2 of las~d consisting of eppxoximak0ly lOG
8116, 8117, 813~4, acres hevinq a frontaga of appsoximatAl.y 4570 lne~ on
REVTSION NOS. 1 the~ south gide ef Nohl Ranch Road, hav~ng a maximuu-
dspth of appr~ximately 1995 f~et, che ~asterly boundary
beinA agpraxi.mately 300 feet weat of th~ centozli.ne of
Roysl Oak Roa,d. Property ~resently alas~rtiPietl R-A,
AGRICUL'~URAL, xONE .
REQUESTED VARIANCE~ 1iAIVER OF (A) 1~lINIMUfd LUT ARE,A, (8) RBQUIREMENT THAT
RESIDENTx1-L STRUCT-JRES RE11It ON !-N ARTEAIAL HIGHN~,Y, AND
(r) MZNi!!UM W~ATH dF FRiVATE 7!~'~E88W71Y TQ $STABLISIi FOUR
TRACTS CONTAINZNG ). T09`AY+ OF 26 5 R-H-1,Q ~ 000 ZON~D LOTS .
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~7MMIR3ION, May 14, 1973 73-2ti7
ENVI'EtONMENTIIL~ IMFACT REpORx IVO. 12, VAFeIANCE N0. Z45Sr AND T~N'f,i-TIVL" M7-P OF
TRACT NOfi. 8115L H116i~8117; 1-ND 8134,_ R~VI9ION NGS. 1 ~C,onklnueci~
1~ENTATIVE TRACT REQU~JTBc Traot No. 8115 - '7~ R-t1-10,000 ton~d .lotR.
Triot No. 8116 - 67 R-F1-l0,OQ0 c~n~d lot~.
Trac~ Na. 8117 - ~ 67 R••H-10,00Q ~on~A lots.
TrsoC No. 813d - 50 R~tl-10,000 son~d lots.
Sub~eat petition and ~xacta were aontinued lrom ths April 1G, 1973 moeting tor
the ~ubniiseion o! revie~d plene.
N3ne pereone lndicated their presance in opposition.
Aaaletant Planner. Phillip SchwAxt~e roviewed the laaation af sub~~ct propartiy,
usea aetabliah~d in ~lous prox~mity, and khe proponal to subdiviQm 106 scraa
into 265 R-H-10,000 sonsd la1~e ~ ith anly one weiver nuw, Ch+~t bA~ng thzee lote
that would eide onto en artsrial highway eince the revioed plans i.ndicated
r,ompliance wixh the li-H-10,000 Zone eite development atandsr~et that tt+e
dc+naity of the ~ntire projeaC would bs 2.5 dwa111.ng unite per aare, whioh
would be in conforme~nc~ with the General Plsn far clevelopmenk o! tho nrenJ
that the arae would be nervaA primarily by 54-foot, hi].l.eide intAri.or atreats
and tio interior lota I~y 50-loot, hillaide inkerior cul-de-0ac e~reate~ th+at
Cr~acant Avenue (Lakeview Avenue) would be a 78~foot wi4e, hillsido aecondary
etreet and w+~a propoee8 to extnnd eou~herly throiigh ~i:e development from Noh1
Ranch Road.
Mr. Schwartze noted thnt a tabul ation of thA average qzoes lot size, minimum
groae lot eize +~nd maximum qross lot size, as well as the averaqe ped area,
largest ~ad urea, and smalleat p a~ aren was dc~pictod on the tablee es set
Por~h in i:he Report to the ~Commisaion~ that a total oP 96 0~ tho 265 lota
would be lese than 10,000 r~quaze feet, or 368~ that 30 of the 9G lote a£ l.ese
10,000 square feet would t-avo 90Q0 square feet, or 11.7$f that one lot in
~ract No. 81.17 wae propoeed to ei.de onto Nohl Rr~nch Road and twu lote in Tract
Nns. 811G and 8117 were pzopoeed to si.de onto ~he proposed Creacent (Lakeview
AvenuP) extenaion, both being arterial highways~ and that EnwironmenCaY Impact
Report Nc. 12 hac~ been submitta d in conjunction with this propoeal for con-
ei~hration by the Planning Cummi~sion.
Mr. Sahwartze then reviewed the eva~uation, noting that the propoood project
wou].d be in confor~aance with the permitL•ed density ~f the R-H~l0,OQ0 ~one=
that p~ot plans of the pro~ooed deve~lopment had not been aubmitted, precludinq
anarysie of lot coverage And other site development standerdet that the F~eti-
tioner hsd bee;z ac~vised of the Planning Commisaion'e deaire to zevi.ew a map
ahowing huusos plotted an e+ach lot nf any proposed subdivieion in order that
an evaluation may be made of th e relationship ot structures to lot and pad
areas, hawever, the petitioner had indicated that aince there wae no apacific
geveJ.op~r interested in the pro perty, there would be no way of knowinq what
type of home wou?d bP prupoaed for these tracts, thprc~f~re, i.t wnuld be assumed
the property would be developad in conformance with the site devPlopmeat stand-
aa-ds nf. tho R-fi-10,000 Zc+ne or ~a variance wauld ba requested laterj thet ae a
result of several meetinqa havinq been held with the developer, the eliminat~on
of two of the oriqinal three requested waivere h~d been accompliehed, and the
remairiing waiver applied to only thre~ lots in this 265-1ot subdivisian, and
grade diffexbntiale between pad and adjoining arterial stree~e ranqed ~rom 0
feet to 10 fe~tf that thA petitioner had also met with the Luak Corporatiori
to det~rmine probable arreet intersections on the north aide oP Nohl Ranch Road
*..~ aid in determininq what provisione need be made for ad3itional r.iqht-of-way
Por left-turn pockota at atroe~ intersections with Nohl Ytanch Roacts that the
Engineering Division had in~icated the arranqementia c1dp3.cted on th~ tenta~ive
•tract map w~sre sati.efrsctary, aad, furthermore, the Engineering Division had
conduc~ed preliminary atudiee reqarding tho gnsaible alignment of Creecent
(Lakeview Avenue) north of Nohl. Ranch Road to determine whethez th,~+ alignment
proposed on aub jeat property ~rould ma~oh wi.th thar pxoposad ta the i,osth, and
theae gtudies indicated tha dlignment woulS be satisfact.oryr that the Street
Maintenance and Sanitation Diviaion had exprsssed concern ever the need fos
pa.ved easements to atorm drnin l.nlets runr~inq into sub ject ps~per~y, +~nd the
submitted plans did not 3ndicata how this woul~l b~ handled, therbfore, a
condition should be imposed ta guaranree auch access for maintenaace purposertt
and that dxa9.nAqe problem~ preeently existed in the nortlaeaet postion of the
property, - d~a solution aas not depicted on the bubmittad map, therefore, a
condition 4' c,uld alsa be included 'ta covar tr.is m8t~ar, ~s well.
...~
O
MINUTE3, CITX P~AtiNINC CQMMISSION, Mey 14, 1973 ~3"a58
H:NVIRONM~NTAL IMPACT REPQRT N0. lx~ V71!tIANCE N0. 2455, 11NQ 7'ENTATIVE MAP OF
TR.I-CT NOB. 911St„_ 9116, 8117____ ~_1-ND R134~_R~VIRION N08. 1 Conttnued _
Mr. Horet Sahor, repza~entinq AnRheim N1~~1~, tho 7~titioner, appaarod b~lor•
the Commi~ei~n aad stat~d th ~t ^ub~eat pc~`ition and traot~ w~r~ rubmitt~d in
October, 1~372, h~wever, beaauea o! tha me~.r problems ~+hich haa b~~n pr~4onted
ot the Znterdepaztmentel Cammit~e• maAt~ng, Qaid pstition end tracte had been
r~m~ved lrom the agondai and that thsy hncl worketl wixh ~taf! to rosoiv• prob-
lams exiatin4 e~ that tipe. in addition, tha ait~ plan had boa~n rsdasigned,
and ao +~ reault, ths dev~lopman~ Ne• bxought inLo aonfozmanca vrith tha R-H-
10,000 Zone 9ite devalopment stsndard~ s~ vr~ll. As -^r.oviding Par the aliqnmdnt
oP Creecent (Lakoview Avenue) to ~ohl Renah Road n,.~t•herlyi and that thwy haA
coordinated their plana wiLh Lusk Cor~ozstion !or the ordarly u].timate tra~'!ic
llow ~2ong Nohl Ranch Road and the progosed eo:.ut:un to the interqention, which
were dePicted on the Lraat mapr, and the tract ma~e wera zevizwed by the City
Enqineer who had stated this mut~ ull ot the r~ quire~~~nnts.
Mr.. 9ohor then notad he r+ould like to comment on oon~ oE LhA etate~aer.ts in the
e*af!'s evaluation, nemoly, Findinq (15) reyarding pl.ot p1a~e - t'nay ~lid n~t
have a buildex at the present tima, CherePore, the+y ~~ould be unable to produce
e plot plan, anN at thie etag~ they would not be avAilable until u tract mep
or mapa ware approvecl, aince it took threo to four ~nont)ie tu prepaxe thaee
plans. Roqarding Fi.nding (18) aa 1t perta3~ned to paved ea~oemants to storm
drn~n inleL•e, he would like to aesure the Cammieaian ~:l~;t they would a-e0t with
the Street and Sanitatio~~ Supar3ntandent to prapmre p;.ar~a tAr suah paved ease-
ments. In regazd to Finding (19) pertaining to drainr~ce, he vrou'ld like to in-
lorm the Commisaion the-t Ana~haim Hills had mex with tt~e homeownere of the West-
ridqe dav9lopment re•3arding theix drainaqe probl~ms and had come to en ngre~e-
ment with them as to how ta resol ~e thia r~nd preaeratec] theae plane to thA
Engineering Divis~.on wl:o eL•eted they would maot with :heir approval, and ~his
drainage would be bui.lt this weak since forms were already con~tr.ucteH= there-
fore, there would be no problame aa to drain;~ger that there pr.obably wauld be
somQ concer.n e,xpresoed by the aurroundinq hameownera rQq+~rdi~ng the deneity
proposed in c:hie area, hnwever, hA wauld like ta atress that thoy would not be
building the entires 265 homee in the next few months because they proposed to
phase building over s thr~ee-year period, and qradinq wauld be done as eacli
tract was being developedj that concern regarding off-eite drainage~ and its
effect on the downstream praperty ownars was another concern, and he would
like to ~taCa they would concur wi.th the drainage requirement as set forth in
the Repor.t to the Commiesion. Fustihermore, i.t was his underatandinq that the
City Enqineer and City ,Attarn9y t-a~d prepared a final drxinage policy, there-
f~re, they did not plan to do any gradinq until the revised drainage conditi.on
wae adopted, but they would comply with that policy, therefure, he would re-
quest favorable conaiderati~n of subject tracts and variance.
Mr. ,7ohn Barnes, SOaO East Creacgn~. Drive, appeared before th4 Commiasion in
oppoai!:iono noting t.hat he lived in the Psralta H111s~ Areai that hs was em-
~loyea in a major aeronautiaal firm as a f'luid dynamics engineer~ •that he had
receivec~ a doct~rate in enqineering Erom the University of Southern C~liforniaj
that. he was a branch ct~ief o£ aerodynam:.cs and sect3on chie£ of apglied re-
search~ that he had published numerouo articlea in the field of fluid flow ancl
was considered an expert in that field~ that in additian ko his engineering
baakground, he also had a legal education and would o;~`ain hia jurio-doctorate
degree with honors •ln .7vne, aiid with that backqrourid, hE would like to atate
that S, had made a study of surface water riqhts in the Unit~d States. and
particularly in Californiat that for sev6ral months he had infarmed the City
ef the 3angers af eroaion and drain$qe problems that were b~in~~ areated fn
tho Sante Ana Ca~iyon by irxesponsible developneiit that was occurrinq - develop~-
ment that wae allowed in Anaheim 1i1lla with little or no reqar~ for downatream
property owners, an3 there had beon little 3n ~che line of off-site brainaqe
requirements ma~: tt,at he had e~ecif'_::a~~y pointed to thF illeqaliCy af inter-
ferenr,e of sur~ .. we-ter flow which the developer had pex':~~rmed~ thet h~ had
specifically pointed to the liabili+:y the ~ity itself was incurring since they
would be liable for dameqee Nhich v,~a bound to reault by tY~o nature of tha
development that wae going ont tha* ,ntil v~ry receatly t2:ere wds strong aqree-
ment with the City Engin4ering Divie•ian of these conditioan, ard he would like
to point out a letter ha hed receive6 from ,7amea Maddox, the City Enqis~aer,
which atatec that no additional c3evelc~pment would be a,llawed in the araa under
consideration now unt~]. adequate draei~iaqe facilitie~ had been constructe8t
~
~
MINCITES, CI9'Y PLl~1NNING COMMTS3InN, May 14, 1973 ~3'Zb9
T~NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 12, V~4RIANCE NO. 2455, AND TENTATxVt~ M11P OF
TR11CT N03. 6115, 8116, 8117, AND 6134, R~VISION NOS. 1~ Continu~d __,_„_
that he would al~~ like to point aut to meetinqs held xith soveral mambsr.~ of.
khe Peralt.d Hills Improvamont l-ssociation and with Yubli.a Woarks Direator Thorntan
Pie.xsat2 on Ap.ril 3, 1973, in v+hiah ttieA• rep_oeentetives wera aesured by Mx~.
Fi~rsall he would reaommend the~t no qrading be allowed iu thee~ uraad until
adequnto ~t!•ai~a drainage laailitiso wero conetructed. Then st ~he l-pril 1.E+,
1973 Planaing Comm~.ssion meaCing, 0!ltoa Engf.near JAy Titue hed ~tat~d pLib].i.a1y
thnt no grading would be mlloaed in theeo nreap until off-aite QrainR,ye d~vtiae»
~ere conqtructed~ that ho wou~d li.ke to o~ll to the City's e-tL•e-ntion the pl+~n
Mhich areetes the Flood Contzol Diatxict thr~ughout the hi11s !.n Pex alt~a t1~Ale
nnd Santa Ana Cnnyon thst ehowe the neod Yor mujor drain~sge devlc~~s :~n the~~~
zegiona to ~YOt9Ct the area.
Mr. Barnes then iioted that ae ta C~ty liability, he vould like t~ paint to
Asaiatant City Attor~ey Jahn Daweon'e mamo dataci April 16, '1973, ta t1-~ Planning
CommiASl.on ahich etated the~t prior to issuanco of a building pexmit 1n theae
arQas and other areaa of Anaheim, th~ro w~uld be a need to construct a~f-:~ite,
drainage P.aciliti,ea. This po'lioy waa accepted by the Planning Coeau~isaion and
peaeed on to Ehe City Council to be enactod ~ it waA total].y ehanged~ ths re-
visad condition allowed aomplete devel~pment of th~se h~mes, grading, Fabx•ic•t--
tion, constructian of the homos, aonr~truction of Ci.ty atrueta, oP ~Irivo~oaXa,
eidewalke, etc. A condition of thie nature wauld eubject Poraltn ~iilie and
other careas at santa Ann Canyon to major f.lood.ing, and he prodicted tha~ A~Wr)~
year per.i.od wou13 pasa and these drainage devictia would not ba inetAll~rd, anc]
th~s xeversal of City policy wae~ no~hing new, but was anothe~~ af the e~~ecial
tavors trat were randered to oertain developera ~.n th~ Anaheim Hflle area, and
he contandect that these apecial favors were extremely suspect in llght a~ the
confl~.cLa oP lnterest that permea~ed facote of the Ci*y ~3oveznment~ that knoa~
financial ties exieted aith certain peoplo in City government, and he r_oi-tQnda~d
thet tho Watergate affaiz had shown that no gou3rnment wss ab~ve thc la~r o~ fair
pla.y, and ha would furthar stato that politicians who did not adapt to thi.s would
become extinct.
Mr. barnes notocl that r~is leL•ter o May 4 to City Attarnsy ~oe Geisl~r p~i:itad
out that the City was :~iable for damagea from the tine it approve~c~ plrtins !'oz~
c:onatruction of City s'~reets; ~hat Mr. Geisler's responae had be~~n e~n unqub~ts-n-
tia~ed denial of the p~~ir.ta br.ought fortk- in that letterJ that i.t wx~-~ in~~nr.e~+t-
ing ta note, Y,owsver, that at the same time this was ocourring, A:~~l.at~-nt City
ptt.ornex John Dawson himself was preparing additional recommenda~ions on t,his
same City pr~blemj t,hat he would like to state that this matter was one th~t wxs
so serious and afFected so many people in Anaheim and affected t:ne Ci.ty's lia-
bility its~lf, that tt~~: City should solicit an independent opi~nion frorn t:h:~
Attorn~y General ef tt-e State of Caltfornia, and at the tiT~3 he wo+al~ aolicit
thia recommendation o~c opinion, he auspec~.ed full well. that it xou~.d not k,e
sought. - the answer would be too embarrassing and inconvenient - thar_ w~t.h the
sir of tones and vibr~tion of fear, the oyertones of doubt, it woul-~~, a.}~peaz that
all Was z-ot well and major chxnges were required b~cause a gr.avely ilsn~~fc^xcus
aituation would be created if these tracr mape were aclopted as they stood, and
he wou3.d suggeat the Planning Commission deny the tract map~ hecause ~h~sy were
irreaponaible and hazardous - if they were to be adopted ~t a].1, ~et them be
a3opted by the City Council ~ qive them another chance to show the ~~eaple of
AnahAim where they stand.
Mr. Roland Krueqer, 561 Peralta Hi].la Drive, appaared tae£ore t.'~e ''omrnission in
opposition and stated that the extansi~n of J~akeview t~venu3 thr~L~h to Nohl
Ranah Road was the first he had heard about thiat that the Peralta Hills Home~
owners Association had discussed this exteneion a numbeY of timea with the CAty
and the County. and as recently as a month ago the CiCy tA~d r~tate~cl th~ere seerae,Q
to be no plan for its extension, aiid his organixatinn h~d been aseurRd that thls
would not be done, therefore, hia pri.mary concern was the extension of Laker~5.~w
Avenue through the Peralta Hills area of low donsity obviausly beinq deve~lo~~cl
mith a epecific purpose of retaininq the sami-rural ar.ea, and to sp11t thi.s ~xea
i.n half witr. a major thoroughfAro woulcY complete~y de~txoy the onenoea of the
area, there~ore, he would request a continuance ~ of subject petitions to a11ow
time for further review of thia problem.
Mrs. Mary Dinn&orf~ 131 South Lm Paz, appeared b~foze the Cammiasion reprasentinq
th~ Santa F-na Canyon improvFment Aesociation anQ statfld that hQr organizotion
had met with the repreaentative~ of Anaheim Hi11e, and then noted ;::,a* Ana}neim
Hills had done a beautiful job of public relati.ons~ that they were very ,~ice
~J
MINl1TFS, CT'i'Y PLHNNING COMM7.SStON, MAy 14, 1973 73-270
ISNVIRONMEN'PAL IMPAC'1` REPORT N0. 1Z, VRRZANCE N0. 24`r5, AND 'TENTATTVE MAP OF
TRACT N03~8].~_8~ 1~8].].7, AND 813~_ItEV~SIpN N~7S. 1 (Continues9Z
hoNto end t~er organizar.ion apnreciata~d it, howaver~ they did ~tresr at that
m~etinq that AnahAi.m Hille could not ba coneiAered a eeparste entity from thc
rasC of th~ c~nyon c+nd miiet work withl.n tk~• Eramework o! tiie e+ntira Sqeni~c
Coxrid~r canc~-pt - a"go sluw" epproach was rocoinmendod ~.-ntil problem• a!
drdinega, echool~, and rnada could b4 k~esolvedt thpt it wev Chnir opinion thi~
appr.u~ach would conform with the purpow• of their ocqanization as A~t torth in
their t~~~laws of incurporation, u~ecifi.celly to proservo the rural, ouburban
etmoaph~s~e of tlie Sante Ana Comu~un~ty end ma~ntn.ir~ the eCenio boeuty o! the
5anta A~a Cany~n area, and unt31 the ilrafnnge and other problem» w~ro vrork~d
out, thc~ lnnd would be therg, And ehe tho~:qht the "yo elow" mor.to wa~ the proF~r
ons.
Mra. WazAi~r Berg, 5352 Westridge Road, appee-red before the Commiseion and eteteQ
she would l.ike to have more questi.ona nnawored i! khe develo~ere cantinued
bui~3inq e~nd r.oducing the lot eixeat that she wne very much intQrestAd in L•he
qu~lity uf li.v~.iig, ~nd she f91t d9 a resident there, erie would really like to
see t:bnta Ana Canyon prea~rved nnd ghe would like to Nee tho slopo and drai~iage,
px~',lcm~ resolved 3:lnce the resi.dente ~P her tiract hAd a].at at stake if. their.
han~ee r~.lippad bP.CAl1~H of improper drainaye, and she cnrtuinly would 1~.ke to eae
aotnethir:g ~lone and hc~pod people, would cor.rsl.der everythinq -~he quality ~f
liuinq, the onvirc>nmer~tal impact, ~atc. , in orc~er to meke it Xig}~t for overykody
re~l.ciiny or pru~osing tio resido tn that aree.
Mr. A].bert Nyatt, 251 Oran~e Acres Dxive, Pexr~lta Hills, appe+~red bofore ~he
~ mm~s~iari, ~ioting he war, a me.~mber of th9 Peralta Hille Homeawnera Associ~tion
r~nd w~s conc~.rned as were mat~y of the ot:l~er members from their atatemQnta made
t.hat th,~rF was a c:onseneus o~ opinion L•hat only one ar two homes would be in
y~opardy Y~ecau~e tl~e builders 31d not take care of' the water to the river, but
tt.is was not s~ bec~use when they ~ut Nohl Ranch Road in there huppened to be
i:h°~e ham~s af.fected, l~ia home, the Jenninya and the Dvorsak homeq, and theAe
th:^~o fa.mili.es continually had problems with every rain - they ha3 moze water
than they used to ~et whc~n they first moved in about 11 years ago because they
destroydd the big coiicrete pipes that were i.n there for irri.gatinq th~ orange
grovasi they deatroyed some of the natural drainage.
r1r. Hyatt further notecl that he had a baranca behind his proper:.y, and be~ore
tho road wetit in, it was 5 L•eet deep and 7 feet wt~ie, however, today it was 30
feet wid9 and 30 feet de+~p, and part of h.is properh.y ha@ gone into it and washed
~aownt L•hat the Jenriings swimming pool had been fi.l2ed tvith water aeveral times,
~nd they had tr:ed to work thase prublems out betweon themselvea without annoy-
ing a lot of peu~le, but he was concerned now tliat if thesE people above them
waxe nat held respon.:tbl~ for the wate~ from that nr~perty clear to the rivex',
and if onc~ waited to see what would hapgen, in aome ar~ao it would be a complete
clisasterj that they had had as much as 2 inches of water in their gxraqes, and
it sll happene3 after Nohl Ranch Road went in - the City had never k~eard about
it hEC~il$@ the npighbors worked out the problen, but if thie continued, it would
b~cam~ worae, and if Gratit Corporation or whQever the bui~der would be wantod
t.o build u~ there, they should be responsible to take the water from their ere~.
thr.ough thE+ na*ural terrain or manufactured drains down to the river and not
dui,:p any m~re water onto the Peralta Hille property.
Mr. Schor, i.n rebuttal, stated that Anaheim Hills recognized their responsit~ility
ta pi:ovide fo~ safe d~awnstream drainage, a~nd they were orepared to bui'ld whetever
was re~ui r~~d of thPm; as t~ the polic~~ eatr-bAiahed, that would be up ~o the City
Rttorney; ~:hat they propoaed ta conatruct draina-ge from the sauth to Nohl Rdnch
Road, but ~not through Pe•alta Hi].le, becauae it was not n~ed~d aince ~heir davel-
opment di~.t not necessitate extension to th~ north, however, the City Engineer
mi.ght have other ideas r.aqardi.nq this.
Asgistant City Attorney John Dawson advise~ the Comm3ssion that thoy had qone
over the many lec~ers froa- Mr. Baz~zes and wi~hed tc tizank him for his intereat
in ik - it had been moat helpfui to them= that they had yone over the condition
frou- an enginearing standpoint and economic and feasibility standpoint to re-
s~lve the problem, and although the City Council was considering the conditions
to be nttached to the tract mapP, the City Attorney's O£fice would now suggeat
~
~
MINUTEB, CiTY PLANIIiNC COMhii~9TOH, May 14, 1973 73-771
6NVIRONM~NTAL TMPACT RLPOFT N~. 12, VAR1l1NCE N0. 2455, AND TENTATIVE MHP OF
TRl1CT N09. 8115R 8116, 8117, AND 8134yREVISSON NOB._ 1 4Continued)
that fh• Cnndition that ~hey n~w had und~r Msy 14th dat~ tse the one reoomn-endod
by the Plnnning Commiasi~on Lo tih~ City Council ~hould th~ City Couricil d~cid•
to approva thsoe ir.nr.t maps, however, k~oloru h~ raac! this condition, ho ~rould
like kn mak• n~ligl~,t comment on the abliq+~tian ot th~e lower proparty own~r se
opposed to the upper pzoperty owner in tha le~te~t ca~• eallad to their stt~n~ion
in oonne~tion aith water rights and ubligati.en af surlacs wster~ tha baaio
prlncipl• wa~s that the loWer property o~rner was obllgat~d to nccopt the water
thst w~• caminq down lrom the uppes praperty owner - the upper ~roperty owrner,
o~ the oth~r hand, wes obli.gated to compeneato the lawar pxoperty uwner tor any
nec~eeary step• thet the l~wer property ownex muat do t.o protact his proporty.
Fa~liny to take auch etepa ndr,esaary to pr,ot~ck hie property, L•he lowmr prnperty
oNner would not tt~an be compeneated either !or later aCeps or for clamaqe to hi.e
property - tl~e matter o.f couperation batwaen the two and tho ob].igstion ot each
was r~-ther clearly ~set furth in thi^ particular cese, although he did not hnve
the citetion before him because ho t~ad not ~lennxd on preeenting thie condition
to the Commia~sion, however, it wa•~ vsry cluar that i~ the lower property owner
felt theXe wae a pneaibility oF damaqe from w~tesc ot mnother proper.ty ownnr up-
stream, he wtta to take wh~stevar etepa were ~~oceseary immg91ate1y to rrot~ect
himself, and the upper pruperty owner would. have to pay For the cost ot theee
etopa, tharefore, i.t wns not a on9-e+ided Lhi.ng - it was a matter of trying ko
wei.gh thie out c+quatably, and the City of AnehAim wae doing the same thing -
thay had no intention of dumping we~ter, ailt, or anythiny elee on the lowor
pro~erty ownora - wEre preventing it from being done, however, they aleo felt
the upper property nwners were entitled to develop under circumstancas that ware
oquitable to all concerned.
Mr. Dawaon then rea3 the proposed amendment to Conditior~ No. 45 regarding tho
drainage requirement as follows: "ThaC draittage of enid ~roperty ahall be dis-
poaud of in a mnnner satief.actory to the Ct.t•y Engineer. If~ in the preparation
of the site, sufficiant grading is required to necess:ltate a grading permit, no
work on grading will be permitted botween November let and Apr.il 15th unloea
all required off-sit~ drainage faailitiee have beon inst~,lled and are oper.a-
ti~nal. Poairive asgurance ahall be pruvided the City tlzat such drainage
Facilitiee will be completed prior to November let. Necessary riqht-of-way
for otf-site dxainage facilitlea AYldl~. be dedicatscl to the City, o~c the City
Council ehal.l initiate condemnation proceedinge therefor (the costa of whieh
shall be borne by the developer) prlor to commencemant of. grading operations.
The required drainage facilfties shall be, ot• a eize ancl type sufficient to
carry runoff waters ~riqinating from higher properties throuqh said propertp
to ultimate dieposal as approved by the City Enginear. Said drainage faci].i-
ties ahall be the first item of c~nstruction and ohall be aompleted and sha11
be functio~nal throuqhout the tract and from the downatream boundary of thc~
property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to tk-e issuance of any final
building inapecl:ions or o cupancy permits. The City aha21 not xccapt any
pcrtion of such drainage faci.lities until tt-e entire faciZity through the~
subject pr.operty and to the point of u1l:imate disposal is completed and opera-
ttonal. The develuper shall maintain such facilities for a period of two yeszs
fol.lowing inatallation and shall post a faithful performanae bond in a sufEi-
C~BIIt amount to guarantee such maintensnce. Urainage district reimburaement
agreemonts tnay be made available to the devel~pers of said pr.ooerty upon thoir
request" .
Chairmrn Seymour inquirec~ whether the petitioners were in agreement with the
recommended revised candition.
Mr. James Bariaic., represanting Ansheim Hi:lls, appearad before the Commiasion
and atated that thoy had had a nua~.ber of inentinqs with the City Attor.ney'a
OPfice and members of the City Er.gineQr's 0!liae snd the City Manager's Office
and various c:~embere of the homeo•~^ers associatione, and thia revised con3.ttion
was thA net result of all of theee di.scuaeiona of wha.t wa~ a feasible a~proa.ch
to resolvina drafaage Qroblems, and they wauld aoncur wi~h the latest revieior-
to the policy, even though they would li.ke to eee some modifications of it.
Mr. Barnes again appeared before the Co~nmiASion, notinq that perhapa the case
mentioned by Mr. Dawsore was the Shephard ver~ua County oF Loa Anqelen, 5i
Californ.fa 2ncl 250i in this case they reFerred to the "keystonE" case in thi~
area, K~ys veraue R~mmley, an.l before ~he City qot too far. azong on thia
philosophy, it was the duty of the law~x property owndrs to take affirmativy
~
•
73-272
MINUT~S~ CITY PLANNING CQMMTSSION, May ~4, 1973
ENVIRONMENZ`I-L IMPACT R~PQRT N0. 12 ~ VAAI11NC8 N0. 2455, l1ND TENTATIVE MAP' OF
TRACT N09 8115~81~16 8117, AND 813~, REV23i0N NOS 1(Continu~d)
eotion, ho would liko to read a quot• lrom the case~ "R~torring *o th• dalsnd-
ent oP th~ caos, th~ clAfenllent would hav~ u• esy the K0y• ass• k~a~ nec~eaarily
raquiring atfirmative action on the pert o! the low~r lend ownsr b~tor~ he o~n
aomplain o! unioaAOnsbl~ ourface water divex~i~n by an upper 1~nn ow~~ar, how-
ever, auch a.n 3nterpretation o~ Ksys ~.n mdny instance~ would pla.c• an unrea~aon-
able purdan on tihe loWer land owner. All that he ia requirad to do i• to act
reroonnbly ."
Mr. A+arnee stated that ho would like to ~Eate that if anyone got any idAe thia
w~uld me~an thn-t it wda un to the lower land ownera to oonetruat lnrgor drainag•
lecilitiss an8 hope tn bo reimbu•raed at a later date, then ih waa a ver~r MAAk
poaitioa.
Chairmdn Seymour inquired whethez~ Mr. Barne~ had any comment regarding ~he~
lntest revisian to ~ho draina~e tacilitias oonditiont whospupon M.r. ~3arnea
etatod that he had not s~udiod thi.s in detall, t,ut it was certain].y ra imgrove-
ment aver the lirst dmendment made by the City Gounoil.
Commiesioner Gauer inquired of Mr. UawAnn whethar the lower propez~.y ownor would
have to con~er with ~he upper prcperty owner befora he atnrtod hie partiaular
aituatian or notr whereupon Mr. Daweon atntnd that ~he cese did r-ot a~ indicate,
nor did the oAr~e i.ndirate, as Mr. Barr~es had st~~ed, tha't the lower property
oaner would have to construct major drai.nage facilitios.
Commiseionor Gauer inquired how tha~ could be 6~termined since thlan a-1Zlofhhis
to be some k~.nd of a plan - each individual couLd not develop a p
own aince thare would have to be a-1norgin9 into other plane, and same kind of a
meeting oP minc~a of all would hava L•o be done.
Mr. Dawson then stated that thia was like so many other 1aw casea that had been
deci.ded: they used the fumous phrase, "redaanablenese", and when the "chipR
Nare down", that would be what the twelvo men on the jury would determine, whnt
was reasonable and what was not~ that fram a prsctical 8~e~dPro~ertytownarg if
well for tha lower proper~y owner to conault with the upp P P
he folt there was any danger involved, ande~t eituatiorithatthasnbeen discuaaeS
and by means ~f thase wards to avoid the Y
here, howevez, the wa~er doee come down, and it would be incumbent upon a remson-
ab7.e man to protACt hia home by poaeibiy sandba-ga an3 tt;at ~e what he should dn,
huwever, ff he saya the upger property owners would have to pay for any ~amagea
and lets the water run throuqh his entire home and everything else, thie would
not 'ne r•aaeonable - it was a matter of what was amci what was not reasonable, And
that wae tha only pi~+ce he knew tha~c it would be decided, by a jury.
Commissioner Gauer noted that ~t would appeAr that Mr. Harnes and the Peralta
Elilla property owners wauld have tu get toqether with Anaheim H111s L•o dat,ermine
what kind Qf drainage should be providad - idynot~knowMwhat~Anaheim Hills ~ras
plan for drainage on hi~ proparty whon : ~e•
planninq to construct or what the situati~.. ..~
Mr. Dawson noted that th0 obligation of Anahe iilla was to tAke care of off-
site drainaqe prior t~ any further qruding oporatians and priar t4 the accept-
ance of dn,y stxeete, and insofax as thar was concerned, they waul~! consult with
the lower pro~erty owners - rhe upper ownere - to ascertain wher.e the drainaqe
ahou~d be, howavsr, if Chere was an a~damant propeYty owner, then th~ City would
l~an to the upper propexty owner the City°e pov-er of am inen t d o m s in and would
take ovez the xighta~of-way foz dratnaqe. It wae hoped that aooperation would
be maSe a].1 do~rn the line, and the City dnticipated that t h is Wo~9 d~ize draina e
noto the~ eminent damain aould be used in the proper place a-nd _ 9
that would be conetructadf an8 that ~IDGIOd~Ate poadesaion couZ~ be obtained With-
in 2], daya lrom llling.
Mr. Bernp9 notiad there w+~s ona additional point to cor~sid~r: it was not up to
the indiviSual property ~Nners to neqotiate ait~ A-:sheim Hi.lls or dny oth~r
developer - t:~e Ci.ty had a definite obliqation in ~.hi~ mA~ter, and the City ~t~
self ~ u1cY face liabilit~as if unsal~ dr~inaqe co»ditions o~curred. Zt was A
matter for ~he City ta ineur.e that wha~evar cfreinac~e rlavicee that v~ere inatallad,
w^
~
MiNUTE8, C2TY PL71NNiMG COMMI88=ON, May 14, 1973 ~~~273
ENV~RONMFN'Pl1I~ IMPACT RFpOIt'~ N0. ].1~ V11Y~I71NCE Nfl. Zd55~ AND 'PENTIITIVB M11.P OF
TRACT N08. 8115, 8116, 811'!, AND 6134, RBVIRIAN NOB. ]~ (Continu~d)
Nhsthor p~rman~nC or tmmporaxy, a~re ad~quaea to proteot~ th• ~lownar.r~am pxoy~rty.
and i! R aonditio~n aer• evar ra~ohsd whors th• hom~oMner wap rorced ta u~~ ~end-
bags on his ~tepe to proteot hi~ homm, rast aA~ured that unrasoon~bls ohdnq~•
had oocurracl, and Nhilo Che law oft~n uss~ the ~-or.d "rea~on~bla", iC Nae au~p~ct
~,o interpretaCion - th0re were definit~ quid~lines to ~~• ju~t whae was r~aaon-
abin, and whan the twelvo mon in the iury de~ided wheti:er ths p+~r~i~~ in qu~a-
1;ion had bsen redsonabls, they woulQ have d~tinite quid~]ia-s~ to gui~le rham.
Mr. KrueyAr aqein c~ppear~-d batora tho Cammi~eion, notinq that atter havinq rosd
the polioy over, he felt that bae~oally it could b~+ mado tA work ~xcapt faz a
Fevr loopholoe~ thAt a~~ Mr. Daw~on had gtated~ he wse oure th~ct ell o! the
Peraltn Hille homeownere and the Improvement Aseoaiatian ~rnuld cer~ainly vrant
to caoperate to the f.ullost with the devalopare t,o proviaa the n~asaaary ease-
mente to get guad drainage through ths areR, h~wcvAr, in th.~ policy it did state
tk~at the dre~in~$e lacilit~ee would only hnve ta be oonatruot~ed psior t.o iesuancs
of any li.tnal buildinq inepection Ar ocaupancy pexmi~a - thi~ wao extxamely L~ste
in the qema, ~nd he wae suxe that the Commiseion realized tb~ ir~manea proesureo
thnt would he on the City and othar paople invotved once ~hase sxpsnsive hom.e
ware conetructed with millions of do~lars involved and all of a eud~len the
deve~opers would ~tate th+~t tt~e drainagp laci.litias wnre not conetruatad, but
thay v~oul~ do it it the City would let L•hrm have thes• hom~n oacupi.ed.
Gommiasioner Farano s~ated •thnt he did not knaw what thi.~ meant either, but tha
Comml.saioi- would ~uraue thd4: later.
Mr. Krusgex then atated that the last atatemdnt nf the condlti.on reqdrdinq
clrainaqe distric:t reimbu:csement aqseemente - thi.s could mean ~hat the peop]~e in
the .lower ,zree~s who may be contributinq a minimal amount of t~:e prablem in drain~
a~e, par•tiaularly in F~ereltu Hilla where these propertfea hed bgsn able to take
care of the drainage for hundred~ of yeara, all of a audden the developer could
co:na along and say theae people should c~ntribut~ ro this dzainage district
a~lso and reimburse tho developer accordinqly £or thair Eai,r share, however, he
fRlt this would be a wide open question, and how much w-~~ld thQ res denta of
Pera2ta Hills ba liable for7
Mr. Roqer Wilsnn, representing the Orange Unified School Uietriat~ appoared
before th~ Commission and stated that the achool's main concern was the quali.ty
of edur.ation which the school provided, nnd he would rope the City would take a
firm h%.nd in taking caro o~ rlrainagry to the l.owez landa in P~ralta H311s and
Santa Ana Caa~yon becau~e if drainage was c~ot built, the School Dietxict w~ul.d
be vezy concerned,
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commiasioner Farana request~d that Mr. Dawson axplain that portion of the recom•-
m9nded condition which stated that the City ahall not accept any portion af such
drainaqe until ~he antiize facixity, etc. - how far in the building and dev~'lop-
ment proparation would this permit thA developar to go7
Mr. Dawaon stated that in aonnection with th~e, mny gradinq done with their lots.
thu drainago Eacilities wauld have to be c~mpleted before the rainy season,
which u:esant off-eite faailities waa:ld :iava to be completed by tha~ time, however,
±t would permit them to build the drainage frcilities an8t take cnre of :.he prob-
1em af gradinq 2ote, buil~ing h~mea, etc., to wozk out on an economicslly aound
basis beceuac+ thev woula not get any money fYom lendexa u.n~il the txon~ea weza
constructe~dj tha~ reference made rc~gardinq building permits - this would b~
given them, but they co~~ld r~ot obtain nny electric:ity, gas, water, etc. ~ until
thia drain~-qe was compl..ted and ii~speation made -~.: ople could not very well
live in those homes without the necaesary utilitfest end tihmt it would be hia
aug!~eation that this would a au~~icient enouqh hold to ~ake care Qf the
situation.
Commissioner Farano then zeqnested that L•he followi.nq be expla~inec~ in everyday
Engllsh that everyone could understan~: would this meon that the developexs
could qrada, install streete- grade pads, engineer them, put structures an tha
land, almoat anything or everythinq up untiil occupancy mnd final building
inepectiona wh~reup~n Mx. Dawe4n etated that was correct, but one of the portions
ot that condition required that thess drainaqe lacili~tiera be the firet item of
c~notructi~n and must be co~apleted and functional through the tract and from the
8oanstresm boundary of the pzoper~y ~o ita ultimate point of diapcaa7..
~w
~
MINUTES~ CITY r2,ANNZNG COMMI38IUN, Ma~~v 14, 1973 73-:74
ENVIRONMIDNTAL IMP7ICT AffipORT NO. 1~, VJ1It:ANCE NO. 24S5r AND TENTA',l'x~-~ M11P OF
TR11CT NA9. 0115i g',16_, 8117L1-ND_8134, RBVISION N06. 1 (Gontinuedy ,~
Commie4lan~r Farano nated that t.h~re •pp~ared to bw eome ac-nrusion end oonYliot
in thie conditton~ wh~reup~n Mz• Daa~or- staEsd that when this wa~ lizot pr~~~nt-
ad, it ~tst~d ~hat until the c~r+~inmge wa~ tak~~ tn th• eanLr~ 1-na Rivsr., no
trao~.a woald b~ approved ~r thgt th. tract would not b• a~+proved urttil ths
drsineqe Wa,s ~nstalled, t~owavbr, thi.o was ra~tt~~r sxt,rema baaduoe no mon~y was
ubtnina~ble for d~v~lopment, not oven tor conrtructian moddle~ that alter havinq
m~L• with Anahsim Hi11o, Girant ~pxporation, ancl athsr devaloper~~ it was point~d
outi it was not soonomioally toe~i~le beoau4e they would bs unable to qet ~ufti-
cient lending mon~y ~r take ca~re of ev~n th~ drainaqe ~+~ai.litiee, howevex, the
developera nov- re~ll~ed that the drsinage laoi2lties must be placed in prior to
any nf tl~e ~ther problema there, and tne Commi~aion coultl ~Se a~~+urad that thie
v~oul~d be complaLed before Novemb~r lat and guaranL•eed by the pr.opor bondinq
being file8.
Commiasianex F~-rano then inqui.red whether it wds tair to atate theC tha lnwar
or downatream gxoperty ownere ware put on notice khat it thi• condition bacama
a part ot tho ap~roval oF tho tract maFe, thst aome devalopme~t aould teke pl~ce~
upatreAm to ~he poinL of actually constr.uating, putti.ng atructuree on the pr.up-
erty, building ~~.reets, up to fine~l oacupanoy.
Mr. C~awaon re~Plied thie was correct, how~~ver, therA was another problom - that•
grading would not be permitted unt~1 r~,ght-of-way wea secure~ tor the~e d.rainaqe
facilitice all the way to ultimmte diepasal aince there wae no Benee in mayir-g
that clrainaga Would be constxuatad wlxen samoone downstream would not let tizem on
their property aad e~ninont domain had not been stastsd so that this Would have
to be t1,e fizet item - once this was obtained and the~y had paid for the right-
of-way tu the axtent that it wae necessury to pay for it, and that should not
be ~.n too many placoa becauee it wam to the bonefit of t~-ose belaw to heve the
drainage taken GaXe of, When that wns done, ~here would be eeen more Aasurenca
the-t the dra~nag~ facilitioa wou].d b9 compl~ted by the fact that they had filed
reports and had taken cxre of it prior to November lst - in other words, the
City could not be to the fullesk its "brother'e ke~per", an~ to be ~ractical,
the City Engineer'~+ Office and tho City Attoxney's Office were doing ~veryL•hiny
posaible to give ultimate prute:~~ion to ae many people as it was paasible to
protect - whether or not one need~sd sandbaga had samethinq to do wi.th where anQ
miqht build his home - if one built on the top o~ A hi.ll, there would be lit;tle
danqer, but if on~ b'.iilt down th~ h3.11, thRre wauld be more prnbtem9, aiiri the
owners might suffer ceztain conaequences, but regardlesa of that, he thought
the City ~ras doinB everytihing that cou18 be done to take csre ~f the aitueti~n,
and as the City Went along, dotaile ~.rouZd evolve that would be taken caro of -
situations ~hat m~-ght threaten, however. thie was the best effort desiqned, and
in the opinion of tt~e Clty Attornoy's Uffice, it Nae aufficient to control the
situation at this eta9P•
Commissioner Gauez noted that he woul3 like to aad that Peralta Hilla dPVeloped
like "Topsy" whexe drainaqe problems were takon care aP - thes~ people developed
as they wanted to build, howeve.r, they had no drainage problema.
Mr. Yrueger no~~d that there Mas no seriouo drainage probleme because of khe
low density r and they did not exgect ar~y problems under nornal deve:lopment,
al~houqh there was water in ~he ditches there were no wesh-outs or critical
problema .
Commissione~' Gauer. noted that there was a developer nnw deafrinq to develop the
land, and soR-eone muot ta~ke ~~-re of eosne water, but he fe~t the City muat devel-
op some kin~ of e aresinage plan and thia should be similar to th~ nle.ne the C~ty
htsd for roade Nher~ both the lower and upper property oKnere would live up to
their requireme~nts~ but if ~his davelopar Qropoaesi 265 homes on the upper Asea,
the lower arer reB~denta would know where the drainaqe for th~ developod area
wou.ld go begoze the trect ~+~-P8 were appravea.
Offfce Eng~neez Jay Titue adv~aed the Commiaeion tha~t the City had a master
dxainaga plar~ for the antlre city• Theee drainaqe ~mcilities would +3tilize the
q0nerdl l~dation whsre they ~exe z'aquixed and the prelimina~ry eiae of the drain-
, age pipes, ~here~ozm, wha* Commiseioner Gauor rvae reque$tiny xaa already done.
.,~..
~
MINUTEB~ CITY PI~ANN~Na COMMISSION~ Msy 14, 1973 73°~~g
ENVi~tONMEN~III~ iMPArT RL"PORT NO. 1Z, VAI~YANC~ N0. Z4$5, 71t~D TEN'C1ITIVE M11P OF
TR1~CT N08. 8115~ 8116t 8'_t7~ AND_81_34~ REVISTON NOS. lr (Continued) _
Cammis~iioner Gau~r than inquix~t! wheth~r the damaq• do~-• ta th• Harne• pzup~rty
would l~ave happ~n~d if there wa~ prop~r drsinap~A.
Mr. Titug atated that tha City Enginoering D~vi~ion haa planned a~:1 0! tht~• an
th~ basie of undorqround p.tpes - tt~ia wea the primary consideretion a-~ the b~~is
of good ongin~ering an~! agre~ment ~E the ~~.opmtty oNner~, i! c~ther type0 0!
drainage cou18 ba placosf in thezo, it would handte t.he drainaAe ssfNly.
Commin~ione.r ~a~er noted that the, developer 11A1~ aovaroa all threa typeM ~! drain-
age i.r~ tliair Enviranmuntal Imgaa~ Roport, sn4 brlora thia kould be dsvelop~d.
thie s~hou].d be taken r.dr0 of •a thAt the dor~n~Lream pr.~perty owi-ar~ Would know
ahmth~er thia wauld be a concrete line, opan or oanduit~ elid thay should also
know who wc,uld pa~y !or tt~e drainage tecilities rsther th~n lenviag it up tQ a
court of lew to de~ide.
Mr. Titue notsd that the ~lan was to ha-ve u~idexqround pip~s, but maybe *h~e doNn-
Atream property owner would not wnnt und~+rqxound Fipes - maybe th~+y want~+6 oppn
uh~-nnels, but baeically the City's master plan Na• Pur und~r~*-~~und pipdu ar:1 the
e~ze oP the pi.pe would be th~ baai9 of the eoet eetimetoe, howevox, a com!~lete
drainaqa ~l~n for the city was oompleted and had boen eubmitted to the Cr,unty
w~th a very few minor commen~s whicli wero taken aare of b~~ t}ie City - Lhese Wexe
loaated in the woetern pa.rt of the city - n~~hin~ in the canyun, but thio was on
the verge of being approved by the C'ounty ~sn3 onoe +~pproved k~y ~he Count;~ ~ 3t
woul~ be submitted to the City Counci.l Par a~proval~
Mz. Daweon noted thnt the gentlemen speaking for the Orange UniP~eB Sahaol
District mi~ght Le intereated in knawing thnt the Canyon Hiqh School a~ Tmperiel
Hiqhway and Santa Ana Canyon Road wna one of tho first to enter in~o an intezl.m
and reimbursement agreemeni: for the high school, and one of the devalopere pro-
posed to put in Che dzainage facilitle9 to take care aP the water which cnme
abovo ~hem etraiqht through ~a the rzver - thia could be dane prior to the
epproval ~f final plans - when final plans were ~ubmitteQ the proper diatricts
would be formed immediately and an assessment would be place~. on thoe~e d±stric'~e
when, as, or if clevelopment wae made an~d nat before, so this idea qf havir-q to
pey for somathing that the man upstream did, thie would not aEfect t`e duwnstream
property owner until afi:er the downstream property own~r developad h.ts ~~roperty
for a mora intenae use and the cost wou~d be calculated equitably with the ine~n
upa~roam paying foz this and getting hie money back when the property Aownetream
atarted usiny theix~ facilities, however, h~ could nAt explain these details a~l
a.t one time, but Y-~ could asaure the Commission that more than a little tho~ght
was put into it, arxd thA mindA af the City Attornay's Office were stil: open as
to detafln as the; wex-t along.
Commissioner Farano observed that ik wt~s very obvioua that a greet dgal of time
had been put into thie. Dut what Commiesioner Gauez was taYking c~f, ~nS to eome
degree himsalf, these appeared to be a potantially subatantial e~an of time be-
tween the point at which th~ developer beqan grading and began changing the
cnnduit or conformance of the land to chanqe the water flow before thia system
of handl3ng the water flow to ite ultimate ~isposal waA finall,y achieved.
Mr. 'l~itus suggested thdt perhape he could answer thia qu~ation beinq ~resented
regarding dra~nage facilitise in tnese tract., and the complete drainage facil-
ity that would ~ake water frcm tihese tracte down to the point ~.f dispesal, thiA
would have to break the drainage facilities into two major po:tionss first,
downatream, ~ff-aite facilities Erom the lower tr~ct bonndarie.s to Che river -
that was the first major portior.. The second major portion would be the drain-
t~ge witchin the fi.raats themae~.wea - L•he oEf-site facility frocn tha d~~-aetream
property line to the river is a portion which pratects the property awnere below
the traate and that portion of the drainaqe there will be no gracling commenoed
on those tr~cts until adequ~te assurance ia qiven to the City that that portion
of the drninaqe wil]. be in and complete prfor to Novemb9z lst of ~ho year in
which the,y were talkynq about. T.n other worda, this woulCi have to be prior to
the beqinninq of the rainy aeason before a problem could reeult.
Commisaioner Farano then aeked would thie be b~efare they sterted worki.nq an the
upatream portion~ wheraupon Mr. Titus stated that they aould etar: aork upst•raam
Lut the downstream portion would hav~ to be in priox to the ra~ny aeaaon• or
Novembar let - they could Qo both up until that tim~.
.~..
~
MTNU'~E6, CITY ~I~ANNiNG CAMMT49ION, May 14, 1473 ~3'2~~i
SNVxRC?NMSNTAL 7MP11CT REP~RT N0. 12, VART~,NG!" N0. Z455, AND TLNTATIVE Ml1F OF
TRACT NOf3. 81;~5,~ 8116, 8117, AND 9134, REVISION NOB. 1 ,S,~Con*.inuod}
Commi.oaian~r SMymour notad th+~t they wuul~d hev• +~ ~ix-month time ~~r1,od in ahioh
~o completo wil th• 9rainage laoill:ti~~, and thi~ Mas not u very long ~ima.
Ms. Titus ~tated th dt that wae co rreot, antl th• latt~ r p+~rt nt th~ pareqxaph
concarn~d th~e por,tion withi,n the traot~ them~o).v~• - thi~ alun~ wit.h th• dov-n-
at:esm portion of the completo tecility m~~pt be in pxior to any ~ccupwnay.
Commi.r~ion~r 1~arano then i-iquired o! M.r. Asrn~~ at~~ehar ri~ hsard ~.hi~ sequ~nc~
ot evento and t~ what dxtent thesa lacilitie~ mu~t b~ aoo~mpiiehsfi to prot~aC
Gh~ doahstraam or lower pruperty owne:a - wst thsC ~aki~lactory to him?
Mr. IIarnu~t rteted that he wae dubioua thst tht+se raoilitia~ aould be inetall.ad
within a six-month Qexiod.
Gommiusianer Fnrano uskad wl~ether the rhatorical pler~ Wauld o!!er nulfieiant
proteotion to him.
Mr. rnee replied that h~a di.d nok thSnk the City had tak~n care ot the snp~.naer-
ing c~eeiqn nr teken care of the drainag@ fa~cilities ta edequaCaly ^atist'y him at
this point.
Commi~sior.e~ Farano eteted that he waa not talking e~hout that, but th~e proaedural
etopa t-s eat torth~ ~2~ereupon Mr. 9e~rnee atatad ~.hat if the manner i» which thi.s
wae im~lemented provide<9 prutection to the o!!-aite prapexti~e, it wauld be
aufticient, howevor, he r,ould see some loopholeo in tris becauae it would :.~
taking advantage of the lower p:~operty ownere.
Commiaei.on0r Far.ano atated that he 31d not wnrit to exchange lega'1 br~fefe, but
the Cammission wa~ intent upon oiie purpose, that this condition would re~move the
dar.?ez to the l~wer , operty ~wners, but as an individua~l, h~ could not see
people etandl.nq nraund with th~ ir hando in their pockete an~ pointing thei.r
linqera e'.: ot'~ers - a11 shaiild stic.k toqether in thie, nnd he wouYd aesume every-
one would partici~ate, hawever. h~~ assumod ~ha.t if M.r. $aznea ~elt ~.his wauld
still have some problams, he s~iou~d oo state hecaui~e many prop~rties were at
stake.
Mr. Baruoa t.hen etated that if AdE1QL1At.9 oEf-aite facilities were oonatructed to
~rote^t the r3ow tream propertise~ of c~urae, the plan would work - thia would
be the Averail procedure as to h~w thia was done.
Commissi.oner Herbat inquirad of Mr. Barnee thst ai.nce he was an engineer, how
could tkie City d9siqn a nr~ject and have downatream drainaqR aizerxble enough
exaept for est~.mating pur~osea only ur~til the pro~oct waa p:esentad to the C1ty.
Not until tixen would the new aize a~d s.ape o~ the proiecc be ~rojectable.
Mr. Barn~s reolied that ~he City had draindqe plans noar the sixe of draine nnd
pipe which could bp calcu.~ated.
Commi.esioner Herbst nater] that tha Commiaeinn knew about ~he preliminary plans
except in certain locafiions of what was goi.nq to be tho tot~l development by
estimatinq purpoaes only, and until tha projecC was ~inally put an paper~ ~.he
('a.ty aroultl not know exactly •- he ~rould hate to go that way - he wou~d want to
kno~r what size~ etc. , not just cont3nuoua eetimate~ ~- he would wnnt to eee the
fir.al plans to see the size and scopo of the develo~,ment to take care of from
now on. F)hat wae beinq diacussed was the ~tract maps presently before the
Planninq Commiae~an, and until the City Enqineer had soen something like that,
they cAUld cnl~ eatimate what wou13 be required ae to the amount of kr~ter ~hAt
would flow from upatzeam propertiee - the pYane could have 10,000-squar~ feot
lota ~r down ko 6000-aquaro foot lots, but until a dc~veloper preaente~ hie
tr~ct map for approval, the CitX 81d not know how muoh water would flow off
that trect.
Mr. Darn~a nrted tha-t the City Enqineez oould say withia u few ~ercentaqe pointa
about how much water would llow aff thia tract - tho City En3ln~eri~q Divi.ion
would probably eay that wa^ correct - and on the bt-ais of the trac:t ma~e NePore
thA Commiesion, the City Engi~neer cou.id eetimate vory accura~ely ~!}ldti *he water
P~oN Koula be, and by the time the finnl tract m~ps wexa recommen3ed for
approval, a layout should be ~ubmictad ind~ceting tha ott~eite facilities ~ha~
would be needed nnd ~+ achedule set lorth on how thees would be implema~ntud to
an extent auEficien~ to protect tha doWnstream prnpartire.
MYNUTES, CT~X P~AHNIN~ CO~iMI3810N~ M~y 14~ 19~3 73-x77
~NVIRQNM~NT~L IMFACT R~PVRT N0. 12, VARIAN CE NG. ~455, ~ND TFNTAT~VE MAP OF
TR]-~ NOS. 8115, d11G~ 8117~ 1-ND 8194, RLVIBION NOa. 1 ~ontinu~d) __ _
Commit~ion~r Fer~no •taCed thAt it waa hiu oplnion thi~ wa• th~ elPort that
h+~d b~an qoing ~n in tho paot !sw Week~.
Commirsion~r E'e~r~ana ~nquired whe~ther thie~ war poa~ible a• Nr. Barnes hnd
•uqqo~ted.
Mr. Titu^ notAd thel• in ths City Engineer~a qtinoral pl~n o! drainage, thoze
wor• preliminsry si~es, and what Commissio ner No,rbet had otatod was quite true,
th~t the City Enginaor could not come v.~ w ith a linal ~ise until thay rsview~d
tha actual dzswingb or plans, snd sometimas the preliminary aiasa would chenge~
+and pipe oize~ would ch+~nye als~.
commirAi~t:u~ ~'arer-u na:~d tlsat Mr. ~3~r.~ise hed auciryeatvd thet before acaeptnnce
~c ,.~a t~,..,7 `••^^~ ^~~~••~ vom~ A~~zini.Livtl rlana ~i pravidl.nq downstzea~r drainnge
enoutd be mauo aveilable
Com~oiasiur~er F~arano than inqu~.ed ~~f Mr. aarnss whethor h~ woul~! be wiliinq to
farvrard eny ~ugge~tione concerning this Go ndiCion to the City Attorney's Otfice
in caro ot Mr. Daweun before thia was preaentad to th~a City Counc~J so that
Mr. Deweon woul8 have t.he benefit ot any af the tihaughia on proper. downatreem
drel.nagm p.roceation wae avmilebl.e.
Gr,mmiseionor Rowland nc~ted that at thi$ point in tima if Candition Nr. 4S wae
ddopted as sug5ested by Mr. Dawaon, no wheal could turn on the top of tho hille
with~ut the lower pzoperty ownsr. knowing what particular ~~r~ter courae would be
effected by this development - he would have to know abnut it - the~ least pro-
tection that the property ownera between the top oP tha mavntai.n and tiha ultimnte
diapoesl would be the otficial awarAnoas of a pro;Ject~ that they now had thie
awarenese, howe ~a~, the reaidente of the area muet know m~re and moro of the
lanA before de~velopment took place, not af~c~r it took plaae.
Commissioner Herbat offesed a motion, aecondod by Commieaioner Gauer and M7TION
CARRIFO (Commissionex Kaywood voting "no"), that the Plarning Commiaeio~n, in
connection with tho fi.li.ng of k:nvizonmental Impact Repart No. 22, together with
the two eupplements that were submitL•ed, finda and determines Shat tho EIR Raview
Commit~ee determinyd that the report and i ts supplemen~s were adequate as in-
fc~kmaCive documante and follow the City's establiehad quidelines~ and that thero
would be no siqnificant environmont~l impacts, and, ther~e£ore, the Planning
Commier~ion recommen~ia to the C~tv Council ihat eaid report be adopted as the
Council's Environmental Ir.ipact Statp~ent.
Commiseioner Kaywood noted that t~er vota of "no" was the fact that ehe woulc~
suggest that a soila an8 seismic euppleme nt be added to thts ~IR.
Cnmmiseioner Kaywood further ;ioted ~that althouqh the report ind ~ated ther~e would
be onZy n pliqht inarease in air p~llutioii, it was hor epinion t•.~t ie would in-
creasa qzaatly and inquired whether or not so~ne provieion was m~,de for bicycle
pathe in this areaj whereupori Mr. S~her stated that they had made no provisionb
for bike tra~le, but th~ Four Corners Pip~ Line woa.td be open for ridiny and
hikiny puzposes.
Commiseioner Herbst offered Reeolution N~. PC73-90 and oaoved tor its passaya and
adoption to y tnt PotitiAn for Variance N o. 2455, in part, dale~~•~,a waiver of
minimum lot area and minimum width of pri vate acceasway sircq revia~ad trec~ maps
had eliminated thia waive s in parmitti.ng three hom~e~ to ~ide onto sr~ arterial
hiqhwayt snd •ubjdat to conditions. (see Reeclution eook)
On roll call Che foroqoinq res~lution w as pasded by the following vote:
AYES: COM~lI3SIGNERS: Allred, Faxano, ~e-uer, Herbet, haywaod, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None.
ABSEKTt COMl4I89IdNERS: None.
Disaus~ion was held by the Commisaion relative to sppzoval ot the tract map~~
Coa~n-ia~ioner Faz~~no bein~ o° the opin~on that the Cammi~sion's sction in the
s,pproval a! the tract a-aps wAe c7.~rica2 - unlees tihe Cammiseion could ~ee som~
fault i» the trac~ n„~~s themeelvee ~ thwy muat bo ~esaed by the Pl~aning Commie-
sion becav~e the i.'; i~; ~ouncil made the linal deci~ion in these matter~y th+st a
~
~
MINU~'R8, CITX PL1~NNxNC ~OMMx9a~017~ M11~ 14- ],973 73-Z78
BNVIRdNM~:NT11L IMPACT RffiPORT N0. 12~ VARI)1NC~ NO. Z4'~5~ l1ND TB1~ITRTIVI~ Ml1P 0~'
TR11CT NOS. 8115, 8].16, H117~ 1~ND„ 8134, RBVI9IQN Nd3. 1 .onkin~~d) ~„__
gre~t d~el oP diocus~i.on on tho dr~inaq~ and draina~e problems had b~~n h~ld
by the ComcnisEion Ainc• it we9 n vaxy eoriou• prablera, and th• Pl~nning Commi~-
~ion was not tryinq to sid9-~t~p th• ~e~uet an4 th~t• h~ would ~eriou~ly quqg~Nt
that th• prop~rty ~wnex~ hevinq aa in~srs4t in klis m~tter an~l whc, h~d ram~
leol.inq r~asrQi~iq it ~hould mak• aortain o! th~ir protaction by b~ing px~~~t~t
Nh~n ChiR r.ss oanetd~rad by thr City Counail rrithin ZZ doyr, at whiah tim• the
City Council vrould r~vi~~a al1 tihe candit~onr snd d~~oue~i.on~ held by th•
Commi~~inn, and th• City Attorney aoul~i tnen pr~senC any aosr~otion~ thnC miqht
be appropriat• !ar the pro~actfon ot th• down~tzeam pxopertv oMnero.
Commi~A3oner asu~r was og the opinio,. that the Planninq C~mm{ssion should havp
an opportunity to have plana aith tnr home~ ~ubmit~~4 •inae problam had been
experiencad in th~ ~est roqardinq s~~baoks. in addi.tion~ khe Commi~sion Nas
al~o intereoted in )~nnwing what typ~ea o~ homea thdt w~uld bs prcposod.
Zoning 3upervieor Charl.ei Rober~e noted tha~ Conditlon No. 18 af Trac~ No.
8115, 8~116, 8117, an4 Condltion No. 13 nf Traat !~o. 8134 could road a' lollows:
"~Phat pr.ior ~o a~pnrovdl of the linnl tract ma~p, pl~t plana o P1Aar p~.ana, and
elev~tione !or tha propoeecl houees ehall ba eubmittea to and approve-d by the
Planninq Commiooion anc9 City Council".
Commieeianer Fdrano inquirad whether the devalopers were willinq to ecoept tbek
condition.
Mr. Narisic inquirad whe*.r~er the Planninq Commior-ion was conaarned that eome
substandard uee r+ottld be in thfa tract developmant~ ~-hereupon Commiesioner
Fazano atated that the Commiasion waa interestimd in soaing hour the devel.nper
propoac~cl ka place th~ houses on the lots aince the~ Commias~on did not have
pzi~-y to the tinal tract maps anS would not knaw ~he reaulta of plane that were
aubmitted un~i,l n~ter the structuxea ware on the property, and he lelt thie was
auch a dalicate mattez and important ae t~ the ov~rall reaulta that the ~ommis-
sion was desirous o~ eeeing what waa beinq p].an.r~ed, evan if r.o variance would
be requested in the futtire and no hearfng would 3~e nec~aeary, this would be
considered under r.epo..~e and recommendaCiona.
Deputy City At~orney Fraak Lowry advis9d r.he Commi~aion tbat iti would not bo
r.ecessary to presant this at a public ha~.rinq bePu~e tha Flani~ing Cammisei~n
un.lesa the revieed p].ans reflected a Seviation from the site devel~pment
~+ndards of tt~e zone in which it was propoeed co be devsloped.
Mr. .risiG noted th~t they had mor~e people interested in the larger :.ots and
homes, An8 the builder w~ul~i tel~ ki~Land plann~r haw he planned thi~~ ho~•~~VaY'~
if he wnul.d agree *a thia, he woulc'l~sp^aking ~or an incoming b;~ild~;: Lv ~reaent
hie plana to the Commiaeion which he, in good cor,scienc~, coul8 not do.
Commiseioner Far+~no zoted that the Plannl.ng Commissian wae a~tempting t~ protect
not only the 2ower properry ownera but the City und futuze property ownera in
thiE area, end t,he Commiseion aaq only aeking that the plans bo presented to
them under raports and recommenda~.i~ana and r.o formal preaentation woul8 hdve tQ
be made at a publlc heerinq.
~ommlesioner Farano offered a~ motion, seaonded by Commiasi.or.Pr Herbst and
MUTxON CARRILD, to approve T~ntative Map of Trec~ NO. 8115, Rev.ieion No. l,
~ubject to the lollowing conditione,
(1) That the approvsl of Tentasive Mep o! Tr~+ct No. 8115, kev.~sion
No. 1, i~ granted eub~ec~t to tha approvs]. of Varlance No. 2455
and completlon ~f Reclaesifioation Pto. 67-68-7.
(2) That ~.oulsi ~hie aubdiviei~n be devaloped as mora than ane aub-
division, eaoh subdivision the:ea! aha11 b~e aubmitted in tenta-
tive form !or approval.
(3) That d 6-tont, ~ecorativq, openwork wall shall bd cor-~truated
at ehe top o! the olope ad~acant to Nohl Rnnch Road on Lot Nos.
1 through 5, and 68 through 72. Reaeonable 2andsoapinq, includ-
ie~g irriyation ~scilities, ~thall be installesd vrithiri the ~lope
araae o! ~ach lat ad~+acant to the ~oadways ar.d in th~ etreet
..~.
~
MINU'1'ES9 ~ CI''iX PI~ANNINQ CbMMISSION ~ MEIy 14 ~ 197 3
~~-2~y
L~NVIRONMIENTIII~ IMPACT REPOR'P N0. 17, VARIANCB NO. 2455~ ANp TEN'P1ITIVE MA8 OF
TAACT NOS. 8115~ 5116~ 8117~ 1-ND 8134, REViBiON N08. .L (Co~ltinu~d~,
parkway~. plan• l.oz ae~id land~oaping ahell ba submitt~d to •nA
sub~~ot ta ths npprovnl ot the parl~Nay M~tint~nanae Sup~rint~entl-
ent. ~'ollowing inotallatii.an and acaoptance, kh~ ~roperty own~r
•hall aN~um~ r~apon~ibility !nz maiaten~no• o! ~siQ land~oaping,
regardl~4a or tho loastion o! th~ walls.
f4) Th~t all lots within thie traot shall be esr.v~Q hy unAerqrounlt
utiliti~e.
(51 'Phat. a final traat map o~ eubjeot propcrty shall be eubm~.tte8 to
e-nd approved by the City Council and tY~on ba rooordod in tho
ofPi.ce oP tha Orange County R~corde~•.
(6) That ptraet. namae ahall he approved by tha Ci~y ot AneheiQ prior
ta apQrova.l of a finsl tract ma~.
(7) That the ownor(a) of subject property ahall pay to the City a~
71nak~oim the eppropriate park mnd roar~atian in-lie~u taee ap
detarmined to be a~ppropz.iate by tha C3 ty Counci.l, eaid lae~ to
be paid at the time the buildinq permi t ia iosued.
(Sy That drelnaqe o! ee~id propertx ghAll be diepos~+d of in a manner
sAtlsfactory tio tlie City Enqin~ex. If , in the preparation of
the eite, sufficient gr,adinq is raqui r ed to nA~egeitate u gr.a;iing
permit~ no vrork on qradjng will be pe rmitted between October 15~h
an~l April 15th ualese ~sll raquirod otf-site drainaqe tacilittee
have besn installed and are opera~ion al. Positive a~eurance ahnll
be pr~vided the City that such drainage facilitie^ will bc~ aom-
~leted prior to Ootaber 15'~h. t7ezessary zight-of-way for oYf-aite
drainmge facilitiee ehe-11 be dsdicate d to the City, or tho City
Cour.ril ahall have initiatad candemn a tion proceedinys t}:erefor
(the coe~;s of which shAll be borne by tt-e developer) prior to
commencement of yradinq operatione. ^`he raquired drainage faci~i-
ties sha17. be ~i s aize and type au£f icieak to carry r.unoPf waters
originatinq from hiqher proper~i~s th ~ouqh said property to ulti-
mate dis~oeal ae agpro~ed by the Ci.ty Engineer. Said dr~ainaqe
facilitias ehnl'1 be the firet item af canetiruction and shal7, ba
compl.eted and be functional througho u t th e tract and fr~m the
downetream boundary of the propQr.ty to the ulti~nate point of dis-
posal pr.ior to tho 3ssuance of any fi nal huilding inapecL•iu~e or
oacupancy p~srmita. The City sha.ll not accept any portion .f such
draindqe Pacilities until the entire ~acility through thc~ subject
praperty end to tk~e point of ultimate d3sposal is cou~pleteA and
operational. The developsr shall ma i ntaia euch faailitie~s for a
periad o£ two yonre fol].owing installation ancl shall pos~ a Paith-
ful performence bond in a suffi.~ient amount t~ guaranteb such
maintenance. Dxainaqa distric;: reimisuraement ngreemente mny b~
mado availabla to the developerg of s aid property upon their
request.
(9) That qrading, exc~vatian, and all otYsez conatruction activitiea
ehall b3 conduated in auch a manner s o as to minimisb thp posai~
bility d! any sil~: oriyinatinq from thie project beinq carried
ir.to the Sa~nta Ana River by etorm watesr originating fram or £low-
ing through thie project.
(J,0) 9'h!t adequat~a riqht-QS-~way ior le~t-turn pockets ghal7. be provided
at all strmet inCereec~iana with Noh 1 R~-nch Roac3 tts apprqved by
the City Enc~ineer.
(il) That parkinq beys yhall be provided on Nohl Rench Roa~d ir. acaoCdance
with standard !latalls of the City of Anaheim.
(12) That draineqe eaaementa ehall bs pTOVided !or the t~~arm draine lrom
Tr+act Noo . 7566 dnd 7567 writh accoe s t~ the dra~in• to bs ax approwed
by the Superintendent of StreAt Mai n tananc~e.
...~.
.
MINUT~S ~ CITY FL11t~NIN(i COMMISST'1N ~ MRy 14 ~ 1973 73-180
SIVYTRONMENT7IL IMPACT REPORT t~0. 'lZ, V11RI~NCE NO. 2455, 11Nq 7,'SNT7ITIVE M)lP 0~'
TRAC'P NOS. 9115, 8116,~ 9117L71ND 8134~ RBVISION NOS_, 1 (Continu~d~ ,,,~
(13) That pnv~d aoaa~o •oo~m~nt~ to all •~orm drai.n laciliCi~• ~hsl~, b•
a• approvefl by tih~ 8uparintondont o! 5t~rd~t~ Ma.int~n~noe. S~id
epprovec9 eas~m*ntN ehall bs relleotmd on tho final traot map.
(1~) That all ~trcet~ ehall ba dasigned with qra4eA no qraat~r. ~han 12M.
i1.5) That gira bre~ko ehall b~ pzovideA a~ npproved by th~ !ir• Chiel.
(16) Thst the probl~m o! drainag• Prom thie tract ~loainq ontu ths •xist-
ing tr.act to ~ho •a~t (Tract No. '1566) sh++ll be rssolved ~c~ b3~e
aatislsaLion of the C~ty Enqineer~
(11) That any proposed ooven~n~e, conditione, and roaCriot~.un~ ~~hall be
eubmit~ked to and approved by th• City Attorney's 0~lio~e prioz *.o
City Cauncil app~ova~ o! th~ linal txact map, and, Purther, that
the approved oovenen te~ aonditions, and restric~ion• ~hr+ll be
reaorded concurrel~tiy with the tinal treat map.
(18) That urior tc appraval ot ~the fina-1 traut mnp, p~ot plan~, Ploc~r
plane, n~id elevations !ox the propos~+d houeea ohall be submitti.ed
to end approved by th e Planning Commieeion anfl City Counoi]..
(19) Thdt tha vehicular ac aese rigY~te, exaept at dtreet nnd/~r mll-ey
oponin,qs~ to l3ohl. Ranch Road ehall be dedicnt6d to the City of
Anahbi,m.
C~mmiesi.onor ~'arano offered a motion, seconded by~ Commiseianor Herbst nnd
MOTION CARRIF.p, to appr~va Tent :i:ive Map of Tract No. 8115 , Rev~.sion No. 1 ~
aubj~c.t ~to thc followl.ng cond:':tor~s:
(1) That. the apFroval of T9ntAtive Map of Tract Na. 8116, Revision
No. l, is granted eubject tc ~he approval of Variance NA. 2455
and conpletlon of It~cla~siEication. Na. G7-60-7
(2) That should this sub dividion be dove~loped a~ more than one aub-
divie.±.~~ia, each subdiviaion thereof 3ha11. be submitt~ad in tenta-
tive form for appx~val.
( 3) That a 6-foot, decorativo, openwork wall eha7.l be conatruct.ed
t~t ~he top og the slope adjaaent to Nnhl Ranch fio++d on Lok Noe.
7 throuqh 29 and adjacent to Crescent AvEnue (Lakeview) on Lot
tJoe. 1 tY-rough T and 67. Reasonable landocapinq, includir~g
irrigation faci~ities, aha11 be inatalled within tho slope areas
of eACh lot t~djacent to the roadways and in the ~tre~~ parkwdys.
Plans for sai3 lands capiag ehall be eubmitted to snd aubjec~ to
the approval ot th~ Par~Cway Maintenanae Superintendent.. Fc,llox-
inq installation and ar,c,eptance, the property owner ehall aseusae
responsibillty !or meietenanee of said landscaping, rNq+-rdless
oP the location of tho walls.
(4) That eny proposed co venan~s, conditions, snd reetrictcions shr-11
be submitted to anc3 epprove8 by the City Attorney'e c?ffice px~iaz
Lo City Councl.l app roval of the final tract map, and, further,
that the approved covenant~, condition~r an8 re~tzi~tiane ahall
be recor~ed concuxrently with the final tract mAQ.
(5) That a11 lots witchin this trr~ct ahall be eerved by undergcound
utilitieo.
(6) T~iat a£inal tz~ct map of aub~ect prop~,zty shall b~ aubmitted tn
nn1 approved by the City Council and then be recorded fn th~ oflice
of the Orange Caunty Recordor.
(7) That street names shall be approved by the Ci,ty of mnaheim p~~^'
to approval of a!i nal tract map.
.....
~
MINUTE9, CI'~'Y PL,IINNIN4 COMMI89IqN. MAy la, 1973 73-Z81
ENVSRONM1CNTl-L IMPIICT REPORT N0. 12, VARIANCI~ 1~10. 2455, ANA TF,N~11T:[VS M,AP 0!
TRACT N08. 811S.y 8116L s117, ]-ND 8134, F.~VI9xON N08. 7. (Conxinu~d) , _,,,,
(8) That tho own~r(~) o! ~ub~act prap~rty sht-11 pay to tha City of
7-nAh~i.m the appropriak~ pazk And reor~~tion i.n-lieu !ee• Ae dst~r-
m:nad to b• appzoprist• by th• City Council, oai.d lees to b• paid
at tho time the bu~.ldinq permit i• issueA.
(Q) That drainaqe of rsid propMrry shu11 be diRZ~osed or in a manner
eetistsotory to ~ho City Enqino~r. zf~ in tho prspara~ion ot
the ~its, oulPicien~ qraQing i• r~quired to noc~sssitsta e qrading
p4rmit, no work on qradinq N111 be permitted betwosn Oatober. 15th
and Apr.il 15th unl~~s ell requlrsd of!-~ite drainag~ tacili.tio•
bave bee~n iaotalled And are opexstional. Poaitive asauranc~ ahall
be provicAed the City that •uah drainage lacilities w:lll be oom~
pleted prior tcs Uatobax 15bh. Neas~oary right~oP-Na~r !ox ot~-4ita
draina-ge fa~aili.t.teo ahall be ~ad:lcate8 to the City, or thM City
Counail aria~l havo initiated condemnation proceedinge thersloz
(the coate oP whioh ahall b~ borne by tbe de,velopar) pr~~x to
commenaemenC of qxad~.nq operatianN. The raquirAd drainage taoili-
tiae ehal.l be o~ e eizs +~nd typa autlicient~ to aarry runoP! ae-tare
originati~iq from highez properti~~ through eaid property to ulti~
mr~te diepoaa~ ae dp~roved by ~he .:i.ty Engineer. s aici drainage
P.acilitie~a e~hall be the lirsr itam o! conatruction r~nd ehall be
completod nnd be ft~.netional throuqhaut tn4 tract and Yrom tho
downatxe~m baundnry of tha property to thd ultim.ta point of dio-
poeel prior to th• iasuance of any finel buildinq inapections or
occupancy permits. The City bhall not accept any portion o~ euvh
drainaye ~aciliticn until tho enti~e facility throuqh the sul~jeat
prop~r~y and to the point of ultimate die~os~l is completed and
operational. The developer sh~ll maintai.n such facilitiea far a
period of two yesre Pol~owing inet~7.l~-tion and shall poat a P.aith-
ful pezformance bond i~n a sufficien~ amo~nt ~o guarantoe auch
maintenance. Draf.naqe district ro.imburaement agzeements ~ay b0
maae availabl~ ta the devel.opera of said propexty upon thoir
reque~at.
(10) That grad{nq, excavation, and all othhr conatruction activitiee
shall be conducted in euch a msnner ao as ta minimi.za the possi-
bili~y at any ailt oriqina~inq ~rou- this px~ject being carriod
intA the 3anta l1na~ River by etorm water oriqinating from or tlo~a-
ing through this project.
(iIi That C.reRCent Avenus (Lakeview) shall be .onstructed with a h4-foot
traveled way in a 78-font riqht-af-way.
(12} That tha full traveled w~y of Cressent AvenuQ (Lakeview) ahsll be
cona~.r+ict~d priar to rx concurrently with i:he impravem~enta foz thi.a
tract.
(13) That adequate riqht-ot-way ~`or left-tusn gocketa shal~ be provided
at all s•kreet :nt9rsectiona wir:h Nohl Ranch Road as approved by
~he City Enginear.
(141 That parking bayo ehAll be provid~d an Nohl Ranch Raad in AccorQunce
w~tth sL•andard detaila of the Ci~y oP Anaheim.
(15) That paved acceb~ oaoements to all atorm drain facilitiea shall be
aa approved by the S~apsrintendent of 5tre~t Maintenunce. Said
approved eaaem~nts d4~aall b• reflected oy~ the ~inal tract map.
(lC~) That all etre~te •hnll be daeiqned with qra~t~s no qreAter than lZ~.
(17) That fire break~ shal]~ be provided as approved by the Fire Chiet.
{18? That ~,rior to approva~l of the final tract map, plot ~1ane, tloor
p~.an.s, and elev~tiona ~or the propo0ed hougee aha12 ba aubmi~ted
to nnd approvo4 by the plaaniaq Gommieaion and City Caunoil.
(19) TY.~t the vehioular aaceas riqhts, axcept at streat anQ/or alley
e~panix~ga, te, Nohl Ranoh Rond and Creecent Avenue (Lakavi~M) ehall
be dediaated to the C~.ty of l~a~nhaim.
....
~
MiNUT68, CITY PLANNING CUMMx88IQN, May 14, 1973 73-281
BNVIRONMiCNTAL IMPA~7' REPORT t10. 12 ~ VARIANCE N0. 2455, 1-ND TENT7ITIVE M11P OF
Tltl-CT N00. 8115, 81i6~E~i17, AND 8134~ REV1A20N N09. J s,Continu~(i~ ~„
Commi~~iune.r Farano c+flarwd d m~tion, reoonde~! by ~ammisotoner H~rb~t enC
MOTION CJ-RltYED, to approve T~nkstivo M~p o! Traat Na. 8117, Revi~i.on No. 1,
subjeat to tha folloNinq oandittoneo
(1) That the approv+al af T~nCative Map o! TrACt No. 81~.7, R~virion
No. 1, i~ qr.nntad eubjeot Lo th~e Approvn]. of Varianan No, Z453
and aom~,le~tion ~of Rea~arsification o. 67-58-7,
(2) That ahould this ,subdivi0ion ba dev~lopmd ae moze than one ~ub-
divisiun, each subdivision. thereo! shall be eubmitted in tonta-
tive l~rm ~or approv~al.
(3) '~hat a 6-foot~ decorutive, openwork Matl ehall be cons~ructod
ek the top of the slape adjaaan~ to Nohl Rnnch Road on Lot N~s.
2 thxougt~ 23 and a8jacnnt to Creaac+nt 1lvenue (Lakeview) on Lot
Nos. 1, ~, 42, 43, S1 through 56~ and 67. Reasonablo landeaaping,
including irrigation Laai.litiss, ah~ll be in~tullesl :~ithin the
slope areus af eack~ lot ~~ti~scent to the rc,adway~ and in the etreet
parkwaye. Flans ~~r eaid landecapi.ng s!~dll be e+ubmitted to and
subjeat to the approval o! the Parkwr~y Mai.ntenance Superinkendent.
Following installat~on and ecoeptar.ce, the property oWner ehall
a~sume responaik-ility fcr mai»rex~nncA of aaid landsaa~ping, regard-
lesa af the ~ocation of the wa:~.J.e.
(4) That any propnsed covennnte, co*.clitione, and zsstrictione shal].
be submitted to and approved by the City Atfiorney's Office prior
to Ci.~y Council approv~l ~f. the final tract map, and, fur~her,
that Che approved cavenants, conditiAna, and restrictiona ehall
bo recarSPd concurrently with the final tract map.
(5) That all lots within ttii~ tract ahall be sorved by underground
uti.litiea.
(6) Tha~ a final traat map of aub~ect proper.ty shal~ be submitked to
and approved by the City CounclZ azid khen be recorded in~ the office
of the Orange County ~tecorder.
(7) That etreet na~mea shall ~,e approved by the City of Ar,aha~m prior to
approval of a final tract map.
(8) 'rha4 the owner(s) of aubject property sha~l pay ~o the City of
Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as deter-
cnined to be appropriate by Che City Council, eaid ~'eea to be psid
at rY:e time the buildinq permit is ieaued,
(9) Tkiat drainage of sa~id propertX sh~l.l be iiiepoeed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineex. If, in the prepara,.ion of
the aite, au£ficient qcading is reQuired to neceasitate a grading
permit, no work on grndinq will be permit~od betweer~ October 15th
and April 15th unle~s all required off~-s~:;e drainaqe~ facil~tiee
have been installed a:~c: nre operational. ~asitlve aasurance s~hall
be pzovided the City that such dxainage facil3tiea will be com-
pleted priar to October 15th. Neceesary ri.ghC-~oE-way for. u£f-dite
drainaqe £aailities shall ha dedicated to ~he City, or the City
Council ahall have initisted condemnation proceedinqs therefor
(the costa of which ahall be borne by the developer) prior to
commencement of gre~iinq operntiians. The rsquired dre.inage Pacili-
tiet~ ahall ba of a sir~e and type sutficien~ tn carry runoff water~
originntin3 from higher properties tihrough eai.d property ta ulti-
mate diaposal ae appxowed by the City Engineer. SAid drainago
facilitiea ahall b~ the firat item of canatxu~tion and ahell be
comple~tad ar~d be lunot~ional throuQhout the tr~+ct And from the
downstream bounda:y ot the property ta the ultimete point o~ dis-
posal priar ~o ~he i~suance o! aay linal buil~iing ~nsp~otions or
occupancy permite. Th ~ City ehall not accspt any portion of ruch
drainage facilitiae un~il the entire facility ~t~rouqh the aub~ect
property a~d to the poir.t of ultimate diepos~l ie cou~pletct! ar,d
operational. The de~velopar shall mai.ntain auch facilitiea !or a
..~
~
M IUTES, C?TX PL1-NN.ZNG CUMMISSION, M~y ,14, 1973 73-Z83
ENVTRONMENTAL IM!'ACT REPnRT N0. 1:.~ VARII~INCE N0. aass, ANb TENTIITYVE MAp A1~
TRACT NnB. S1~15i 8116, 8~17, 11ND 8134~ RSVISION_NJ9. 1 (Co~itinua~Z____~~
paxiod o! two y`ar~ toltoa~nq i.natallaCiun and ~hell pa~~ a!~-ith-
!u1 p~irlarmanae bond in u rut~'ioient amount to guazantao ~uah
maintAnanae. [~rainap~e d~eLriat r~i.mbuxreme~it agreamantx mny be
maAn ava-ilabl• to tho develGpors of e+~id pr~porty upon their
r~qu~nt.
~]Oi '1'hnt gra~inq, oxcavation, and axl oth~r oonaLruotion activiti~~r
rha~11 hw conducted in suoh o. manner so ee ro aninimize t.he pospi-
bility oP any eilt oriqine~tinq lzom this pro~oot being oarri.ed
into thd Sante Ane River by starm water oriqinatinq trow or }'law-
ing through thim projeot.
(11) That Creeaent Avenue (Lakeview) shsll b~ conetructed with a 64-foot
travoled way in a 78-fcot rl.ght-ot-way.
(12) mhet the full tr~avel~~l wny of Crescont Avenue (Lakeview) sliatl bv
constructed prioX to oz cor~aurrently with the improvements for thie
tract.
(13) That adequnte right--oY-way tor left-•~urn pockot•a ahall b~ providod
dk all streat intersectione with Nohl Ranch Ra~-d as requiree b~y
the Ci~y Engineer.
c iay That parking bays qhA~? be provided on Nobl Itanch RoaS i: :~~c:oxdanca
with standar3 detaile ut ~~~~ Ctkv of Ane~heim.
(15) That paved accesa eaeements to all storm drnin faciXities shall be
aR t~pproved by th~s Superintendent o~ Str.eet Meinto~ta~ce. Said
appr~~ved easements ahall be reflected an the final tr!~ct map.
(16) That al]. etreets shall be dasigned witih grades no greater than 12~.
(17) Tha± fire breaka ahall be provided us approved by t.he Fire Chief.
(18) Thet prior to approval of the final tract map, plot plana, floor
plane, and elevations for the ~roposQd houses shall b~ submitted
to and approved by the Planni.nq Commiaeion and City Council.
(19) That the vehicular accesa rights, e+xcept at stzee~ and/or alley
openinqs, to Nohl Ranah R~~ad and Creacenk Avtnue (Lakeview) shall
be declicatec~ to th~e C1ty af Anaheim.
(20) That prior ta the aprroval of '~en~.ativa Map of Tract No. Bl:l7,
R~vieion No. 1, the ownor(s) of eubject pr~perty shall make mn
irrevacable offar to dediaate an easement for riding an3 hiking
t:::ail purposea aver thd~ porticn oP subjact• property o~-ex which
the Four Cornera Pipe Line Cou-pany hae, or wi.ll have, an eaeement
for pipe lines ~~.ad incidental purpoges. Said offer to dedica~e
ehull be irre~ocab].e far a period of twdnty yeare and may be
accepterl by the City ~f Anak~etm at such time as it is detormin~,d
that deveZopment ef such Pacilitiee wou~d be in the bss+: int~reat
o£ the City of l4r.nr:ein~. Sa1d irre~-ocable offE~r to dedicats ahall
be zecorded concu~~rently with the final tr~c~ msp.
Commiseioner k'~nrano affered a motion, eeannd~d by Cnmmissfonar Herbst ancl
MO~ZON CARRIED, to approve Ter~tative Map of TrACt. No. d1~34 ~ Re•,rision No. l,
subjeat to th9 £ollowinq conditions:
(1) That the approval of Tenta~~.ve Map of Tract No. 813d, R9vis~.on
Nas l, ig gran:.ed eubject to tha approvai of Varia~nae Nc~. 2455
ar~d completion of Iteclneeifiastion No. 67--68-7.
(~1 That should thla aubdivieion be dev~lapod ae more than one sub-
dtvi~ton, ~s$ah aubdi°! ~ion thereo! shall be aubmitted ~n tenta-
tive fu.r.m for approval.
(3) 'That all lota within this tz~ct eha],l be aerved by ur.dexqrnund
utilitics.
MINUTSS~ CITY P~A~NINa COMMISSION, May lA, 1973
73-284
~St~iVIEtnNMENTAL IHPI~GT REPORT N0. lZ, VARIIINCE N0. 2455, ~1ND 'L'~NT7ITIVE MAP OF
TRl1CT NaB. 811 , 8116L 8117. AN~ 8134~ RB~ISION N~B. ]._ ~Contir~a~ed~
(4) That • linal tracr, raap of aubject ~ro~ertX shall be •ubmit~.ed to
~nd ~pproved by the City ~ounail and th+o~~ bo recurded in the ofliaa
of th~ Orangu County kecord~r.
(~) That •tr~e~ namos ehr+ll be approv4d by the CiGy uf 1~nahaxm prior
ta t-pprAVa~l oP a Pina~ tract map.
(6) Tha~ tha owner(s) oF eubjact propar.~y ehal]. puy to the City oE
AnaT-eim tho apprapriate park and recr.aation i.n-lieu ~eoe ss deter-
mir,ed to be appropxi.atd by ~he City Council, esi.d teee to be paid
st tha time the tauilding permit ie is~ued.
(7) Thr.t drainage of said proper~y ~hel]. be diQpoaed of in a manner
setisfactory to the Ci.ty Enginear. IE, in ttae preparat:lon oP
tha site, au.fPictent grading ie xequired to necesaitiate e~ ~rading
parmit, na work oa grading will be ~~rmitted betw9~en Clctobor 15th
and ]~pril 15th unlese all roquired aff-eite dzafnaqe lecilitiae
have baun inata].led and ase aperational. Positive asauranc~ ehall
br provi.ded tlhn City that auch drr~ina,qe tacilitiee wi11 ba com~
pleted prior to October 15~h. Necaeenzy rigt~t-of-w~ay Por. otP~eita
dralnaqe fACilitiea aha~.l be dedicated tu the City, or the Ci.ty
Council shall have initiate~3 c~ndemnation proceedinqe therefuz
(the aoste of which ahall be bozne by ~he developer) pr~.oz to
commex~cemant of grRding operat;ione. Ths requirad draint-ge facil~-
ties ehall be of a~ize and type su~ficient to c~rry runo~f waters
oriqinating from higher propestioa throuqh Faid property tu ulti-
mate diepos~l as appr.oved by the C~ity Engineer. Said drainage
fe~ailities ~hal]. be the firat ~tem of. conetructian and ehall be
comploted and be f.unctional throughout the tract and from the
downatream boundary of the prapexty to the ultir~dte point of dis-
poeal pr,ior to the iaeuance af any final buildinq inepecti.ons or
occupancy permits. The City ohall not accept any portion o£ sucli
drainaqe facilitiea until the entira facility thruugh the subject
property and to the point of ultimate. dispoeal is complot3d and
~~>hration~3.. The devel~per ehall maintair- auch facilitiao for a
period of t~vo yoara following installation and sha~.l poat a Fa~th-
ful performance bond in t~ aufPicient =.mount to guarantee auch
maintenence. Dxainage district reimbursament aqreementa may bo
made available to ths developers of sai~] property upon their
requPSt.
(e) That grading, axcavation, and aLl other conekruction ar,tivlti.e~
shall be conducted in such a manner so as to mi~iiati.ze the ~nsg :-
bility of an~~ si.lt oriqinating from this pro~ect bei~g aarried
into the Saasta Ana River by stc,ra~ water originating from or fl~~~--
ing through this praject.
(9} 'Phat paved access easeme^ts to all Rtoria drain facilitios shall be
as approvad by the Superintendent of. Strest Maintenance. Said
appxoved easements ahall be rafler.;.ad on the final tract map.
~1Q) That all streets shall be d6signed witi. ,erades na ~re~ter than 1?.+t.
(11) Thst fir~ breaka shall be providod as approved by til~e Fire Chief.
(12) That any propcaed cnvenants~ condit~ona, and xeatrictions shall be
eubmitted to and appr~ved by the City Attoriiey's Of.fice priar ta
City Council approval of the fi<ial tract map, and, furthAx, that
tha eppraved covenants, conditione, and restric~ions ahall be
seaorc3ed concurrently with the tinal traat ~a~p.
{13i That prio.r ~.o approval of the tiaal traat map, p.lot plaas, floor
plann, and elevatione for the prc,paeed houaee shall be ~ubmitted
to and appzoved by the Pl~nninc~ Cornmtseion anQ City Council.
MINUTBA, CITY FLA~NxNO CQNMI891~N~ M~y 14, 1973 ~3-agg
CONDITION ~fi t DRl1IN11Gi~ 11ND GRAAINO OPBRIITION9
AND RR,~IRElt@!i'~~ IN lI~PROVIIL O~' T,~,R7-CT M171p8 ,_„
Commit~ionsr RoMland oftor~d a motioa, ~oaonded by Commieeion~r Kayaoad •n(t
MO~ION CARRII~U~ tio r~oommane to the City Caunoi]. the adoption o! xn nm~nlitaent
to Cc~n611cion No. ~A5 0! th• r~aowm~nd~d aonditions aetabli~hed by kha Int~r-
dopwrtn~antsl Committae f.~r Publ~.o Sa~ety anQ G~apral vPallare aa fo1~aM~:
"4~+. Th~L• drainage o! said propsxty shall be di~poeed o! in a mant~~r.
~atislaatory to khe C.i,ty Enqinsor. I!, in tha preparation oP
th~ eite, ~u~fici.ent qrsding ie r~quire~ t~a neceoaitdt• a qrading
~mrmit, nu ~rork on qradi~iq pill be permitt~d betMeen Ootaber l~th
snc~ 1~pri1 15kh unleea sil r~Quixdd ott~eit• lirainage faoilit~.sa
hav b~aen in~tAlled snfl sre opdrational. Poeiti.va adauruno• ohAll
be providofl t;-~ City that 4uch axainage faoilitime will ba oom-
platod prior to dc*ober lsth. N~ces~ary x,iqht~o!-way to~ a££-~~.ta
draina.go lacilitie oha~l bc dacliaated to the~ city~ or tho City
Cour..:il shsll h~ve in~tisted condemnat~on pr~~c+~edings tt~er~for
(tha coats oE which ahely. be boxn• by thd de•-mloper) prior to
eommenceme~n~ of qrddi.ng apexationa. The xequxroA drainaga lavili-
ties eh;::~ be of e aize An8 type sutPicient t~ carry runo£~ waters
c+riqinating froan high~r proper.ttea throuqh eal~A otcoFezty Co ulti-
mate di.epoual ay approve8 lay the City ~ngineer Said ds~-i.nac~e
fecilitfas ghall be the Piret item af consti•uciion a~nd shall bo
cn~npletod a.n8 be functionsl throuqhout the tract ~nd lrom tha
downetream boundary of ttte praperty to ~h~ ultimate point of dis••
poAal priar to the ies~xance of any final buildi:ig in~epec~io~ne ox
occupancy permits. The Cil:y ghal]. not dcr.ept t~ny portion of euch
dre~inage fn~ilities un~il i:hd enCira facility thro+ugh tho subjea~t
property and to the point of ultimate dispoeal iv cnmpleted and
operaCionnl. The develaper shall ma~intein suoh lac~.litias far a
period of tWO yeara following 3nstalintion dr~d ~ha~ll poat a faith-
ful perforn~ance bonc~ in a ~auffi.oie~t amount to quarante~ sucb
maintenazce. Drainage d~atrict reimbureemont aqzeemente may be
made available ±~ the devolopdra~ of saili propr.rty upon theix
reques c.
1tECESS - Chairman se~ymour dc~clared a~ ten-minute recese at 2 r 35 p.mo
RECONVLNE - Chdirman Seymouz re,convas~ed the ma~tinq at 2s45 n.m., all
~- Commiasioners beinq present.
..~...
~
MINUR'i:3, CxT1c PLI~NNING CAMMI88ION, May 14, 1973 ~~-28G
VARIANCE N0. '1505 - FUBLIC HEI~PINCi. P7ICIFIC PLAN INVESTOR'S FUND t70. l0 2Z00
S~ndhilY. Roed, Menla PAxk, Ca. 94A25, Owneri P11CI!'IC PLAN,
~570 baet 17th St.roet, Se-nta Ana, Ca~. 9Z701, Aq~ntJ
reque~~ing WAiVLR OF (A) TYP~ 71ND NUMHER OP~ RTCNS4 AND (A) TYPL U~' FLl1a8 TO
PERMIT TNSTALLIITION OF TNO MONUM~NT-TXPE IDENTxFIC1~TI0N GIGNS, TWO DIRSCTION~I.
8IGN3 AND QN1E IDENTIFICATION FLAG an prop•xty daecribed asi An lrz~;~ulnrly-
shaped parael o! land conAiating at approximat~ly 4.~ acrae, liaving s!`rontnge
oP approxicnakely 400 feet on the tiarth xida of Bell ~oad, having d frontsge o!
appr.oximately d30 .feet on the wasr sido of sunkiet ~treet, ar~d l~eing laoated
approximetely 45 Peet aest o! the centerli~ne of Sunkiuk stXeet and 53 l~at
north o! the centerlinc+ of Ha~l Road. Proparty preeently al.aesilisd R-3,
MULTIPLP.-FAMILY R83IDENTIAI,, 2UNE.
No one appe~ared in opposition.
Althouglh tho Report to the C~mmiesi~n w3s nat raad at thb public hearin~, it
~.e referre3 to ar.d mude a part of tihe -ninutea.
Mr. George Supple, 126G2 fiunstall Street, Gardan GzovF, zepxeeentiny tho e-ge~nt
~ur the petitionar, appeared before the Commiseion and etrted the~t they alrea~..y
had a~iqn on tho property but hr~d been havinq troublo id~ntiifyinq the buil.dinq
and felt they needed better eigning~ thac they were in tho bunineae of zenting
npartmants~ that, nationally, familiee moved evary five yeare, and in Cal.ilorr~ia
iL• was onco every three years, but in thie devel~pmont it waa once every one
and one-half yeara~ that tha spartme.:~ complex fzon~cd on two main thorough-
f.ares, Ball Road and Sunkist Straet, and s~. the pre~ent ~ime tliere wae no
aigning on 9unkist Street, howevex, tneir sign wAA loaated on Ball Road, rnd
~rith ~unktat Street being c+xtendad through to YCat~lla Avenue and possibly the
fr.eeway, it wae impor~ant to have identification of the development ~n Sunkist
Streotj that they proposed to reQlace the present sign OI1 Aall Road with a
much more attractive siyn with aeasonal flowere rl~ntod •under bo~h aignR~ that
in zddition c: the American flag and the California state flaq, they wanted
their own name on a flag to i~entify tt~e cievelopmentt tt~at they als~o propoaed
an 18x21••inch free-atanding aign i•ldicating the direction di the affice fos
Yro~pective residents or anyone i,iteresked in t'~.4 location of the office since
they had had complafnts from the residei-~s of their units on Sunkist Stre~t of
praspective reaidents inquiring as to th~ locntion of the o¢fice.
'1`F~E HEATtrNG WAS CLOSED.
Cammissioner Allrec3 inquired whether the diie~tional aigns would he located
near the ~onumdnt-type eigns QroposedJ whereupon Mr. Suppl9 replied affirm~l-
tively .
Zoning 3upervisar Charles ~toberts ~hen indi~ated ~o the Cammiseion on the plans
where ~he signe woald b~ located.
Commisaioner Gauer inqu+.red whetlier the aigns would be allawed under the present
Sign Ordinances whezeupon Mr. Roberts stated that only by a vesy li.beral inter-•
pretation of the Siqn Ordinance wovld thege be pernii~ted, but 'this pr4perty had
two etr~et frontaqes and it would be reasonable to aeaume thcy cauld have ons
aiyn foi• each fr~ntage.
Commissloner Hsrbst was oE the opinion that he ~ou1d see nothing wrong with
having two signs s~parated by about 600 or 700 featj that he di~ not want to
see another flag other than the stAte or national flag because this would
estal•lish an undeairabYe precedent vrith all other apartments in thc~ Ci~.y of
Anaheim requeating a similar iden~i£ication of their. apartment housee with
f.lags .
Deputy City Attorney F rank Lowr,y advised the Carnm3s~lon ~hat he ~•~as a reaident
of this dsvelopment ac~d wanted to make sure this was part of the minutea.
Commiasioner Rowland oPfered a moti.on, second~ed by Commisa3oner Allred and
MOTTON ~ARRIED, that the Planni:~y Commi~e'on,in connection with an exemption
declaration status request, finds and determines that the proposal would have
no aiqnifict~nt onvironmental impact, and, rherefarc, reecmmends to thc~ City
Council that no Environmental Impact Statement ie neceasary.
~
~
MxNUT88, CiTY PI~ANNiNG COMMJ88ipN, May 14, 1973 ?3-~8%
VARI11NC1~ NU. 250~ (c;ontinued)
Commis~ioner N~rb~C of.lerad Resaluti~n No. PC73-91 and moved for i~.r pa~~+aqe
and adopti~n to qrant Potition !ox Verianoe Na. 2505, in part, denylny ths
ra~ue~nt Por an idsntification Flag, and eub~aor. to conditione. (Soe
Ro~olution Bocak)
On roll ce~ll the ~oreqaing reeol+~tion wes pawted by the fnllowiny vot.e:
]1YE3s COMMI83ION~F9: Al,lr.ed, Qau~r, Horb~t, Keywood.
NOE9 ~ COINMIf,.8I0NEh:~ s F~rario, Rovrlan$, Soymo~ir.
AHSENTs COMMTSSiON~R~: None.
C~mmiseianer. Fnre~no notad ttiat he d+ 3 not wa.r~t ta ap~eer to be Rour.di nq lik~e
gaing cff the deep end, but after lookinq a~ tho numbar o! apartment uc~itca
dnd tuwnhousea approvod in the City of Anaheim, tha Commiseion had. ju~t
appr~ved ~nother sign for apartment idanti~ication, and if the Commiaeion
lalt there ehoul~l be an idc+ntificr~tion aiqn on both oornare, then the Cod~
enould b9 changed becauae he did not tee+l. everX apartment complex in th•
c~ty should be gra,ntacl thi.e privilege. The nex~ thinq tha City woul~l ~o
.faceQ with would be requueta for of.f-eite signe.
Commissioner Kaywood inquizad whether or not ~he agar~t knew what the parkina
xatio was per apertmentr whereupon Mr. Supple replied neqat~.vely.
Commissi~ner Kaywaod tlien noted that ehe had ~xiven throuqh the area, and all.
~ho carpoxta were fi.lled ae well as the vioitor par.king, and vehicles werA
parked bumper-to-bumper on the street.
Comm3ssioner Farano noted that siqning as appr.aved might reeult in the Planning
Commiasion having to be faced with a constant f.low of similar rFq+aestad h.yoe
signinqt thak there was a problem nn both ~sides - af~'~roval would eet a prece-
dent for ai~ninq for Apartment houses~ but there was a rQtsl problom since the
City Code had n~t providfld thA anewer when they built these comp~.exes ona very
large scalei they could riot rent them overnight, and before they were Lully
xented, a time span of nine to twelvc+ months might occurt that tha City was
putting thesn people ~n a very ~aeak position bqcau~ao they were violating t~e
Code astablished, and he did not see anythin~ wronq with this atrict Code
~nfoi-cement~ and that khe Commiegion was creatinq sAme "Micxey Mouse" type of
e~rra.ngomtnt to accept a partir,ular need, and the whol~ sy~tem needed some ze-
doi.ng, tal~ing in o consideration that it took a while to rent out tllese apar.t-
ment developments .in the same manner as a lazge housing development - thia was
tlte roal problem tYiat exiated.
Assistant 17evelnpment Services Direotor Ronald Thompson asked the Commission
whether. staff should be dizected to draft Code amenc~,:ents regarding tlieae
e~.gn~.
Chaizman Seymour noted that this should be donej even though it mi,qht take a
work seasion it. was necessary becauae he £elt it gave th,e Zoninq Enforcement
Offi.cer ulcers tr3+ing to enForce ttie 51gn Ordinance and it also gave the
developers problems, therefoxe, he felt r~ome input r~nould be provided to make
the Sign Ordi.nance work.
Commissioner Rowland noted that in addit3or~ to the aign a~nendmenta, he would
ougges~ that staff alao dr~ft an amendmpnt to the aite deve?opment s~txndards
of the residential zoi.es where side-or~ lots were creatad and vraivPr~ were being
requeste~, particularly where ther~ was a qrade se~aration, and if this amend-
ment was made part of the ordinance, this couLd eave the Planning Commis+si~n
one and a half to two haurs every Planninq Commiasion moeting.
.,~,
~
MINU'~ICB, CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, M4y 14, ~973 ~3'29a
V~~p.iANCE NO. 2503 - PUaLiC tiEl-RiNG. LOE'PTA SUE M!-l~L~x (JEANSnr~; , 1].14 Ghaucer
" 81tr~et, 7-neehoim~ Ca. 9~806, ~anArt ~t11YM0'NU H. JE71N30N,
1114 Chxuaor Straeti, Ana2ieim, Ca-. 92805, Ag~nt~ zequwetinq
1171IVER OF M~XIMUM LOT COVERAG~ TO P.~.LO~d A ROOM ADDITION on pr.oper~y deacri.bad
a~~ 1- r~atanqularly-sha~+sd parayl ~1' Zand con~i~~ing of' epproximately .11 aare~
haviny a frontsqe of approximak.+ly :-1 le~t on ths ~~ast tids o! Chauaar stre~t,
haviny a maximum depth o! appzoximatnly 9~ leet, and beinq lACated approxim~tal.y
9S0 l~At weet ot the centarlins ~Y Sunkiat 9treat. Property plaoontly al~~~l.-
l1Ad R~-500~3~ Ono~Family, lona.
No ono~was preaent ta r.epr~aent tho p~titio~er.
Chairme~n Seymour Rteted t.hat tl~e CommiPeion would ddtar considdratton of this
item until latdr. (5ee page 73-289)
VARII-NCE N0. 2507 - I'UBLIC HEARING. RYCHARD ,7. 1~ND SETTY B. FILLMAN, 112 Connie
Circle, Anaheim, Ca. 92806, O;vnorst BRTAN DAVIS, 2"J36 Woe~
Oranaethorpe, Fullerton, Ca. g2fi33~ )~genti requesting WAIV~R
OF t~WXIMUM LOT COVFRAGE TO ALLOW A ROOM 1iADITION on pxaperty deecribsd as~ A
re,ctangu~,arly-sheped paresl of land c:onaiating of ~ppzoximn.tely .12 acrea, h~vj.nq
a Prontage of appioximately 54 faet an the east oi9e af Conni.o Gircle, having a
maximum depth of approximately 97 fer_t, and beinq lc~caced mpproximntsly 157 leot
eaet of the cen~erline ct Rio Vieta Street. Property preaently clasei~l~d
kS-5000, One-Familyr 2ane.
No one appeared iri appositi.on.
Althouqh i;he RBUOI~t to tne Commisaion wae not read at the public :-earinq, it ie
referrad to and mA3e a part of the minutes.
Mr. Brian Davi.s, agent for the petitianc~r, appeared be~ore the Commiasion notinq
Lha* he represented the buflders who wera ca~tracted to build thie rooin u8clitioni
Lliat th~re was a lack of. .room s ince this family haS :~ia children, and they wanted
to ndd 18a Eg~s~re f.e~~l to their exietinq family ruom to expan3 i~.
THE HEARING ~VAS CLOSEA.
Commi.ss~oner Kaywood obaerved that ahe had driven on thie atreet tho previoue
day and there wex•e 24 homes on the atreet with 23 carst th3t thia home had two
c~nra i.iiK@CI in front of the hou:se, ae well as twc+ in t}:R driveway and five
bicycles in the garage, therefore, she felt they had maxl.mum coverage on this
5000-squaxe foot lot, and the Commi~sion should not allow any more dev~e.lopment
on the l_r,ty thak if anything addition~l were permitt;ed~ people with more than six
chi? c3ren could mr~ve in and request further co verage o~: the ground with concrel:e r
and that there would be no play area for all of these children. Further.more,
cars on tY~e street were parked bumper-to-bumper.
Commissioner Farann ~.nquired of staff how much lot coverage had originally been
permitted on the hc,mea on this st.reet and if this was a deve~.~pment within the
requiresnanta of the RS-5000 Zone.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advieed the Gommiasion that based on four k+ed-
room.z, the lot would have to be 5850 square feets tt-is home was 1523 s~uare feet
if the fami.ly room wa~ not cnnsidered a bedroot~, and since a family room was not
eaeily conv~rtible to a be~lroom, it was not considc~rod as such in determ~.ning
lot coveraqe.
Mr. Roberta, in zespon~te to queationing by Gommiasioner Herust, stated that the
coverag~ fact~r oriqinally waR 45~ for tlie R-2-5000 Zone - tttia was ~hea reduced
to 40~, and when the RS-5000 Zone ~vas adopted, it was fuxther r.~duc:ed to 358.
Furthermore, when this tr~ct was bui.lt, thay did nd~ exceed the requirements of
the Cada .
Coa:miesi~ner Kaywoo~ observed thst these new nomes w~re a~lready t~o smali, a-Y-
thouqh she empathized with thee~ hameowners~
Chairman Seymour not~d ~hat when poople reached a pluce whera they neededi Aore
room, the real estaL•e agenta hoped to -ove them to larger quartera, but the
Commiaai~on must qo beyond th+s~, and he was qlad that tae construction company
~w
~
MI~lUTFB, CiTY ~LANNING COMMIS5ZON, May '14, ].~73 73-1~9
VARIA~iCE NO. Z507 (Cont~n-: ed)
tl.dt w~s proposinq to buil~i Zhie adAit~ion haQ raqua~stod approval rath~r Cha~n
aon~t.zucting it anA lstsr MI7~11 the hom• v-a~ ta b• ~o].d~ th~ pxop~r~.y OM11~lI vrould
hsve tio r~quert l.ega].izatian o! an il ].~q+~l ~~ditian . In ~dditioa~ thexe t~ppeated
~o bee no oppoeition lram th~ ' c neighboro who a.~psrantl~- knaw NhAt to exp~ck~ that
thie temily al~o know that ..ney w4re uainq ~oms o! ~h~ir zeur yard are~a !or t~he
lemily ho~ae, s~d i! they pr•l~rr.od t~~ Ao thi• r+~ther than puroha~ing enoth~r ho*~-,
perhep~ ehey cauld not aftord another homo~ ~nd that ha did i~ot Poal +:his would b~
creat~ng a situatinn whors ev~rybody in the city wo~ ld be r~~;utsti:~y e houee
Addtt.in~n.
Cc~mmic~ionaz Kayaood noted thdt tha ~~etit~iona~r.i had atat~sd that someonA on tihe
etre~t had alres~; ~onetruct~cl euch an nddition.
Ch~irma~n Seymour n~tod he te].t the petikionero gliould b• able ta do witt~ ths~-.
proparty M11AC thay wa~nt.od t~ impre~~e the property, but 1ti• l~lt ditLerently i~
th.ie wer.e a dovalopex requesting ~e- eimilar 8evidtian on a neN trect.
CommiaAionor Rowland offArec3 a mo+tion, aeconArd by Commiaeioner. Herb~t and
MG'1'YOri CARRI~D, t;hat tho Pla~-iinq Commi.e~ion, in conne~ ~:ion aith an oxemption
decl.aration BtACl1p reques~, finds an8 decsrmines that ~r~e proQoaal would have
nu siqnificant c~nvironmAntal impact, bnd, therofore, recommer~da to tt-e Ci~y
Council that no ~vixonmental Impact. Statamant ie necesedry.
Comml.asioner SAymour otf~re 3 Resalutian No. 1~G73-93 ~,nd moved for ite paeAaqo
end adoption to qxant Petiition for Varinnres No. 25v7, eub~ect to condit•ione.
(See Reaolution Hook)
On roll call thc foroqoing Xe3olution was pd~sed by the t~llowing vote a
AYES: COMMIS.IONERS: Allred, Furano, Gauer, Herbat, Ro~rland, Seymour.
NOES s COMMIS~IONERS: Kaywood.
ABSEN'P: COMMZSSI~HERS: 3ionE.
VARIANrE N0. 2503 (Continued from pagQ 73-288)
Na one appeax~d in oppoai.tion,
Nu onF was present to represant the pe~iT.ioner.
Chairman Seymour noted that aince the Planning ComneiaAi~~n had 'kaken aff.irmative
acti~~r on the ~revio~~.e- petition, it was hi.s ~pinion that the Comro+ seion shoul8
cons ..or aubj~ct petition wi=hout a c~~ntiiiuance to another me~sting.
A.lthough t~e Report to the Commi ss'.on wae not read at the public hearinq, it ia
ref.Arred to un3 made a~ar= of the minute~.
Tk1E HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Comm~ssioner Kaywocd nated that her comments made on Varianae No. 2507 would be~
applicablo to subject petition, t~owever, sh~ had found 26 cara on Chaucer Street
where on.ly 18 homes were located.
Comm+~aeioner. H~rb~*. offered a mo~tion, seconded by Commiesioner Ka,ywoad and
MOTION CARRIED, that tihe P lar,~inq Commiseion, in connection with an exemption
declaration statua xequest, fin~is a~nd dc~termines that ~he pz~opc~~al would have
no eignifi.caiit Rnvironmental impact, and, therefoz~, recommande to the City
Council thst no Environmental Impuct Stutement is s~ecensasy.
Commisaion~r Allred offered Aesolutien tio. PC'3-92 ~sn~ movt3 £or ir,s paes~-ga and
ndoption •:u qrant Petitinn for Variance No. 2503, sub~ecL to aondit.l ana. (S~e
ResoluLioi +3aok)
On rnll c~ll ctio foreqoing reaolution wt~s pa~seed by tha followinc~ vote:
AYES: COMMISSTONERS: Allzed, Fareno, Gauer, Herbet, RAwland, Seymour.
NOE3 : C"vMMI SS I ONF R3 : K aywoo d,
ABSENT: COMMSSSIONE]t5: None.
J
~ - _ --- - - --
S ~ w
MINUTE8~ CITY pL]-NNING COMMx5RI0N, Mey 14, 1973 73'~90
V1~RI11NCE NOY2S08 - PUBLIC HEARING. FRE~ M. Ki.Y, 2Z0 ~~aquna Ra~-d, Fullerton, Ca.
9~G3x~ Opn~z~ BUTL~R HOUBTNQ ~ORP., o/o W. Kbu4d~r, 1691
Kett~rinq 3treot, irvin~, Ca. 92705, l-qenlr r~gus~tiny NAZVEIt
OF M7IXIMUM PL~MITT1ln LOT COV~RAGE on pro~~rty desarib~d ~e ~ An irr~qularlY-shnpsd
psrc~l of land aoe~istinq o! s~proximet~ly 10.5 aoze~ hsving a~r.onteqe o!
•pproYimatel,y S]! l~et on ~.:hr north aid~ o! Oran~d~tharpa ilv~nue, heving n maximum
d~pth of a~~proximataly 7Q5 ta~t, and bainp locat.~~d approximetMly 3~0 feet ssst of
the centerlina o! LakQVi~w Av~nue. Prap~rty pr~~e~ntly alsnritied RS-5000, ~ns-
Family, Zon~.
C~~+„missianer lit~rbot in u ~d whg~~ar or nc+t Mr. ~'reQ Kay was ~till owner of the
property, sinae i! h~e ~*han ~ w'ould abetair~ lrom partioipsting in th•
~+~tition ~ c•-h:Yeupun the roFresentative of 9u~.ler Hauaing Corp. etr :ad thst he no
lnn.~e1 had nn ':LGk88t in it..
No ~ne npp~nz~d in o~poeition.
Althaugh the Report to Che Con-miasi~n wae not xee-d a-k the pub].ia he~nring, ~.t ~s
referred ko and mada a part af the minu~eo.
Mr. Wetter Keu~dor, repr.esenti.ng eutler Housing Corp., agent !or tkia ~etitionaz,
appeared bafore the Gnmmission anci etated thet when thair tbntstive tzact map wna
a~pprov~sd, tha RS-5000 Zone had juat been spproved st tha-t time, and that the
Plenninq Commis~ion and City Council raquested thet plan~, ard e" ~vatio:~e be eub-
mitted far C~mmireion and Ccuncil appr~val..
Cammiesxunar Cauer notad tha-t since the RS-5000 Zone had +~lreedy been ado~ted and
the tr~ct hed not bee~i developecl, the Cammieeidn was ot t, ditferent opinion than
tho ectian they haQ taken on the L•ao eingla-fdmily ho~0e requeating ad~litional
aoverage pr~v~oun=y coneidered.
Mr. Keuadar atated thar :he company wanted to build homes th~t peop2e wanto~ to
]ive in so that they woulfl not have to build on later on.
Commie.ioner Hertsrst requoated that Mr. Kousder demon~strate a h~rdat.ip exiated.
Mr. Keueder r~epli~ed tltat Code permitted a 3~~ ceverage, and tliey did have homaa
that were small enongh for aome of the lots, and ora some oP tlie ~lans ~hey had
enlaxged the rooma - that they txad a threa-Lqdr~om plan that ws~ adequate for
tha middle-size ;nome, an8 this could be conveited ~nto four bedr.-oms, but they
would 11ke co dverage out the loca but several uf the lots would not lend thom-
selves to thie averay~inq out.
Mr. Keuader~ in roeponae to questioning by Commisei~ner Kayv~ood, ata~Ed that thay
vrould h~+ve no problems with thQ 10-foot driveways because they haA larger rear
yarda, and thoee tha-t had a 25-foot ririveway, theso would hava unly a].9-f~~t
rer,r yard, and then preaented co].or~d renderings r~nc1 plans o~ the tract maP,
indicati.ng ~hero ths homea wouid he l~cated as req~ired by the Planninq Coinm: ;~
sivn'o approval af the tract map.
Commiesioner tlerbst obsorved that he felt the Commission had plar~ned to eatablish
a policy on the number a£ h~mep that would be allowecl to have a 6-10-foot setback,
howevex, tho plai~s preap:.tac j.:~dicated 7 homea ~!n m row hac~ the 6-10-f~~t setbackt
t.hat the 6-10-foot setback na3 been sstabliahed because the developers stated
they wanted flexibility, howaver, this wae not what he considered flexib:.l.itf in
tract design.
Commiasioner Krywnod noted *nxt this was the type of tract that would farce the
Planninq Commieeian to roq+:est that the City Council reconeider astablishing a
given p~rceatege ~~ 6-10-foot setbacks, however, the doveloper cf thia traat,
even tl~ougl~ tihAy nsked for flexibility now, wae proposing one full street with
homes ha~ving 10-foot aetba-cka.
Commi~sionax Hsrb~t abeezved that in a development of thie type e car could not
be Fftrked within a~n 18-ioot driveway, there£ore, t~e Citf Counail qave the altez-~
native r~t a 1Q-~oat or Zti-foot set*~iak eo that these would be some fle4ib~gfig~~eot
and with a Z5-Poot satbac:k, r.here wou1R be the avei~ability o' hevinq
~a~king apacee, hawevor, witti m 10-foot aetback, this would reduce it to only ~
off-atreet purkinq spaces, aad becauea of the wiQth of the 2ots, thare would only
be one an-~trest pdrkinq epace available, therePore, he telt thi3 trac: wa~~:.d be
±n seriuue ~rouble bacauee it had been proven in th• pnet with eisailnr previoue
trACta tnAt 1~a4 b~en d~vn2~ped whern a parking problem had been czeat~d.
~
.
MYNUT~9, CiTY PLMNr'IfiQ COMMI88i0N, May 14, 1973
V11RI~1NCE N0. Z~08 (Contiau~A)
73-~41
Commir~ion~r KayMOaA a';o.rvad that altez hundre4~ o! thoN• ~ype~ home~ ~•Nx~ bul.lt
in the oity end trr uuiYder wea no lonq~r afli.llat~d with thi• tract, tl.~ City
Mould be lRCn~1 with thio rath~x uncl~~irabls ^itustion.
Mr. Keuotl~r not~d tt~st thAy had Iouilt ~he truct n~xt doore wh~r~upor- Zoninq
Suparv'~or Char~.a~ Raberts notad th~ti all thoso homeo wer• buil~ with • 70-foot
~etbaok.
Commieaionar dauor nbeerved t~~et the RJ~5000 or R~-2-500~7 Zon• h.~d b~sn ~tert~d
becauee~ Butl~r Haueing had an R-3 xane on thcir groporty but w~r• un~ble to
aonetruat ox int~re~t ]~ndax~ in thar. typa of dav~lopment, an~ whon kh• R-~-5000
Zono had been approv~a, it wda with the undezstanding that they would b• onl.y
three becYrooma~, rioNever, there were now tour and fiva-bedrooa~s hQOna~ bsinq built
~n thc~eo smnll l~ta.
Mr. Keueder noted tt.at .hey hnd +~dd~d a~lini.ng room which 1-sd inareae~Q tla• ei~e
oP +:he homn, in a~dclit-ion to buildin~ four-b,adraom homes.
ChAirman Seymour nated that• tha agen~ had identif.ied the problam but hed not
proe~,nted a eolution or ~e middla qround, even though tha devaiopor had ba~n
buildinq k~omee for many ye+are in this erea.
Mr. Keusder s~otod whut the buildere wera now more eoanamical wlth thai.r construc-
tian and making betL•er uee of tho~- lAndj that they were tryi.nq everythinq to
make their homee availab~e tor av~ f sector of housinr and evezything had bean
aone,addinq ta the home, increa~ing the width of ~`~e street - these requixem.e~nte
made it lmpoeeible to preaent a purcha9eable home, and he felt the Cacnmiseion wae
beinq ~isariminatory.
Chairman s.~ymour noted that tho City of naheim had participeted in the FHA 235
Progrem and had bee~i eorry ever since th- : timcs.
Commisainnar Herbst noted that t.he C~mmigaiar. hn8 eaen trx-cte of thia typo built
before wi.th arowded conditions, and the probld~- with many of tho -~ea~ ~e was their
not 'veing able to afford theee typee of homes and these were turned i o qhettos
bect~use o£ the typee o~ homes tlzat did not provide for their naodsr th~t t?-e
Commissi~n had looked at RS-5~0~ homes i.r which five ko seven bedrooms bad been
developod• and becauae oi tihie~ the amendment to thc~ urdinance had been made !:o
prote~ct t:ese reaidents in the future, +~nd the reason foz reducing the coveraqe
to 3~t wan t^ c~: ve the builder the privilege of vAryinq k~i~ house as r.~ ~Ptback,
si,ce, ete. , but tche builder was only developing one ~+ay j and that the .ievelo~er
in this .~nstance c~as not ~iving any gpace for r.hildren to play excapt in the
atrec~t.
Mr. Keusder ncted tltat the,ir plans indicated there were no two-story homes, and
if t.wo-story homee were conatructed, they would not be pre~entinq thia variance
before the Commisaiont that aome of *_1ie people would have nice homes, whilo
others would k-ave v3ry ama~li room sizes, anc7 thase could also create gh~t~~'s~ao
Mr. Keusder further nc~ted that these hAmes woald be se].linq for $37,000,/ although
thi;J had or3ginally planned the homes *_o soll for between $29,000 t~> 535,000, but
this was increassd becauae of the many requiremente of thp Citv.
Commissioner Rowland inquired as to the percentage of thase over the 35$ •- which
were closer ta 3~~ and which were clooer ta 40~~
Mr. Keusd3r noted ~hat thxee of the homes w.uld be 39.5~ coveraqei ona at 38~
coverage; two at 3%+1 c~vernge; si.x at 36.78 c~'~er.aqet five Az 367 coveraqe; and
two ~uet over 35s cuverage.
Commisafoner Rowiand noted that the purpose of the 3St coveraqe wae Qimpiy to
provide a liviny enviranmen~ tha~ Salanced betNeen the interior amenitisa and
the exte--ior pravidin~• ~;`~ef C~a~ everybody gave "lf.p aervice" to open S~dGA
as a deairab].e amenity fos any community or anp element that hnused the public,
but 35t was as close aa the Comniission could detiermine was deairabZe by obeerva-
4;=n, based on axperience~ an3 ba.aed on pask perfarsnunce wh9n everything wa9
briqhr. and ahiny, therelore, he Woul~ be perfectly wf111ng to n,~ke eame r.djust-
ment eince tt~s Cammission ~rez~ not magicians, and everyon~ ar. ~ne Commissian was
....
~
MINOTS6, CITY F~LIINNIN(i CONMI3t3I0N, ~II~Y 14~ 1973 73-29~
VARZ11 C Nb._?SQB, (Cc»tintted)
v~ry oonoarn~d nbout th• continuity o! th• setb~ck, but t~• did not l~el th•
81~nninq Commitsion'~ funotio~ wue d~~ipning, but he would b~ Millin~ to look
id~vorably on ths bulk o! this ~ino• arith~aetieally th~r• wa~ ju~t +~ ~m~ll 1n-
ar~wee, provlded, hoN~vor, that th• hel~noe o~ ths oon~truetion Maw d~e~rn+in~c~
~r proviaing bet~t+r plar~e thAn had ba~n ott~zwd boloz~.
Comrnis~ionsr Kaywood notsd that th• Plsnninq Commi~~i~n had rmuommond~~l onl~+ ~a
33• ooverr~qe, but ft had hs~n inor~a~~tl to S5t aovernq~ et tho reque~t o! the
buildere, and sh~ wa• aur• that if a 40t aoverage pe~~- e- tabli~h~d. thsn th~r~
aauld be continuoua request~ !az gr~ataM aovexage, and ~,~o M~r ^uze thati 8ut~l~or
Ho~ia~ing Corp. waa ono o t th• dovslo~~rs who Nanted th• 35s cov~rapo. thorelora,
~he did not tael ths Commiaei.on ~-hould ~aoede to this raqueat.
Camwioeioner Gauer nat.sd that the buiJ.ding aetbaako prapossd were in+~daquat•
since young children would qrow up a~ad would need vohiclas to go to echoal,
end there waa no available of.P-atretlti or on-ctreok pa~rkinq for a~n l.ncress~a in
che number of au~~mob~les.
Commi~aior-c~:• Rowland notad thet thia war not pa~rt a! th• ordinance, evsn though
tho Plr~nning Co~mml.~oion had caado a r~cammst~dation t~ the+ City C~uncil thut a
parcantaqn of th~a eetbaoks ~chould be perwi~ted, auch ms l0a or 25+h, however, th~e
Counri~l had not taken the Commie~ion'~ xeaommei~dA~ion under coneiQeration.
Mz. Keusder note~9 that they would be happy t~ ehifC some ~~f the houae~ back -
evan thou~th their marketinq etudies indicated a need f~r larqer rnar yaxd6, thia
coulc9 be altereci for ovary other home.
Commisaionex Kaywood inquir~3d whather o~ nnt the noise decibc~l reading couJ.d be
met for inside oF thase homea becauee ~~~ the railroad's proximity to the ~ract~
ahereupon Mr. Keuader etat~ea thnt they had baen workinq wi~h tho s~aff, an3 he
would atate they would mee~ this ~lecibel ordinance and that tt,ey com~~liod ~ ith
L•he FHA requir~ment. Furt.-n,-moro, in the evdnt the Cammi~sion selected aome
of the plana that did no't comply, he would suggest that they had nhake~ roofs
and tile roofa, And becaurse of this, the price a~ th~ hnmee werit up.
Commi.asioner Kaywood noted that there woul8 be no parking avsilnble an the cul-
Se-~ac= furthsrmore, where ~he rear yard~ w~re proposed to be reduc~d to provide
moxe in the front yard dici not mean L•here would be a ct-anqe in coveraqe - thi.s
would atill ramain the same.
THP, HEARING WAS CLOSED .
Commtsaionar Harbst ofxered a motion, aeconded by Commigaioner Gauer and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Planninq Commiesion fi.nde and determinee that Envirunmental
Impact Report No. 16 lzsd been submittdd p~evioualy and the City CounciZ had
adogted it ae ita Environmental Ympact Staten~.:nt, L-herefore, thA Comtnisaion
recommends that thia statem~~t be xeaffirmec~.
Commisaioner All.red offered Reaolut~on No. PC73-9k ^d .noved for its passage and
adoption :,:: deny Peti ~ion for ~xrfsnoe Lio. 2508 on tno ba~is that the p~titioner
hsd not proven a hardship would ~exist if *.he requested aaiver was not yzante8~
that subject prnperty could be and ehould be develo~e~i within the r.equitements
of the site devel.~pmer~~ standards ot Cha RS-•5000 Zone~ that the Commisaion in the
paat had qranted only minor deviatiune Pram t;ie RS-5000 ~one coverag+~ require-
ments in .:onnection aith requ~este from individual homeawnera, hawever, this
deviation from the c~verage requiremenk on 40+1 of the lota in ~ch,e subdivision,
if approved, would be graating the pe~itioaer a privileqe r.ox enjoyed by other
developera of efmilar type ho~e8 since the adoption of the c~~rrent aite deve~lop-~
ment etandards. (~ee Raeolutian Book)
On roll aal l the Eoro gof ng reaolution Mas paa~ed by the Eo11oW~na votE :
AYES: ~QMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauerr Herbat, Kaywood. ~gymour.
NOES: COMMIBSIONERSe RowlAnd.
ABSENT: COMMISFION~RSt NOne.
~^
.
MINUTES~ CITY PT,ANNIPIG C~MMI.35ION, M+~Y 14, 1973 73`29~
RECLASSIFICAT20N - pUOLIC HEARZNG. PETLR ANL DORINE CABRERA, 1532 Enet Le
N0. 7Z-73-43 i~elme Av~:r~us, AnAheim~ Ge. 92805, ~wner.i prop~rty Clo~Cri.b~4
~ aot A ractenqulerl.y-ehAp~d parcel ~f. lancl con.iet~.n~ cP
VARIANCE N0. 250~ approximately ,4 aares hAVing a fro~teqe ot approxi.mRt~,ly
loU feet on the aouth eiGo of La Pelma 1lvhnue, heving a
maximum depth of approxim~toly 170 feet, end baing locnted
st the aoutheast cor.ner or La Pnlma Avenue and Anna Ur.ive. Property preeontly
claeeified R-A, AGRICtILTURAL, ~ONL~.
RE~UEST~L ::ASSLFICATION: C-1, GETIERAL CI~MMERCSAL, 7.ONE.
REQUESxED VARIANCEe WAIVE (A) REQUIRE~ TRL~F 3CREENING, (B) MAXtMUM BUIGDING
HEIrHT WiTH7N 1.50 N~L•'ET 0~ A RESIUENTZAL ZONE BOUKOARX,
ANQ (C) REQUIRliU 6-FOOT SOi.ID MASONRY WALL ABUTTING A
RESTUENTIAL ZONE TO CONVERT AN EXISTING S1Ni~LE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE TO A COMMERCIAL Ot'r~CE USE.
No one appearod i.n opposition.
Althougli the Report to the Comml.ssion wae not rea.d at thtl public tiearing, it iFi
referrad to and made a~ar.~ of the minutes.
M-. Ron 6evina, att~r.ney repreaentinq tha petitionere, appoarecl be£ore the
Commiasion and noted that the petitionei-:+ had purchased thia property two to
thzee years ago whi.ch was then ~oned k-A, which was a holdinq zonot thak they
had made substantial improvemQnts since owning {.r and wera preaently u~ing it
for a z•eaidance fox their family; that ~hey had bQen permittod a home occupatian
permit fo.r a reslty office, uaing only nne room for this uae, acwever, becauss
tre home occupatioci permit did not permit signi~ig on the property and becauoe
the buoi.nesa had expani~~d, the patitioner~ felt t~ieiz hande were tied because
of tbese restrictions; L•hat ~he~ planned ~o move their frsmily out and convert
the entire facility ta commercial uses with real estata offlce~ on the firr~t
floor and renting out the remaining portion t~ related offl.r,e usdei that the
Comtaission was very ~amiliar with the zoning in the area, with t_he church to
the ~ast, apartments to the west and s~uth, and a emall com~nercial center to
the north across La Palma Aven~xe, with a~rofQSaional buildinq farcher west,
and there were no residential u~oa between aubJect property and State College
Boulevard. Pictures were then presented to the Cur.~mission i~iclicating the types
of adjoining propertiea.
The C~mmission inqi~lred wYiether or not the potitioner inte;~ded to remodel thA
frontage, chang.ing it to have a commerciul appeurance~ whereupon Mr. Bevins
stated that there were some changes proposed, but from discuseions with staff,
the exterior would remain asbstantially as it prESently existedT that the r~ason
for conversion of the building was becuuse iZ was too valuable to rett~ove iram
the p.remise~; that although it may have been a single-family re9identisl uae in
the ~ast, due ta the atreet traffic and the more intense uses in the .rea, one
of the alternati.ves was to propose commercial use £or the property~ and that
the recommended conditions would be acceptable to the petitioner..
tdr. Bevins also nnted that the waivers that ~vere requested r.egarding the wall
reqttirement on thP south was a mattPr of econornics, however, thoy cou2d compl.y
with thi:, if the C.ommi.ssion so clesired, lio• ver, there was a chainlink fence
and wood fence ~herei and that the parking ...rea would be a conaiderabte dis*ance
from the 5outh property lina, therefore, the~; felt they aid not need trees to
buffer this since it would be adjacent to th~ churah parking Yot.
THE HF.ARIhG WAS CLOSED.
Cha~i!^man Seymour inquired why thR petit~ocer ~~+ae noc requeatinq the C-C Zone
aince an office uae wt+g propoaPdt whereupon Ncr.., Bevins atated tr~at after havinq
discussed it with stafP, it wa. determined that somP of the uses proposed would
not be permitted in tlle C-0 Zone stnce :rs. Cabrera s~ld carpeta fr.om the
premi.sea in conjunction with the zeal estate buaineas, therefore, there waa eame
queotion as to whether that was a retail commaYCial uge which woLld be permitted
in the C-0 Zane - this was k~aeically the reasoi~ for the C-1 zone request.
Furthermore, they were not snre what other typES of uscs the tenants on thcs
second floor wau1~ propose, and they di8 nok w nt to be ~imited to onl.y those
usos in the C-0 2onP, however, they woul~l nss~xre the Commiasion that tbe usos
would be compa~:ib~e.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNZN(3 COMMTBSION, Msy 14, 1.973 %3-294
RECJ.ASSIFIC.ATxON N0._ 72-73-43 AND VARIANCE N0. 2501 (Continued)
Mrs. Ce~brere appeared belare tho Commiseion and noted that ehe ~rimarily had
eamplee of tha aar.peting thet weze to be aold, however, ehe would like ta hnvo
the opportuni~y o! purcha~aing the cnrpeting an8 ~toring it on ths pramisea
whan the oppurtunity eroeA wl~ere good caleu purchasee were pos~ible.
Commieeioner Herbet noted that in his Qetimeti.on thi.a wes n good exa~mple oP
epot zoningt that there wa~ a amall commercial c~mplex aaroes the street whiah
wae having a diffic~ilt time ret~ir-i.ng their tenunts or keoping tha doors opAn
f~r the small commorcia: ~acilityt ~hat the ~ity hed oxperi@nced s eimilex
problem before, ~nd there w9re meny plecea whare~ a carpe~t axlee and rea], 9stere
oEPice cauld be eatabliahod wi.thaut ~rent:tng +~ C-1 ~one in this perticuler arua,
even though .i.t wae acrose the Atroet fr.om a emall comm~rciel facilttyt that nt
tho timo thet wue conaidered by th~ ~lanniny Commission, the Commi-sloii had
recommendecl der~ial bocause it was bAtween two ].argc~ commerci.al areae, makinq it
cYilficult for z- small facility af this type ta be aucceeaful, h~wevor, t}-o City
Council hAd qranted t:ic~ razoning on thQ pro~erty, but to grant C-1. zoninq wae
a far cry Erom tho hame ocaupation which had been granted to the~ ~otitioner. -
this would be pri.marily e commercial use, and becauee their buainees hacl grown,
they ehoul.d move to a legal commercial area - c+ven tT~ough th~ petitionex had
upgraded the home, he did not feel eithpr C:-O ~r ~: usea ehoul.d be permitted
becauke thta woulc~ be apot zoninq, and the siza home would be an ideal building
to convert for a homo for the aqed.
Commisaioner Farano offcr~d a moti.on, seconded by Commiesioner Kaywood and
MO'fiON CARRIED, that the Plt+nr-ing Commission, in connection with e-n axemption
declaration statua requeot, finds and determinea that the prapo~al would have
no significant onvironmental impact, and, thcrefore, recommends to the City
Cuuncil that no EnviXOnmental Tmpact statement ia neceaeary.
Commiesioner Herbst o£fared Reso'ution No. PC73-95 and moved for ita paesage and
adoptian to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclaesi£ication No.
72-73-43 be disapproved or, th~ basis that the propo3ed r.eclasaifiaation was not
in conformaiice with the General Plant that ample commercial faci.lities wpre
readily available elsewher~ in which to establiah rhis use rather. than creatirig
spot zoningj that a amall commercial complex was locatecl immediately to the
«~rth whi.rh wa4 experiencing d±~fficulty in retaining tenanta, and to inject
add~.tional commercial use3 into the area would be further diluting eaY.ablishe3
commarci.al developmentsJ t.hat a real estate businesa had been cor~ducted an this
si.te for several months as a home occupation, howevEr, the use has expanded or
is propoaed to expdnd beyond the limits of the home occupation, therp£ore, the
use st-ould be moved to ar- appropriate commercial location; and that the property
would b~ ideally suited for the es~ablishment of a multiple-resident retirement
home, thereby ma.tntai~~ing the residential inteqrity already establiahed in this
ar_ea. (See Resolution 9ouk)
On roll call the foregof.ng resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYF.S: COMMISSIONF.'RS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Raywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSION~:RS: Farano, Rowland.
ABSENT: COMMI3SI~NERS: NonP.
c:ommissianer Farano noted that in v~ting "no" xgainst the denial, if the peti-
tion~r had proposed C-O use~, this could control the uses that would be estab-
liehed tn thia structure.
Mr. Bevins requested consideration for the C-O Zone if thi.s went before the
City Council - then the Commiasion'~ £-eelings could a].so be expressed as to
C-O zon.i.ng.
(;ommiasioner Farano noted thax the Plann:ing Cummissio:~ coald appro~e a lesser
^.one than a3~~ertised.
Chairmar. Seym~~ur noted that the interpretation wae such that a majarity o£ the
Coa~mist~ion wauld have to considor C-0, arid even th~uqh he had indicated he
would fnvoz ~-0, he would not approve a lesaer zone until he r~aw plana of devel-
opment for the C-0 ~one.
~
MINUTE3, CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ Mey 14, 1973 ~~"~`~5
RECLA53IFICA'1~ION N0. 72-73-43 AND VARIANCE NU. 2501 (Contina~d)
Commisaioner 1'~~rano noted that Mr. e~vins had not requuated thet tha C~mmi~~tion
teke~ earion on the C-0 Zonet h~ wae juet requeatlnq whe~h~r or not the Commio-
eion wou16 be ameneble to the C-0 Zono 1! thia woulcY maet hia neede but not !or
thc+ Commiseian to nct and r.ecommend C-O ~oning to t.ho City Council.
Mr. Bevine notad thet t-e tel4: thare woUld Le a problam beforo the Cixy Council
in obte-ining tha C-1 Zone.
Commiaeioner RowlAnd noted that tho Comml.eeion wsa not sitting thuze t~ a~r~snd
an app~ication or plan the land 41r-ae they muat considyr the merits of n propoaal
before them~ that any canoidera~tion ahould k~e ak etnf! tevel belore it reuched
the Planning C.ommieaian.
Zoning upervisor Charles Raberto edviaed the Commiael.on thnt there wae a pra-
vision in th~e C-0 2ane 'chat required a mi.n~mum o! 20,000 eqtiare Peet, thereEora,
a variance would have t~ be requirecl in ~r.he C-O Zone.
Commispioner [iorbst offered Res~olution No. PC73-96 end moved !or ita paseaqe and
adoption to deny pfltition to:: Varianca No. 2501 oti tha baais thet since the
Planninq Commissior recommended disappr.avel of tho r~claeaificetion of subject
proper.ty, this pet• .:ion for varianc9 coal.d n~t be exercised under the e,~.i.sLinq
zoninqJ and that ~tie waivers reqLeatecl fram the C-1 ~ite development sta~darda
had not beQn waivad on other commerc.ial uses which wexe propoead ~.o be estab~
lished in clo~e pr~ximity t~• reatdantiul u~es, therefore, to grant subject
petition would be granti.ng ~ privilege not enjoyed by other commercial ~evelop-
menta in eiiailax circumatancea. (See Reaolution Book)
Or~ .ro11 call the foreyoing resolution was passe3 by the followin vote:
AYES: COM~~.~S3IONERS: Al1re~., Gauor, Herbst, Kaywoo3, Seymour.
NOES: COMMIS520NERS: Far.ano, Rowland.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Y2~CI~A~SIFIC:ATION
N0. 72-7 3-~1~1
CONDITIONAI~ USE
PERMIT NO. 1393
and bein,y located
Property preaent?.y
- PUBLIC HFARING. MRS. LEL'A NEFF, 1238 South Go~dQn Weat,
Santa Ana, Ca. 92704, Ownerj F. EARL MELLOTT, 2A51 East
Cerritos Avenue, Hnaheim, Ca. 9280ci, AgentJ property
describec3 as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land can-
gisting of approximately .42 acrea, having a frontaqe of
approximately 200 £eat on the weat s~de ~f Brookhurst
Street, having a maximum depth of approxlmately 115 feet,
approximately 780 feet south ~f the centerline of Ball Road.
classifiect R-A, AGRICUL7'URAL, 20NE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIOt~: C-2, GENERAL COMMERCT~~1., ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A SMALI.-e~NIMAL HOSFITAL.
Thrae persons ireaicated their preaen~e in oppo~= ~; i on.
Assistant Planner Phillip 5chwartze reviewed the ].ocatior. of subject praperty,
uaes establialned in cloae proximity, the request for C-1 zoning an~3 permi3sion
to establish a amall-animal hoapital, cocistructing a 2000-square faot, eingle-
atory facility and to £urtlier allot future development spac;e f~r an adSitional
senarate 3040-aquare foot commercial unitf that tk~e prop~.ed °_t.ucture woul.d be
14 feet higii, 34 feet wide, ana 57 feet long~ that the hos~ital would have a
f-ont setback of ZO feac. fzorn Brookhurst Street, and the building would have a
rear setback From the adjoininq ainyle-family reaid~nces of 47 feet, wiLh a zero
side setba~k from the commerc3al property to the southj that vehicular acceas
from Brookh~arar GtrAPt would bE provided by a single 28-foot wiae driveway
cgntrally 1oc~ted from which a 25-foot wide dri•ve would extend, having aix 90-•
degree parkinq sgaces on each side with the drive hammex•heading to the rear of
the progo~ed building locations and praviding access to ten 90-degree apacea
a~on~ the we3terly property line and two 90-degres spacea at ~ach end of the
hainmerhead drive, making a total of 17 spaces provided for the amall-animal
hospital with un addiltonal 10 spaces ahown to serve future development. zn
addition to the required landecaped areas, subrnitted plane indiaated a 42x13-fooC
landscapecl area to the reaz of fh~ proposed anfmal hospital. This area was
~
~
MINUTE~, CYTY P'I,ANNINC~ CqMMI3S70N, May 14, 1973 73-296
RaCI.I188IFIC:ATION NO. 72-73-44 AND CONDI'~IONAL USL" P~RMIT N0. 1393 (ContinueQ)
intend~d to be en additional buP~er and amenity, end a 6-Poot high maeonry w~ll
would ba provided ee required adje-oent tn tha ~inqlo-Pamily r.asidences slong
th• wo~t pro~.~erty line~ thet the animAl hoopl.tal Hn~ deaigned with all ind~oor
runri tha~ tho building exterinr would be conetr.uat.ed o: liqht graen concrete
blook vrnll.s, medium olive concr~te ti.l• rool, and nKturnl wo~d trim 8eta~ilsi
that n•~nndard refuee stor.age azea would bo provlded to *he reaz o! tha hospi-
tel~ with aceeed ~rovidod by the 1ie:nmarh~ed-typA drivet ~hnt a aimilar drea would
be provided in n corresponding locahlon for the Putu..~~ davo~opmentr and tbat
tha Generel Plan indicnted aubject azes na appropriate Por hi~r~~,~uy-xelated com-•
mercir ~s. However, i~n diecuosi.ng th• ].arge landec ~ua area to tho rear ~~i
th~ hosl.~ a~, etaff hed been aanured by the petitioner'~ ayent that the poti-
tianer woul~ not bo uainy th~ a~rae !or outdoor dog zuna or slmilar ~~aev, and
thnk khe area would simply be a lendecaped ar.aa~ afforcYiny ad(liCianal buffering
!or tr~e adjacent ainqla-family homea.
Mr. ~arl. MallotL, agent For the petitioner, appnered bafore th~ Commlaeion noting
ho 8.L39 repr.esentdd the prapoeed purcha~ar of the prop~rty~ i:hat thig w~u].d be a
very amall facility suitable Por one or twa ver~~rina~riansr that there waR C-1
zoninq on both aides of the property, and the roqueeted ~one would be a nsturel
aaoumptfon for sub3ect propexty~ that thQy had ma~e same mi.nor modifi~ ions
a'te: havinq :::.acuased thls with stalf, and they had tried to aet up the plen
that would be most economic~l from the buyer's standpoint and pruvide buftexing
for othar developmenta in the area~ that they had 10 feet of land~capinq et the
front and 47 fc~et ar. ~he reer, which cvould act as a buffor zoner rhat the build-
in~ would be complately ~ound-proof with cancxete binck on tha Br~okhurst Straet
fro.~tage where the waiting room wou'ld elso be loca~adi ~hat everything that could
be done L•o minimize noises was being done~ and tha~ they felt this would be a
very interesking elevation with future dev~lopment being taken into cor.aidefa-
tion, allowing plenty of parking for a maximum 3000-aquare foot buildin3 for tha
fuL-ure development.
Commi~-sioner Allred not~d that he would suggest tlimt since only a 6-foot high
wall wae proQoa~d between the commercial and Xesidential uses, even thouqh therQ
was landacaping to the rear, ho w~u1d sugqest some other type of plantinq as
additioual bufferii~g.
Dir. Mellott replied that he had dosign~d a similar buildinq for Euclid Stxeet,
at which ti•me it w~.s nct requirecl to hava the landacaping at the reax, however,
they cau7.d plant a r.ow of troea if tha ~ommisaion so desired.
Mr.. Louis De Olden, 7509 Luxore Stzeat, Aowney, owner of the properry to the
south, appeared before the Comm3ssion, aoting that a privata Montessari School
was operated there, and a doq h~spital would not be a a~~sirable thing to be
acijacent to a schooZ for pro~pec~ive parentis to bring their chil3ren to school.
Chair.man Seymour noted that the pr.opoaed huapita~. would be totalZy encloaed.
'rir. Da Olden sta.ted that ~rash and odors would be af'~cting the adjoining ~rop-
erty, and there would be no leeway betwoen the Lwo buildingsi whereupon Cemmia-
sioner Herbst stated that the ~-O Zone pexmitted the proposed building setbacks.
Mr. De Glden stated that a small-animal hospital would not be conducive to h3.e
property, particularly siace t;~is was a school for 14 years~ that they hnd
rpcent~y remodeled it, and he felt tha building was very attractive, but he did
object ta the ar~imal hospital next to the achoolj t:nat he ha3 epoken to ~he
tenant, the operator of the schoul, who objectecl to this type of facilityj that
the location of the trash storage area would encoura.qe rata and other vermin,
which would not oe healthtul to children ranging in age from thzee to soven
yearat and that he felt this would be a health hazard as far as the echoat ;~as
concerned.
Mx~. Carl Koteck~ owner-oper3tar of the Montesaori School, appeared befora the
Co:~misaion in oppo~ition ~.~d noted that they had 54 children in school and 60~
of them would be there f~:om 8:00 a.m. to 6i00 p.m. five days n week, which would
mean the children would ~e in achool more than ttiey were at homeT that they were
trying to creat~ an a,..mcsphere that r, , mAre homelike, and since the petitioner
was propos~.ng to cons~ruct the building on the pxoperty line, thie would moan
o~nly 25 feet between the buildinq and the achaol building itself, and he cou?~
~ww
~
MINl1T~*8, C.L'TY PLANNINC, COMMI3STON, MAy 14~ 1973 ~3'29~
Ttk:CL1~SSTFIC)1TIUN NU. 72-73-44 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMI4' NO. 1393 (Continued)
nat imaqine d eituation wherm ahildr~n woald have to ru~- betwaen two bvilding.~
t~at ha was not Apponea tu s bueineae th~re, but. he want~d any propo~ed bueini~s
to YA/[~tlGt the existing buein~+eses al~:oadv ^:cnblished,
Mr. MeZlott, in rebuttal, sta~tad that porh~ape ik waa true that a tra~eh area
aould hnve rate and mice, huwevar, thia wsr also true of the tr.aoh area at t•he
echool~ that there woulA bo no odoxs em~n+~ting frr~m this £acility bacauee tlie
x'un^ were ell flushed dowr. t•ha clrain~ inoiQ~ the bui.lding, however, { f the
Commiesian folt thc+re would be a Prnblem ee to the tra~h location, Chis could
be relocated. Thran in ree~onr~e to Commienion queati~ninq~ Mr. Mell.ott etated
thnt the expired nnimals weze kept in4ld~a th~ building untiJ. pick-up, ainca
thera waA r dai.ly pick-up service.
The Commiseior- then inquired whether kha p~titioner cou~d re].ocatd tho L~ilaing
by Lloppinq the plan~ whereupon Mr.. N~llott stnted thr~t it wae propoaad to have
~wo commercial usee serviced by one in~~res[~-egreas drive sitice the City was
dasiruus of eliminuting as many driveaayu on Bronkhurst stredt, a heavily
travel9d atreet, as pooeible~ All(~ that to flop the pla~i over would mean provi.d-
tnq two driveways to t.his pe~rcel. F'urthexmore, the pavea area would be far
parkiny staZls fur both propoaed And future commercial. use~o- as well ee Por a
trash turn-azound araa.
Mr_ De Olden advised tt~e Commiesian tt~at lunches wer~ not ~erved to ~he childran~
nlthou~ ~ they might bring their lunchee~, only paper kra9h similar to tha way
familieR iri Y-omea disposed of. their traah prob2ema.
Mr. Koteck eppeared sgain ~nd steted that his main concern wa~ the dietance
between the proposed building and the sw~chool b~~ilding.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta noted for the C.ommission that a previoue
pzopoaal on Euclid S~reet where no treea had been required in a similar si.tua~
Y.ion wr~s because there was a p.rivate 20-foot wide alleyway between the residen-
tial ude and the commercial use, whereas ~.he proposed davel~pment would be
abutting the R-1 proparties, therefore, the tree acreen would be required,
Commiasioner Allred of£ered a motion, secanded by Commissionpr Herbat and MOTTON
CARRIED, that t;he Planning Commiasion, ia~ connection with an ~nvironmental
exgmption declaration status request, finds and determinee tliat ~he proposal
would have no significant environmental impact, and, therefaxe~ recommends to
the City Counci.l that no Environmental Iu~pact 5tatement ia neceseary.
Gommisaionyr Allred affer.ed Resolution No. PC73-97 and moved for its paseage and
adopt~.on to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
No. 72-73-44 he approved, subiect to conditions and the added condition that
15-gallon treea, planted on 20-f~ot centere with appropriate irrigatioc~ facili-
ties, aha11. be inatalled and main~ain~d along the west property line. (See
Resolution 5ook)
On roll call the foregaii resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYFsS: COMMISSTODIERS: All red, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, RoNland, Seymour.
NOES : GOMMISSIONERS : Noi~e .
ABSENT: COMMIS3IONER3: None.
Commissior-er Allred offer.ed Resolution `'~. PC73-98 and moved for its passage
and ndoption to grant Petition for Cona.tional Use Permit No. 1393, eubject to
conditionr~ with the added condition that 15-gsllon trees, planted ~n 20-foot
cer~tera with aQpropriate ~.rrigation facilitiea, aha11 be inat.alled and mai.ntained
along the wec~t property line. (See Resolution Book)
On ro~.l call thQ foregdinq •reaolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allrecl, Farano, Gausr, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONE RS: None.
ABSENT: COMDIISSI~NERS: None.
• ~
MINUTEB~ CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, May ~4~ 197:~ ~3'298
1t~CLASSIF'3c~ATION - PUBL7C HEARING. JAME3 A. AND R RANA OL~ON AND JOSEPH AND
N0. 71^73-46 BE'PTE K, OAVIDSON, 414 North 5tate Colloga Boiilovard,
~ ~ ^' Anaheim~ Ce. 9280G, Ov+narai 3AMES OLSON, 875 Sautih H11dd
CONDITIONAI, U9E Street, Anehaim, Ca. 92806, Aqent~ properCy deecribed as~
P~RMYT N0. 1398 A rectangulnrly-ehapad parcel of land located at the south-
west corner o:~ 3tate College Houlevard and Savoy Avenu~,
consietiny of approximetely .Z5 acrea having a frantage o!
approximately 127 feet on the we,et aide oF State Callege Aoulevard and 84 feet
on the aouth eide of Snvoy Avenue. Property ~r~ee:~L1y claesifiod R-1, ANE-
F1IMILY RE9IDENTIAL, ZGt~L~ .
I REQUESTED CLAS3IFICATIONt C-Or COMMERCIAL O:~FICc;, 20NE.
REQi1ESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A COMMERCIAL OFFICE COMPL~X IN TWO 3INGLE-
FAMILY 5TRUCTURES WAIVING (A) REQUIREMENT TH11T A'LI,
PARKING AE LOCATED TO THE REAR OF 7CNE STT (B) TYPF:S
OI' SIGNS P~:~tMITTED, (C) MINIr1UM SITE ARE1„ (D) RE-
QUIREMENT THA~ A~-FOOT PLAN7'ING STRIP F~E MP-INTATN~D
AUJACENT TO TIiE ~'.IGI~T-OF-WAY LINE GN A I~OCAL STREET
AND TO PEAMIx A 6-FOOT BLOCK WALL IN THE REQUIRED
SETHACK AREA, (E) REQUIRED S~TBACK AREA ALONG SI'TE
BOUNbARY LINE NOT AD~TTING A STREF.T OR HTGNWI~Y, (F)
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 300 FEET OF A STNGLE-
FAMILX RESIDENCE, AND iG! MINIMUM REQUIRrU NUMHER O~'
PARKING SPACES.
Seven pereuna indiaated their presence in apposition.
Aseistant Planner Phillip Schwartze reviewe~l the location of ~ubject property,
uses eatablished in close proximity, previous zoninq aation on the pro~erty,
dnd the proposal tn establish a commercial office c.omplex in twa single-Pamil,y
homea, modifying the ertorior ot the atructuras which would include a cammon
masonry tile roof, remodeling the facade of the buildinq with ~Jtil1CC0 and plywood,
r.oting that 13 off-street parki.ng spaces were propoaed to the rear of the eite,
wtth two garking spaces propoaed in th~ n~rtherly side yardi that r.ccesa would
ba by way af the 20-foot alley ta thA west ~nd a~.0-foot wide driveway adjoining
the two sid~ yar3 parking spaces~ that one af the .requirod parking ep~ce~ ~:.•
the exi.sting block wall would he located in the required 3-£oot lar~dscaped a~ea
of the rdquired side yard setbackt that the prop~bad 3x6-foot trash area did not
meet the minimum atandards of the Cityf that the exieting structuree w~uld be
used for office purp~fes and were located 5 feet from the aouth property line,
while still maintaining the 16-foot height~ that a revolvinq, free-standing aign
wae proposed at the corner of Savo}~ Avenue and State College Boulevardr and that
the C-0 Zone aite c~e~~elopment standarda required that commercial etructures shall
be located a minimum of 10 feet from the boundary ].ines not abu~ting a stxeet or
highway, and the he'ght of thP buildinq within 3Q0 feet of a r~sidantial use
would have to he one-half the distance k~etween i:he structures and the zane
boundary.
Mr. Jnmea Olson, agent for the peti~ioneza, appearod before the Commiss.fan and
stated he was aZso one oF the pxoperty owners of the property, and then zeviewed
the propoeal, further not_ng that a new siqnal iiqht had been ir,stalled on South
Street and a croaswalk was now located between their property and the service
station on the east side of 3tate College Baulevardi tha'c they had become owners
of the property in June, 1972; that the General Plan pzojecte~l subject property
f~z commercial z~ning= that the traffic count in that azea along St~tR College
Boulevard in 1969 was ~.n excess ~£ 32,000 vehiclea per day, an~, unofficially,
thts year it was abaut ~10,000 vehicley per dayr that there had been a safe..y
problem alonq State Collage Doulevard~ that he had watched traffic pass this
property alo•, State Colleye Boulevard and it had increased because of the
s~~diua-~ that because of this increase in traffic, the prapertiP~ were no longez
desirable for reeident:al uae, and pride of own~rship, t•o a degree, was leseon-
inq since many of the property ownere of these State College Eoulevard homes hed
been rsntad out~ that they also had rented t}-ese two h~mea out aince last June,
after havinq taken over a deteriorated home ~n thc~ corner of Sttvoy Avenuo and
State Collagd Boulevard~, and in chat home they had six tenants between June,
1972, dnd May, 1973, and this aae not becauae of hiqh rental or condition~ re-
garding the Zandlord= and that the adjoining houge had had two tendnts in tha~i
time, da well.
~
~
MINUTEC;, CITY I'LANNING COMMI85ION, Mey 14, ~973 ~3'299
RECLA89IFICATION NO_.__72-'13-46 AND CONDITIUNAL UA~ P~RMIT N0. 1398 (Cnn~.inued)
Mr. Olsnn noted th~t n~t e recent Planning Comml.ssion meeting, C-1 zoning had
be~n apprnved on the R-1 hamas on thR east sido o! State Coileqe Bouleve.rd
north of 5outh stroet, and he waa ~ure thst moat ~e+ople in the community Warn
unawaYe o~ the fact t}ldt. there wexe two ditlorant zones, n~mely, C-J and C-l,
and that the .lst.ter xona was a moz~ inten~oe commercial xona.
Mr.. Olson ttien rovtewod the waiver~ roqueptad, noti.ny thoy were propoetng enma-
thinq elightl.y difPecent than Code would vermit beceuae they wora prop~einq to
utilize tho exiating residences, howevez, there w4xo many homea ln Anaheim which
hnd been convat~ted for commorci ~1 us~a enlf most wdre zathor unettr..etive, aA wcll
as an eyooor.e to the communityt thak they did not plen to ~ia thie, and thyy wer•
tr.~ying to consider the othor reKidanta ln thie areei and thnt it wae ~iot intanded
to ue~ this fecility aa a~octo.r.'e oflice, which wouZd qenerate conbideraLly mora
<raffic and effe~ct parking in the dY9A. Y~'urChermore, they haci 235 faot of. streeti
fruntaqe.
~tr. Oleon tt~en euggeated to the CommieAi.on thnt whenevor horaea were approved Eor
convaraion ho commorcial purposea thaL there be major alterntioi~e ~o the front
of tlie building before zoning becamA effective.
Mr. Olson also noted that t}iey wera propoeing t•wo park~.nq spaces alongnide a
wall whiah the reaidenta of thie are+a had faced tor the past t4n yeare r that
they we:ze also requeating waiver of the planting strip a.incF ther~ never wna any
landecat~~.ng in this aret~ along 8avoy Avenuet thttt there were a consid~ ~able
ntxmber of signs in the commercial usea on the eaet 91de of State Co.ilege Boule~~
vard, thezeforo, the siqning they ~ropoaed woulc~ ba comparabie.
Mr. Olson then reviewed the manner in which aubject propertY would be cor~verted,
notinq that the plan shauld have been corrected to roflect 10 feet inste~-d of
that which staff had indicated.
Nlr. 0. E. Brown, 1903 Savoy Av~nue, appearod before the Commissiori in opposition
and ytatecl many of tt~e i•esidents o£ the area could not attend the public hearing
because of their work, however, he had lived in this area for 15 yeara and there
had been a grave problem because of the jiinior a~id sentor high achools wh'ch
were built or. khe east side of State Colleqe Boulevard - a very heavily tzao9~ed
Etreet and a danqerous atreet - however, the City had now ~nstallad a traffic
light so that children could cross St:ute College Boulevard without fear of an
xccidents that `:~e residents of the area were very cancesned th~~t there would
ba an increase in ~.hi.s dangerous traffic problem just n't the time the City ha~l
bEen able to a~sist ?n solving t;he dangerous pedeatrian prnblem crossing State
College Boulev+~rd= th~t mose of the reaidents wQre also opposed to any conc~idera-
tion of a two-atory bu:lding because tk:ey used their rear yards for rec.reational
purpose~; that t;he re~rark made regar.di.nq the deteriorat3on of the px'operty wa~a
true, but then one could find that so in most re~idential areas w3~nrs one persnn
might not take pri@p in his home, but the detezioratian became even more apparent
whe-~ d~velopars purchasec3 the pr~perty and rented thege homesT that there would
be an increase in parking problems with employees of thie facility usina the
public streets for parking in order that there would bE more room for cuatomers,
and he knew ..his for a fac~t because t~e ha8 apartmenta in erea with commescial
uses aczoss the street, and his tenants could never find a parking spacQ on the
street when they came home for lunch, therefore, he was afraid the reaidenka
of the area wou13 be subjected to the same pzoblem of nut having on-street pnrkinq
in front of their homes, thereby creating a hazt~rd for the residente of the urea=
that. there were many areAg in Anaheim a].zeady zoned for office use which had
buildings on them and which could be used foz ofFice purposes if ~he petitiQner
necded office apacei +:hat be was also concerned about ttie type of signinq that
would be pzoposec3 for thia pz•operty~ and that he wag, therefore, very much op-
posed to thc~ proposed devElopment becauee there was no ]oqical .reason to develop
the property ae vras proposed.
Mr. Georga Roclzford, 705 South Dover SL•reet, appaarec3 be~`ore the Commission in
oppoaition, nating that Dover Street interaected with Sa~~oy Avenue just to i:he
west of subject prepertyt thut he and his neighbora were opposed to the proposed
chanqe in use for the pr~perty because the dd~oininq praperty owners ~aould be
raced w=th cummercial development adjacent to their properttes; that it woulcl
establiah a Y.rend foz similar requests Eor comme:cial usea for the remaining
homee along State College Boulevardj that th~~e were many do~dntawn offi:es avnil-
a-bl.e ir- Anaheim which could be rented for offtc.e uso, and tne ~roposed use wvuld
~.~.
•
MINUZ'ES~ CITX RLANNT.NG COMMISSION, May 14, 1973 73-3U0
kECLAS4IFICATIGN N0. 72-73-46_AND CONDITI~NAL USE ~ERMiT NO. 1396 (Con inued)
be loeing on-atreet parking s~ece !or which citizene paid thair mo»ay ~u 'r-avm
on-streot parking in a zraidential aroa becau~ee it weo cextein that employemt
of thie aommarcial Yacil!.ty vrould be us~.nc~ tho rasid~nt~al stz~eate Cor parki.nqt
t'~a~t whonev~r "epot zoning" w~e permittsd ln an a~ran, thia increuead the problom
of deprealeted vulue a~ tha adjoining homeo~ snd that ha would uzge the Commia-
~~~.on to give aoma coneiderAtion t~ the righte of the raeidente in the area whir,h
wou.ld have be~en pre-emptad wlth commeroiel uee, and 3unC because n hame w~+~ run
clown was na roaeon to subject the aci~~ining r9eidonta to commerci.nl encroachmer:..
Mr. Albert tlox•maneoa, 1^00 Savay Avenue, sppeared betore tha c:ommieRian in
oppoeitian end etate3 he did not lika the aomm~nte made by the agent in "runninq
down" the ad~oininq neighbore borauee mo~t oP the peopl~ mai.ntained their homea
in a vdry attrac:ti.ve mannori that in order to get to the parking nrea of this
ilevelopmant, prospectiva cuetome~r.e would ha~•e to turn onto Savoy Avenue and mak9
~evezal right turna in the residential etreeta in order to make a lePt turn inta
thie parking acea, and althauyh there wda a light at South Street ai~~~ S~.ate
Co~.lage Boulevard, the aummerciul trr~ffic atill would have to uae e teai.denti.al
atreet, and he was oppused to inject:ing commercial traffic into a z~~aidential
area.
tdrs. Lloyd Cox, 1926 Savoy Avanuc, A.npeared bofore thA Commiseion ~.n ~~positio~
and statud she wanted $everal quenti~ne anewered eince it appeared t:hat *ho
potitioner wae proposing 15 parking spacea and the area c~id not aUrear. to be
large anouyh for that number of apaces, therefore, wos he planni.ng on tearing
down any of the exieting buildings. In addition, tha petitioner also atated he
woulcl not conetruct a wall on ~he west, atid she wae very much opposed to that~
Mr. Ol.scn, in reb~ittal, statod that it w~9 not his intent to inault the reafdonts
of ~avoy Arenve because the residen'~ did maint.ain their propertiea, and hP
wanted to retain that atttactiveness~ that he wa~ ~.lso conc;erned ahout childrens'
asfety uince he had two childr.en of his ownt 'th~t in answer to further questions,
it was plannpd to remove tho two garages on the prop rty, as well as the tiie
wall accosa the rear o~ the property adjacen~ to the alley because parking would
be at the rear of the existing residential strzcture~s; and that he would like to
aseure the apposition that this wauld not look li)~~ a canverted roaidence as many
others had in the paP.t.
Mrs. Cox a~;sin appeared before the Commissi.an and stated that it was her under-
standing that a bluck wa,tl was requized betwRen ~ommercial and reai.dentia]. uses.
Chairm~n Seymour not~d thut when ar~ alley waa located between the residential and
commercial property, no waii was required, but by the Commiasion's own action~ a
wall could be required, and the Pl.:r,ning Cor-m3s~sion sever.al week~ ago requireZ a
wall on the R-1 proper.ty line east of the pr~perty on the Qast side of State
College Aoulevard, provi3ed, hawever, that thc; R-1 pz'operty ownera agreed to said
wall..
Mr. Olson advised the Cornmis~ion that they couZd make the co-nmitment that they
would provide a w~ii so thst the view would be rauch better, however, the comment
made reqarc'.ing a depreciation of the property valuss if commProial uses were
adjacent to reaidential uses w~s i.ncorrect sa.nce on record was the fact that
after Fredericl:'s Furniture Company zoning was approved wher.ein i:he same type of
situation existed as was proposed to exist with o~.xbject and adjolning properties,
it was found that the value of the adjoining properti.es to the =ear increased
after development of the propesty occu:redo
Mr. Dave Butra, designez af the pro~ect, advised the Commission that he had
~rosented revisPd plans to the Superintendent of Streeta and Sanltation regard-
ing the ~rash area and liad received verbal approval from him regardi.ng this
reviaed trsah plan.
THE HEP.RING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer wa~+ qf the opinion that the '_ntegrity of th~ area should not
be broken down by allowing thie "spot zoning"t since it had been denied in 1968,
no land uae chanqes had takQn place on the wer~t aide of. State Colleg~ Bpulevard
f.n tl:~:, ganeral are+~.
.w~
~
MINUTES, CITY PI,ANNING CUMMIS9ION, Mny 14, 1973 73-?OL
RECLASSIFIC~Tx~N N0. 72-7:i_46 AND CONDITIONAL USE L'EkMIT NO. 1398 (Continuod)
Commiesioner Herbgt was of the opinion tha~t there wuuld be An environmental
chRnqe by any praposel fox thie ~s•~perty other than itR existing one, theroforo,
an Environmantal Impact Report sh~uld be filed.
CommlBmionoz Hurbet otf~zed a motion, seconded by Commisolonaz Kaywood dnd
MOTION CARItILU (Co~mieeionera Allred, Gauer, ~~az'bat, and Kny~+ood voting "aye"
an~ Con~miseionera P'arano, Rowland, and Se~ynouz votinq "na" ), that the Pla,nning
Commisei~n, in conner.tion with an oxemption doclarntion statue rAgueat, finds
and determines that the propoeal aould heve signilicank environmental impdat
and would, theref~re, roc~mmend t~ the ~ity Council that ttie peti~ioner be
required to file an N ilt priur to coneiderati.on o! the propoeed recleepitict~t.ior~.
Commii~aioner. Gauer offered Rasolution NO. PC73-99 and moved for ita peaenye end
adoption to rFCOmmend tc~ tbe C~ty Cauncil dieapprova]. o£ Fetition Por Reolaeai-
ficata.on No. 72-73-45 on th~~ basis that the cummercial uses at thia interaectian
wnuld pzc~sent r:r.tremeZy hazardoue traff.ic con~litiona due to the anglo of Sdvoy
Avenua to State College Boulevard, and i~ would be necaseary far commercial
traffic desiri.ng to entei' the properky to malce a series of riyhk turr;a within
the residantisl areaT that althouyh considorxtion was giver. to Xeclaesi.fyinq
sub;ec.t property to the .:-0 ~o»e in Sgpter.-ber, ].96R, na other land uc~e c~ia^.gas
had boen propoaed axcept for eub3ect petit~.on to ~~arrant £avorable considAration
of tk-e nroposec: reclassificat.iont t~ldt. the mant~er in wl~.'_ch the property iR pro-
por~ed to be d~veluped ia not in cpnformance with the C-0 Zor~e ait~ develc~p~nent
standardsr and that thia deveiupmor~t ~aould have a Cendency to doteriorate tha
integrity of the adjacenT. +-eaidential area. (See R~e~olution Hook)
On roll call the foregoing r~solution was passed by the following v~te:
AYES: COtdMISSIONERS: Allred, Fa.rano, Gauer, Herbst, K3ywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMiSSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMI55IONERS: None.
Commissioner Allr.ed offered Resolution No. PC73-100 and moved for ite passage
and adoption to deny ~'etition for Conditional Use Parmi*_ No. 1398 on the bssis
tYiat the Plar.ning Commisaion had recommeridecl disapprova' of the rec1a~41fication
of subje~:t ~roperty, therefore, thP requc~eted canditional use permit could riat
be exercised within the requirementa of the existing zoning on the property;
that the petitioner was proposin~ too many waivers of the C-0 Zone site develop-
ment standards, and the mannor in which the propertX was pr.opoaed to be develaped
would have a ten~iency to deteriorate the integrity of the adjacent reeidantial
areai that 'the commercial uses at tt~is intersection would prasant ~xtremely
hazardous traffic conc~ition~ 3ue to tile angle of Savoy Avenue to state Coll.~ge
Fioulevar.d and lt would be neceasary for commercial traffic deairing to enter the
property to make a~eries of. righ~ turns within the residential area. (See
Resolution Book)
On ro11 ^.all. the foregoing resolutic~n was passed by the £ollowing yote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ,A'llred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, ltaywood, Ro,~land,
Saymour.
NUES: COMMISSIONF.R:i: None.
ABSENT: COMM[SSIONERS: None.
CaNDFTIONP.L USE
PERMIT NU. 1399
BE ATTACHED TG A
described as: A
corner of Euclid
feet on, the east
Avenue. Propert;~
- PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM J. WETHERN, 606 South Arden Street,
Anahein, Ca. 92802, Jwnert requeating perm~.ssion ta ESTT.BLISH
A RETAIt, OP1'ICAL L'ABORATORY IN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENC~
WAZVI~IG (A) F'ERMITTEA USES, (B) ItEQUZkEMENT THAT AT.L SIGNS
BUiLDING FA~E, AND (C) TYRES OF SIGNS PERMITTEA on property
rectanqularly-ahaped parcel of land locsted ~t the northeaet
Street and Alom~r Avenu~, having appruximatd frontagee of 51
side of Euc id Street and 85 feet on the north aide of Rlomar
preaently c:lassified C°O. COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE.
No ~ne appeared in oppos:tion.
.n.
~
MINU''t`Er ~:I'~Y PLANN:CNG CnMMI8SI0N~ Mey 14, 1973 73-302
CONDITIONAI.. ~~S~ PL~RMIT NO. 1399 (Cuntinue8)
Althouqh the Itepart to the Commia~ion wa~ not resd st the ~ublic h~arinq, it i~
r~lerred tn and mede a part o! tho minutee.
Mr. William Wathern, thn petiti~nar, ind~cat~d hi• pzoeen••i t~ nn0w~er qu~st~ons,
notinq r.h~c i~~ had invest~d S6,U00 iai th14 proparty which hacl b~en an oys~oro to
tha nei~hborlio~dr ~~hAt rh~y l.ab ~:ovarad n very •rrtsll s.rea of the buil~li nq, anQ
the oftico was uoed very lirtle, anJ.y whon he was Qoing hi~s bookwork~ that thmre
waa a waiti.ng ~~ro~ where+ pec,ple wait~d to hnva their qleosea rreseni ed tn them~
end thak tho main ei•esa would be for thrao olLic~ae ~nd etoraqc~ arun, e~nd poealbly
fo~ le+~er rental ue+ae permttted .in the C-Q 2ond only.
A letter in lavor of tho ~rr,poRed usE wae read to the P~anninq Commiseiun by the
Commiusion 5ecrotRry.
ChdirTan Seyma~ar. .i.nqui.red whoL•h~r thia waP foxmerly th~ Wig Par?.or, and Mr.
Wethern eteted the Wlg Parlor waa on the oppopi~e eide uY his proporty.
Chnirman Seymour then ir~qni re~: ~hy the pe+tikiunor had invested all of thia mon~y
without hav~n,y tl~«1 proper zoc~inq, and whAevar had sold tlio Fro~c~r.ty to him ehould
have ~old him of r.hie1 whereupon Mr. Wathwrn Ktnted it w~ zoned C-0, a~ d he had
bea~ running his laboretory Erom his qarage, and hin ~U:3111E1`7N licen+~e ha8 beon
rorawed~ that at the t.ime the property wae sol~~ t~~ t~im, if. wae C-O asid Che buai-
nese license had been to do opll.cal work in the r~eic'.enco, however, a~ the time
of purchas~ oP t.'e pxo~erty, he Aid not have a retail u~Q planneb and this wae
purchased for uso as a res~dance.
Chairman ueymour inqtired of the xcrlty ~syent ~•~ethez she was familiar with the
zot-ing procedurea of thc ~ity of A,Zat~eia.
M~ Shir].ey Weiner, 60f, SouLh Eu^lid Street, appearod bafore ~he CommisalUn ancl
st+ated tnat when the patition~r purchased the property t-e ha~ advibed her it woulu
be the same use as wae pe.rmitte~9 or. the Arden Strei;t prcperty, at: wh.ich time he
was licensc,d to do wholesa].e o~tica.l ~ k in i:he garage, and since tti~a hnme was
in tne ~amc tract, she did not feel tt~,:re wou~cl be any opposition.
Chairman ~oymour noted thr~t the petiticndr was opera'ting under. a home o~.~•upation
permtt when the lice:nRe :vas renewed; whor~eas the proposed use wa~ certai~~].y nut
a home occupation.
Chai -man Sey~"uur further r~oted thxY. fine pAtitioner claimed he spent con:siderable
mone~ and he hoped r.hat na cne h~d to].d hin that undex the existin~ ~oni.ng the usa
c: ulc : e ox' wr~uld be permitted.
TFlE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Gommissiarier Farano offered a motion, s~conded by Commisaionez Allred and MOTION
CARRTED, that the Planning ~.ommiRSio~z, .~ n connection with an exe:nption declara-
tian st~tus rFquest, iinc~s and deter.mine.s that. the hroposal wou~~i have na yigni•
ficant environmenta] imFact, and, :t;er fore, r.er.ommFnds to the .ity Council t!iat
no EnvfXOnmental Impact Statement is neces_,iry.
Comm~ssioner. Herbst nffered Resolution N~. PC73•-101 and moved for its paseage and
adoption to gr~:nt Pe~ti•~ion f~r Conditioral ~se Permit No. 13y9, in pa.rL•, qx'anting
~ai.var of the permi.tted uses on the ba~is that aimilar uses had ~een agproved in
thia general area i:z the past, and the prc+pos~3 use wauld not be ir-comnatiblF with
the area; thht waivers from tt-e requosted Sign Ordinanco are nerab~~ denisd on the
baeis that grantiny the siqni.ng requc~sts would be granting a privilege nat enjoy6d
by other C-0 uaea *_hrou~Thout the City: an3 that signing ehould comply with the C-0
Zone requiromentst and subjer.t t~ conditions, amending .:ondit~.on No. 5 r~quirtnq
ttiat the signi~ig shrll be in contorr~•.nce with Code requirert~enta. (Seo ResolutiQn
S~ak)
On roll call the forego!ng reao~ut.ic.n was passed by tho follcwing vote:
AYESs CAMMISS20hLRS: AllrAd, Faranc, Gauer, fierbst, Kaywood, Z~w1And; Seym~ur.
~tOES ~ COMMISSIOt3ERS : None .
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
.~...
•
MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISFION, Msy 14, 1973 73-303
CONDITIONIIL~ USB - PtJBI.IC NEAR.LNG. Glt!-Nr M111iNIER COMPANY, 17291 S~~vin~ Boul~-
PERMIT NA. 1390 vard, Tuetin, Ca. 9268u, Own~rt FkANK HESSANIIUER, 6401
CiteAel Drivo, Huntioqtur, Beach, Ca. 9~64'l, ~qent~ requ~otin~
permieAion to ESTABLIfiII 11 HBBR BJ1k on pzoperty de~cxib~d ut
A r~c~.angul~rly-qhapeA pnrcel o! lnnd con~i~tinq o! eppraximetely .2 eore~, hav-
inq a frontaya ot sppi~oximately SO fa~t on th~ ~a~t ~ids o! Euulid ~treet, tiavinq
a maxlmvm dspth of approximately 18]. f~ et, and beinq locatsd apprc~ ' mstaly 115
feet north oP the ~enterli.ne ot Tedme~r 7-venue. Pra~erty pre~sntl. ~~laesilied
C-l, GEN3R11L COMMu*R(:IAL, ZONE.
On~ ner~~n indicat~d hib pze~ence in op~o~ition.
Chairman 9eymour inquire~t ~~f L•he opposi tion whot.haz he cere~ to heer. rha reading
oP tho ststf report or would he waivo w ai.8 readingi whrzeupon the oppooition
e~.ated he w~u.ld waivo eaid readiny.
Althouqh tha R.enart to the ~~c~mmie~+ion wae not read et tha ~ublic liearlnq, it ie
reFerr~ed to a~~~ made a p~rt o~ the minutee.
Mr. Frank Neasenauar, agent for the pa~itin~er, appo~red bePore the Camminei.on
a>>d n~~ted that he and his wiEe had pur.chesed the baor bnr and did -~ot know it
waa not zonad as such~ thah they wera the third owner of Che be+er ber, and it
was former.ly a fieh and c:hi~e facility which we~it bankr.uptr that thei.r present
aperaL-ion wae not eu~tecl to do what was required ~indar the originnl con~itional
uae permit, a'lthough thFy caul.d ht~ndle n very litkle amaunt of counter ~pace,
since the cookin~7 apace had bpon takec. out and the aquipment soldr that this
woulu mean, i.f subje~t petition Yrere not approvod, te+sring dowa the Qxieting
.;~lls and reworkitig th~ fdcilir_y to change it into en oper~tl~n of incidantal
ealo o£ 1 aer with the aervinq of f.ood.
MX. Kei. D1:1s, 420 Sauth Guclid ~tr~et, repreeenting the owner of the property
to the nortls, apgeared in ~ppoaition, noti.ng that Lhey had been havtng conaicier-
able prablam~ with cuatomara of the su~ject proparty~ that under Chapter 18.64.
030(b) , oi~e oE the requized ahowinr, • oi a conditlonal uae permit was t.h~t j.t
would nat e£fect the aajoining l~nd us eu or tho peece, health, safety, and
general welfarej *.hat they had found a number of cdre p~arked in their dr~veway,
anQ many times those care park.ed overn ight, parking aczoss their driveway~ that
beer bottle~ aere broken on their proper~y end papers wera atz~ewn al.l overi that
four burylsries hnd occurred during th e pasl: few rwnthe wh'ch might be attributed
to the nosaible niqht life~ that they 21nd to epend over $800 to mdnd the damage
done to the buildinq and the walli th a t sinGe tha baar bar rad bspn pstublished
at thie location, all of thei.z• probiems geemed L•o have occurre.d, and approval
of aubject pekit~on would be a.9verse to their ogerationt that he knew *~+e pressn*.
owners oP. the be~ ' bar ~oere unaware tY-at it aats not soned for the salc o c beer
in conj~anation wi~h ~o~d, however, Condition No. 5 0! the reaolution approving
the~ canditional uae permit .~tir~~~lated that the beer would be ~o_d in cunjuricti z~
witk: ~~~od, erid thia operated fur. abuut a year thett it cloaed down, fer eiqht9e
monc'~ they ciid not do anything theres that in accordnnce with ~~cti~n 16.69.0_0
(c) , under which the uae was oric~inall~+ grantod, the us~ ceas~~ to exist slightly
m~re thAn e yenr eftc t wa~ qranted, and the~ exiehin~7 uae of the {~roperty was
nontr.ary to th~ ter.ms c.. ~ ~' y approved, there£orn, bocau»e the use was detri-
me:-tal to the area and adv- y affecting th~: adioining land us~s, the ozi.gin.,~.
use pyr~ai~ under which the e of beer in conjunr.tion w~' h the serv~ng of food
~hould ba terminated.
Mr. Hassorisuur, in rebuttal, stated tt:at t:se opp~aition '~n3 indicat~d that tt~e
tzash came lrcm t~ia Qropprty, howevar, th~.~re ~~ee e D~l Taco restaurant next iloor
whiah wee n drive~in reBtaur.ant, ~nd becauav ~.nu Oal Taco ~eople f~it the papera
wer~ being b.~wn onto the b~er b~r. p. o( ercy, they were a~ointainq khe '~eer bar
prapeity and c+ccasionally they fc und beer bott7ea on the property, ho:~evmr, there
had been r.o c~~nplaint as t~ nrise fram the apartment houae behind him, and they
would bti prxmazily r+ffec' 3, ~nnd no ona had indicatod as~.y op~ositloa~ r.hat the
Hsalrh DepArtmant hzd qivcn hi.m A cl es aa bill of ~oaltl~ ..o being ono of tho claan-
eer ba~rP :n Andheim, snd to ,~ate thare had been n~ pe.lice~ r~port ur dieturbance
fi.led aqainat them; dnd, ai~ally, ho had invas~ea hie life sav~ngs nf S15,OOu
into th:~ operstion.
THE lIEARING !~`S CLOS.",U.
.w~
•
MINUTEB~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Muy 14, 1973 ~3' ia~A
CONDITIONAL U9E PBRMIT NO. 1390 (Cnntl.nund)
Zoni;~y ~up~rvirnr Charlee Raberta edvieod the ComnAaRion tha;: I-ubLic Worke
qirect<~r Thoznt.on Pierewll wanted Co be pla~~d on r~cord s~ b~ing a tim~.t~d
partnar oP t:.e petiCioner, GrHnd Maxnier.
CGinmli~ioner Oauer note3 that the uee of the prop~rty h~d ~ nnq~d c~nsiderably
Prom what th~ Commisi'~on had originAlly approved xher~in the earvi~,9 ot boor
would ba only incidental to the eorving ~! Pooc1.
Hr. Rober~a further notpd that Uu31ey Frank wes the known cwner o! Grand Mcrniert
that it w~o oriqinally apk~ruv6~9 for An Altie'a F'ieh and c:li:pe ra~taurant, and
t1-sy compli~Q with the inci~i~ntf~l sa].e o! be*z With lood since ~iMl~~l~. 25~ o!
tho Per,ility wae kitahen ~~ lit:iae, haWAVer, ainaA t2xen a- trngedy fl! orrora had
uccurXOd, ae far e8 ataff .. a cunr,erned, howe• ~r, the pxoperty nwr-er wae fully
awdre at th• outsek that any buslneen th~t wa•~t in thera mu~t comply with the
conditiannl uee permit thac had beon approver fc r 9erving o! beor in conjunctio~
wtth load.
Chairman 3eymour noted chat thi~+ appeare~d to b~ vary cle ~r it should not be thoze,
but what did one do when people had inveeted 1:hej ~ 11te savinga in a piece of
property, and then inquirad whether the property ownex had been edvised regardinc~
~he vio.ldkiont wheraupoii Mr. Ruberte atatod that when tha conQition++l u~e permit
qrentinq o~.-eala beer with t.he aexving of to~d wae af~~t~r~vec~, th~ petitioner, a«
well an hie aqerit, received the mailed copiea of the zesolution in which eaid
rasolution eta-ted very clearly that the sorving o! beoz wauld be only inci8ental
to the serving oP faud, en3 th~t Mr. pudley Frank had eigned the original request
for Alfi9's E'ish and Chips, thereFore. he wae tully nwere at the requirem:,nts.
^ommisaioner Kaywood i~iquired whether o.r aot. tl~e Commidelon could approva subject
p~ti.tion Yor tha extent of i:he lease on the prog3rty.
veputy City P.t:orney Fr_ank Lowry noted that this could n.~t be done witheut runninq
afoul cf the ~ivil Code oP the State of ~' ifornia, however, a specific tlmo
limit.arion could be es tabliahed.
commissi ~er Faran~ otfered a motion, sec:onded by Commisoionsr Kgyw~od and
MOTION CARFIED, L•i~dt the P7anninq Commiasion, in connection with an exenption
dectaration etatua requeat, finde and determines that the propes~~.t would have
z~o aignificant environmental impact, and, thereFore, recommenda to tho City
Councll that no ~n.vironmental Impact 9ta~ement is neceasary.
Commisaionex Herbat offered Resolution No. PC73-102 and moved for its passage
an~ adoption to qra~it Petit fon for Condir.i~la1 Us~+ Permit No. 1390 ~or a period
of one yQar in order to determine wnether any adveres effects will result f:cum
the granting of tht~ pro~~oaed use, aft~r w-hich time consideration may bo ~.,iven
to whether the sse sli~~uld be extendecl~ and subject to conditiona. (Sc:~~
Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing re»olution was passad by the foltowinq vote:
AY~S: COMMISSION':RS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, KAywuod, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES : COMM'IS~IONEF.S : NonF .
AAS~NT: COMMISSIONF.RS: None.
VARIAl:CE NG. 25Q4 - PUBLIC HF.ARING. GEORGE C. AND .TULIETTE PAGE, 730 Sarbonne
Rc*.d, t.c;s Angeles, Ca. 90Q~4, Owtieret KE*INETH W. HORNE,
2084 South Anaheir~ Boulevard, Anahalm, Ca. 92805, Ag~r-ti
requebti~-g WAIVER OF (A) REQUIkED MhSONRY WAY,L AROi1ND OUmDOOR 1J~ES AND (8)
MINIMUM FRONT ~ETBACK TO CONTINUE 4~lRE Wf~OLESALING SUSINESS on prcperty deecribed
ao: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land conwiet~ng of appror.imately 1.27 ~creo.
having a frunCage of approximately 38~ feet on tt~e east eic~e of AnaY,ei.m Bouievard,
heving 3 m~tximum deptii o~ approximately 220 feet, end ~a~i.ng loc~.ted ~spproxim~tel.y
420 Feet north ot the c9r.terline o.f Oranga~oo~l A~ar~u~. Property pre a~n±ly classi-
fied P:-]., Lz~HT INAUSTRi?1T,, ZONF.
No onE appearad to repxesent the ~etitioner.
-- -- -- - ~~
.....
~
MINUT~S, CxTY PLANNING COMMxsSI~N, ~day lA, 197 3 73-305
VARIT.NCE N0. 2504 (ConCinued)
DiecuAeion wss hc~ld by thM Commi.~rion relativa to ths roqu~~t hnd what:h~r <~r not
it rhouid ba cone~tAared.
CommiaNionax Fernno noted thet it wae hie opinion thet a 6-tont a:a~onry wal7..
Yhou1Q be requir~,3 b~~au~• o! the :ocntion ot the praperty anQ tihe t.ype of
husineer thak was + eing conducted, and screenizzq should be very thorouqh bcc~:+uPe
o! tri.e.
TNT~ HEARING P1AS CL09ED.
Cummlaeione1• Rowland otf~red a motion, ae~oo~ided by Commiesion~er Allred and
MOTI~N CARR.*ED,- tha~t the Planning Commission, in connwction with an exemption
daula,catiun eta~Cus xequaet, Cinds snd determinae that the prupoeel would have
no significanC environmental iu-pact, and~ theraEare, recommenda to the City
Council that no Environmantal Impnct StatemAnt ia neoessary.
Commissioner S9ymour offerAd a motion to deny F'etition for vari+~nce No. 2504.
A~~or lurther diecuaston• Commi~nianar Seymour with8rew hid motion.
Commieaioner H~rbet afterad a motio~~ to dpprove aubject p9tition subject to
providing elatted £ei~~:ing eurrasndi ~ this development.
Co:-t1.n~ied disc :eion wae held by kh9 Commi~oion xelative to the propoeal, and
upon ite conclueion, Commiasionar Herbst wtth drew his motion for approval, and
Commigsi~oners Rowlan8 and A11red withdlrew their moti~ne ~eqar3lnq the axemption
declnration stAtue request, it being determined tliat the peCitione• sti~~uld be
prase»t to anawer. c~ueetiona whi.ch the C~}mR,i.esion had.
Commisaioner Kaywood offered a motion to reopen t:h.~ hearing a~nd continuo con-
sideration ~f Pe~it3ar. .`.or Vari.ance No. 2~04 to the, moeting of May 30, 1~173,
in order f the petitionec to bp preaeat. commz.laioner Fnrxno secondecl the
motion. MOTION CARRIEU.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC " ARING. ROBERT L. AND RTFIEL L. WE7'2LER, 1533 Buena
PE1tMIT K0. 1397 Vista, :.~t. A, San Clemente, Ca. 92672, Owxiezst PETER J.
MU~CARELLA, 2954 West Bal 1 Road, Annheim, Ca. ~ae~a, Agontt
requesting permission to ESTAALZ3H A RESTAURANT WITtI ON-SALE
SEER AND W3NE IN AN EY,ISTING SHOPPING CENTER on property deacribed ae: A
ractanq-ilarly-shape3 parcel of land consis~:i ng of eQ~roximetaly 2.4 acres,
i~aving appsoximate frontaqes af 277 feet on t2ie eaet sidd of Beach Boulevard and
378 foet on ttie soath ylde of Ba].1 Road and being located approximately a~ the
aou~heast corner of Aeach Boulev~rd and Ba~l Road. Property preaently cl~ssi-
fl~d C-1, GENERAL ~OMMERCIAL, ZONE .
No or.e appeared in eppasition.
Althaugh the Regort to the Plan:iing Commiesion wae not read at public hearinq,
it ia ze~erred to and made u par~c o£ the m'.nutes.
Mr. Peter Muscarell~, th~ agent for t;~e peti tioner, inclicated his preaence ~o
answar questions.
THE IiEARI~IG WAS CLOSEA.
Commissinr.er Gauer inquired whether or not ttaa shoppinq center tonants approve%'
of. this reataurant with th~ sala of beer and wine and wo;~?.d thvro be a b~r;
whereu~on Mr. Mudcarella atatod that thi3 woul~' b~ an Italian reataarant and
no bar wag plannod, and then in responae to c~uee' ioninq by C'oinmieefoner Xaywood~
n~ted it wae a alt.down re~taurant having 8~ seat .
The Commiasion th~n inquired w:~ethFr the petiti~:-er would at~tpulate that there
would be n~ bar and that Che ser.vir~g of bcer an' wine wou18 ~e in conjunction
with the ae.rving oP food, ~o whick~ r~r. Muscarella replie3 a~firmat±vely,
eti~lating thak there w~uld ba n~ bar an~ t2ze sezving oi beer and wine would
be; conjunction with the :.erving o£ food.
eww
•
MINi1TFS~ CITY PLANNII~G COMMrS8Y0N, IMay 14, 19?3 73^~06
CONDITIQNAL USE PERM'[T N0. 1397 (Continued)
Cammi~eionar Al1re4 o!lerecl a motion, escondeQ by Commi~~ion~x Gsu~r anQ MOTtON
CARkIFD, that the PJ.e~nning t'ommis~ion, in conneckion wiCh t~n ~xsmption deolars-
Cion etatus zequest, lind~ and d~esrmi.nes thet the pro~oesl Mould hav~ no eiqni-
lioant environment,al in-pac~, an~5, therePore, zecommend~ to tho City c:ouncil the~
no Environmentsl Impack Stat~ment io n~cea~~ry.
Gommiesioner Fr~rAno oftarad Re~olution No. PC73-lA3 and movAd for ita pao~dge
,.nd adoptlan *.o grant Petition kor ~onditionnl Ua~+ t~ermit No. 1397~ ~ubject to
conditione and the etipulation o! t.~a peiitioner thst there would ~w no bar end
the servi.nq o! beer and wine wauld be in con~unc:ti~n wi~' the •erving of lood.
(See Resolution Book)
On r.ol.l call tho foregoing resolution wat+ paeeed by tho fol.lowinq vot~:
AY~S: CAMMISSIONER:': Allred, Fareno, Gauer, HorbeL, Y~ywond, Rowlsnd, Seymour.
NOF.Sc COMM2SSiONEFtS: None.
ABSENTr COMMTSSIONERS: None.
Commieaioner Rowland left the Council ^,hamber At 5:40 p.m.
TENTATIVF MAP OF - OWNER/DEVGLURER: ANAHP:IM MEMORI.AL HCISPITAL~ 7 11 wr~~t: Tt+
TRACT N0. 8320 Falma Avenue, Anahei.m, Ca. 92801. ENGINEER: r4~Daniol &
~ ~ssociatas~ 500 "C" North Anahc~im eoutevard, fi.naheim, Ca.
.+lt3l~`~. Subject tract, ccneisting of approximat~sl; 11.4
e~cres, is pruposed f~r converaion into two t'-C, COMMERCIAL
OrFICE, 20N~D ~.ots.
Cht-irman Seymour noted that subjec*_ tract was a rec~uiremen~ of +,he recldsel.£1~
cation o£ aubject praperty, ~.rid that since Environmental Impac~ Re!~ort No. 89
had heen adopted se t:~e City :.our~cil's Rnvlronmental Impact Stat~+ment, that the
Commissiun miqht wish to zeaffir.m this previoua ad_ption.
Comniiseioner Ka~wood oCfered a motion, s~~conded by Commiesioner Herbst and
MOTION CAItRIED, tiiat in connection wit~l~ the con~id~ration of Tentative Map of
Truct No. 8320, the Pl.aaning Comm±esion recommendv to the Ci.ty Council zeaf~-
firmation of their pr~vi~u~ adoption of the Environmentnl Impac~t ~tatement as
bet forth in E:L~t No. 89.
Com~i~isa~.onor Kaywood of£ered a motion, seconded by Com~:iisa~_oner Seymour and
MGTION CARRIEI~ (Commisaioner Rowland being absent), t~ approve Tentative Map
of Tract ~lo. 8320, sub ject to tha following condi ~ions :
!1) That shauld thia subdivision b~ dev~laped as more than one sub-
diviaion, aach subdivision thereof shall t~e sur ~itted in tenta-
tive form for approv:.1.
(2) That $l.l lots within thir~ tract shall b~ served by underground
utilities.
(3) That a final tract map of sub~ect prc.perty shi11 be e~ubmitted to
and approved by the City Council and then be r.e~:~rded in the
affice of the O.range County Recarder.
(4) That drainage ~f sub~ect property shall be diapoaed o~ in a
manner that ir~ satisfactory to the City Engin~~r. ~
CONDITIONAL USE PUFlLIC HFARING. GYBSON ,REc~TING CAR~,S, INC. 1500 South
PERt1IT NO. 1396 Anaheim BoulevaXd, Ar.aheim, C. 92803, Owne j WALTER K. NEILL,
~ 2121 Campus Drive~ Suite C, T.~ine, Ca. 92664, Agents request-
ing permiasion to ESTABLISH A FRiVAPE EPUCACI~NAL INSTITIJTION
IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAI, U3E on prope:~ty degcribeci as: A rectangu-
larly-ahaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Cerr+tos Avenue
and Ar.aheim Boulevard, aving frontaqeg of approximately i070 feet on the aaut.h
side of Cerrito:, Avenue an~l 550 fe~et on the east slde of Anaheim Boulevard.
Yroperty preaentlx classified M-1, LIGHT INDCJSTRIAL, 20NF..
No one appeared in opposl.tio:~..
Al.thouqh the Report tc the Commfesion was not rPad at the pub7.ic heAring, it is
refasred to and taade a pazt o.'. the miautes.
~
~
MINUTI:S, CLTY PLANNING COMMIS9ION, May 14, 1973 73-3U7
CONDITIUNAL USE Pi:RMIT N0. 1396 (^ontinu~ad)
Mr. Welter Neill, aqent tor the p~Citione*. op~ebxed betare ths Comm'n~ion and
s~ated that hs wsa quite proud oP the la~t L•hst the City of Anaheim would ha~~~
P~pper.din~ Univer~ity School of LAw intox'aatol ~.n locetinq in Anahoimt Lhsti
thers were 1100 parkinq ~r~ues nvsi~abl.a !~r koth thc Gib~on argsnisation an~!
thd 1nw oolleqei and G~~nr wh~+n tio was on tha~ Anehe.im eeautitul Cummittee, the
Gibaon Company war givsn tha awartl !ax tt~e moo~ b~autiPut .'.andecxping, ae well
a~ fur drehitectur~.
THL~ HEARTNG WAS CLOSED.
C~mmiesionAr Farano offered a motion, ~eGOnded by Comm~aalonor Kaywood an.1
MOTION ~ARRiED, that the ~~anniaq Commioeion, in conno~r~011 Nith nn exumption
declarrcti.on wtatua requeet, linda e-nd determinera that ~ ne propoeal would heve
no eignificant environmentsl 1mpaCt~ and, theref.ore, r•co~emenda t~ the City
Council that no Envirnnmentel ImFe-ct Statamen~ in neae~sary..
Commi~sioner Herbet otFered Resolution No. PC7~-104 and maved for its paesage
and adaptlor~ to grant Petit:ic,n for Conditional Uee Yermit ~lo. 1396, sul~ jar,t
to conditiona. (See Rosol~~t~or~ F~nok)
On roll cnll Che foreqoing resalution was paased by tho P.ollowing vota:
AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allrad, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Keywood, Seymuur.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMI95IONERS: Rowland.
ADJOURNMENT FOR DINhER - Chairman 3eym~ur adjourned tho meeting for dinner at
""- 5:45 p.m.
RECONVF.NE - Chaizman pro tem Kaywood roconvened the meetinq a~
7:35 p.m., Commiseionez Ssymour bei~~y abaent.
EN~~IRONb1~NTAL IMIACT REPOR'P PUdLIC HF1~~ING. INITTATED BX THE ANAHEIM CTTY
rOR TLiE PROPOSED MOHLER PLANNING COMMISSIQN, 204 Eat~t Lincoln Avenue,
DRT~~G ANNE'{l4TION AREA Anaheim, Ca. 92805~ proposing that property
clescribed Aa 52U acres on the south ai~e of Santa
RECLASSIFICATION Ann C~nyon Road, 2B7 feet eaet of Anaheim Fi`lls
NO. 72-73-47 RaaB, descr~bc~ as "The Mohler Drive Annex~ ion"
be reclasaified froar the CpUNTY 80-Aft-10,~10G;
75-R1-8000~ R1-10,000~ 100-R4-20,OOP1 100-E4-
15,000; 1.00-C1-10,000 AND CH35 DISTRICTS to the CITY G ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICUI~TURAI.,
ZONE.
Planning Supervisor uon McDaniel r9vie~ed for the Planning Commiss.~ion the Env ron-
mental Impact Repoct on tt.3 Mohle.z Drive Ai~_,exation area, noting c.hat un urg ~cy
ordinance placin~ R-A zoning on the ~roperty was enacted by the City Council. at
L•heir meeting of Arril 24, 19731 that Rec~.assification N~. 72~13-47 would est.ab-
lish permanent City of Anaheim R-A zoning on the property; that Reclassification
Nu. 72~73-48 wauld establiah thc~ resolution of intent from ~-A to 12-1 for Portion
A; that Reclassifi.cation No. 72-73-49 would establish R-A t~ ~~-1 zonlny reaolu-
ticn of lntent on Portion B; that Roclassi~lcation No. 72-7.3-~0 would establish
R-A to R-H-10,000 resolut+.on of intent ~n Portion Ci a:~d Reclas=sification ro.
72-73-51 would eatablitsl•~ R-A to R-H-22,~00 zoning iesolution of ;ntent ~~ Portion
D. ~u,rthermore, that a revior~ af the submit~ed repurt by the EIR Review Commi.t-
tec~ at its meeting of May 1, 1973, reveale~ that the EIR f~llows Y.:e City's
quidelines to rno requirements for an EIR and ia complet.e ah an ir•fcrmative
docun~ent and thtst it was the~ir opinian that no aignificent adve:se environmental
~~pacta would reault trom thcs implementation of ttiese reclass•lficatior,s.
Con~misaioner Herbst offored a mntion, aoc~nded by Commisaioner Farar.o :~ncY MOT'.ON
CARRI~D, that the f~lanning Commisaion, in con .~ction with t.h~s ~i.ling o: an
Environmental imp~ct Repost on the Mohlar Urive Annexatic~,~ e-rea za:-ing finds
and determin~s that tt!e EIR Reviaw Committe~ determined ~hat the ropor~ is
adequate ae an informative document and followe the City's eatAbliehed guideZinQs
and that there would be no oignificant. Adverae envir.onmental impactcs anc?, thera-
fore, the Planning Commieaion recommenda to the Cit}• Council that sai~d report be
adoptea a.s the Council's Fnvironmental 7mpact Stat~ment.
~^
~
MINLITE5, CxTY Pt,ANNI'NG COMMI351~N, May 14, 1973 73-30p
ENVIItONM1~NTAL IMPACT RFPURT P'OR 'PHE PROPOSED MOHLER pRIV~? ANNElCAmION Axu). AND
RECLA9SIFICATit~N N0. 72~73-4? (Continu~d~~„~
Mx. McDaniel then reviewed the approximato ecreege o! Lhe Mohlar Drive Annexa~
tion whiali wae roaorded wi th che Co~znty R~oozdor on Apxil 5, 19~3, nating that
t•t~e area waA the eubject o! G~ner~l Plan Amendment N~. 125, whloh wae a~~provsd
by the r,ity CounciX on Ma~y 1, 1973, providing ~lor the ex~en~~ion of "d~i'mOllt
IIoulevard aa u eec~s~dary ertez~Al hiyhway trom La P~lms Avonua accc ~~a the Sanka
Ana River south to Santr. Ana Canyon Road snd c~rtn~lteh ita qenAra~l n~ iq=~~nent
as a hillsi.de secondAZy arteria'1 lxom that point ~outh to Canyon Rim ::~ad in
~ho Anaheim Hilla Plannod Community araai that Acceee Poi~r 1 Wr relooat~d a.~c~
the eetabli~ahment o! a new Accaea PoinC 9A was adopte~ on santn ..na Canyo~ 1tuAdi
th+~t a pzaliminazy circulation pla-n far 1~cal, puoll.c and priv~ate etreQts eouth
oP 5antR Ana Cdnyon Raad betwet,n Anaheim Hilla Road and Mohlbr Drive wn~ also
adoptad~ and that e ma~ority oP tlie area w~~s i~~ the Scenic Corridor Ovnrlay
'Lune which wae eatdbliahed by City Council ~r.d •~nce 2929, June 7., 1971.
No nne appee-red in oppueition.
'Pt1E, HEARING WR3 C~ n9LD.
Mr. Mc~nniel rioted that the subaequon~ realneeification petitio~s would e~stab-
liah a re~olution of intont to the proposed zone subject to conditione similar
to those e~tablish~d wl:en ps•ogezty had M-1 zoninq propoead or where C-R zc,ning
proposed.
Commiestor.ex Gauer inqui=ed as to the projeceed populdtion for the entirP area
unde.r considoratiant whereupon Mr. McDaniel atated that baaed upon tho zones
propo~ed and iri accord~~ce with tha etnnddrde of the zanee there would be
approxlmately 3700 ~e~ e for t,~e 520 aares, or. two dwelling units per acre.
Gomm~eaioner Narbst noted this would bo leas chmn 1:hat ,;.rojected for. Anaheim
Iiillsi whe~eupon Mr. McDani.el repl.fed that thq density ~vnula be leas !.han pro-
jeatc~d for Anaheim H111e.
Gommissioner Rowl.and nated his firm repreaer~ted a client who owned aume ~roperty
in this area as consultants, an:t inquired whether he should paxticipate in the
diecusaion~ whe:.eupon D~puty City Attorney Fraak Lowry recommended that ~:ommis-
aioner R~wland refrain from participatinq ir- tsny specific .:oning in which he was
a r,onsultant, but that he could participate in thd general zoning to R-P., as wtl11
as thc~se ~.n wh~.ch he was not affiZiated.
Commisaioner. Herbst inquired whe:.her the amended condition regarding drainage
affected theae p•~pertie$ - the condit.ion on which tho Commisaion took A~tion
earlier in the CZRyl whereupon it was noted that no 3nvelopment would be ~ccur-
ring in ~he R-A Zorie, bu~ where considerable grading would be done, this woul~,
qenerally apply where a tract map ha3 bPen fi.led and where property was uphill
or on the top of hi'lls whi.ch would a£fec! ths downstream pro~ortie:~.
Commissioner Rllred offPr.ed Re+solution No. PC73-105 and moved f~r its ~aseage
and adoptior. to recommend to the Ci~y Councll tY~at Perit•ion fer Rec;lassif.ication
No. 72•-73-47r ~atabl.iahing R-A zoninq o~n Che prpperty~ be F.pproved uncon~l.-
tionally . (See Resc,lutfon Buok)
On roll <-a11 the foreguing res~lution was p~~sed by the fol'.owing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONEltS: Allred, Fa,xano, GaLer, Hecbat, Kaywood, Rowl.anc7.
NOES: CUMMZSSIONERSs None.
ABSE:IT: COMMISSIONERS s ~eymour.
RECLASSIFICATIO'~l - PUBLIC HEARING. TNITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CI•iY PLANNING
N0. '2-73-48 COMMISSION, 204 Eaet Lit-coln A~~enue, A~naheim, Ca. 92805;
proposinq that prorerty ~escribed as Por~ion A, an izr.:qu-
1arl~-eh~ped parcel of :snd con~istinq of aporoximat~:.y
31 acrep- hr.vinq a froa~tege uf appxoximately 185t) feet on t'~o soutt, ~ide of
Santa Ana Ca~yon Road, havinq a maximum depth of appsoximately 1410 fesr., and
bsing locateQ ap~roximately 287 leet eaet of ~he centerline ot Ana,:~im Hille
Road, be reclassifi.ed fron: the R°A- AGRICUL'TURAL, ZONE to the R- 1, QD'E-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
w
•
MI:IUTE9, CITY FLAN'NING COMMISSTON, May 14, 1~73
itECLAS3IFICATiON N0. 72-73~A6 (Con~inued)
73-309
P1 nninq 3uFervieor Con MoDaniol noted ~haC sub~ect. petiti.on wa~ Co estdblish a
zaenluti.on of intent to R-1 ~coning, psrmitting 7~0~-equara loot mla•lmum lot.
~isas in an aLOa that app~ared to be moet nppzapriate due to th• ~lsr terrain
~f the land and becnuae the zone closely ~PProximatad tha ~ounty A~ninq.
Mr. Ron Mara~ila, 204'2 Santn Ana Canyon Road, a~~poared beto:^e the Commieai~n
and nntd3 khat }~ wns one of the oWnerb of e 12-acrd parcel along Santa Ana
Cenyoii Roed nnd that he wae in lnvor o! thn proposed zoning.
Mr. Ray Marailo, 7043Z Santa An+~ Cenyon Raa~, sppearea b~tore the Commiasion
+snd notA~ that he aas in ~~nrtnerahip with hie brothnr~ owninq th~ 12 a~rae of
land, and was e-leo in f~ -r of the proposed zaning.
Mr. Melvin Millox, 1800 Ludera Vieta, i'ullertan, appeared bef~re the Commieelon,
noting ttiat he owned es 3~-acre parcel within the propoeed recldeni.Ei^.e~tlon
boundaries, e-nd h~ wns in Pavor of the propoeed ~Aning.
Mr. Cai•1 Ahrens, 20332 SnntA Ana Canyon Rond, a~~~eared betora tt~o Commieaion,
noting `-e owned a 24-acre parcol, the porL•ian wher~ nll of the Chrf~tmas trees
were loc.+L•ed, and he wae oppneed to the propoaed recl.asaiflcation aince hc:
wante8 a dift~rent ty~e oP zoning, pnzticularly eince they were ed~~+aent to
Anahoim H+119 which had boen granted more intonee zoning.
Mr. Carl DeGour, 20a2 Santa Ana Cttnyon Road, apFAa~recl before tt~e Commiss~.~~
noting that hia property wae adjacent to the Ahrana' prapertyt that he ha• an
~daement to Santa Ana Canyon Road~ that when he had diAau6sed his propert with
the Planning Department, ~hey had projected 43,A00 vehi~l.es per day ~or antA
~#na Canyon Road, and this .~ould ~~e aimilar to what tl~e Rivarside Freewa~ was
prior L•o being moved :...ith, thezafoze, htl would suqgeAt that same buffer ba
provided be~wcan 5anta :+na Canyon Road a~nd any eingle-£amily reaiddntial iase
fur ~bout a depth of 150 feet rather than having R-1 immediately adjacerit to
a heavily Y.ravel6d street, therefore, a more intenae zoniny shuuld be provided
adjacent to thia s~reetf tlia* the City v~as already expariencing probl~ma with
homes backing or~to freeways, and now wae the tirne Eor Anaheim to plan by putting
in b~~ffer zones ~u that pecple who puLChased property ~or humes could sleep at
nightr an3 then in response to Commission questioning, stated that ~e had an
easemQnt of 220 £oet and a l~i-acre aite.
Commiesioner Gauer was of the opinion that the property ahould be zoned R-1 and
thaC a buffering zone cou13 be establiehed adiacent to the highway, such as had
boen done in other areaa with a minimum distance of the building getback ~rom
the road and a berm with trees.
Co~nmiasioner Herbst noted that the Commission was not zoninq the property a*.
this time, tiowever, a rPaolution of intent would be established on the property,
and this wauld give the prospective buildera a tool to move s~ha~ad mor.e rapidly~
that if daval~pers were deairous of having somethinq o~her than thQ zoning that
wae proposed, they had that right to ask for it at the ttme of development - a
resalution of intent wae only one ~f the tools being affQrdecl For future devel-
opment of the properriesT an3 that ~he R-1 Zone would n~ be on the rroperty
until conditions were met when anocher zon~ wds reque~ted aRd a~pravNd.
neputy i:itv Att~rney ~'rank i,owry adviec,d the Commiasior~ thst tha ravised drain-
aqe c:,nditl~n adopted by the Planning C:ommiosion Qarlier in thQ dAy would apFly
to a tra~t :nap develop• ' on the pr~ ~ty.
Jffice Enqineer Ja,y Titue then read said drainay~ con,9ltion as amended and
ad.,~ted by the Planning Co~nmisaion.
Cammissioner Rowland advieod interested peraone that thia condition applied to
any p=~pc~:ty oan~r~ who wera uphill and planned to devulcp their property -
they ,:,~ist take ~:are of water f;-am their property to ultimata diapasal.
Commiaeioner :~erbaL• noted that hA would like ta advise intero~ted ~ereonn in
khe audienco, as well ae propsrty ~wnara, thd*. the, proparty under ^onaideration
was witrin the Scen!_c Corridur Overlay Zdne edoptea in 1~71, which r^quired
~
~^
~
MJNUTRB, C~TY PLANNING CQMMISSTON, May lA, 1~'1] 73-310
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 7Z-73-40 (Continuod)
•pecl.tic eetbecks along ~anta Ana C+an,yon -?oad wh~n development we• propoeQC`,
therefoz~, he uould duyysrt that pzoporty ownnrs u~~d develO~er.q revi~w these
requir~mar:i•.^ in datail brxor~ ~ropoeing any development.
Commieeione~r Rowland nor.ed that Condition No. 45 paxtai.nad to drninaqa i. the
hill and canyon nrea whic:h aoul.~i nnt permiC gradinq t~o ba dann u~:'tream ~y ~.ny
property awz~er ~, ~.hout th~ property owne_ providing th• solution of d~ uin~ ia
pr~bleme wt~ich w ulcl hnve to ae reeol.ved, and, o! couzoe, thie w~uld rilro fla-
pend uQon whether or not tiho Ci::y Council concuxra+d Nith the P~snninq Coma.ie-
aion's recommandod Condition No. 45 ot Lne intsrdepartmental Comp~ititee for
?ub11c 9afety a,nd Gener.al Welfare.
Commieaioner Gauer offered Reaolution No. PC73-106 and moved !or ita ~nnsege
and edo~tio~ to recommend to tha Gtty Council that Petition !ox Recleeai~icati~.ri
No. 72-73-48 ba approved, eub;ject to condition~, nwtsblist~ing R-1 zoning on thnt
p.roperty known aa Portion A o~' the MAh?.er Drive Anne~:+stiAn. P'artr~ermore, that
Condition No. 6 as set lortti in the Report to thee Commis_'.on 1,-~ amended in
accordance with the n~wly-adopted dralnage conditic~n by the i~i~+nning Comuine~.onj
~nd that ConditiAn No. 8 aliall be amenSed to reacl, "Tliat. pr.ioi t~ the sdoption
of an ardi.nanco reclxe~ifying the property or prioa- c:o af•~~rov~,l of a~inal tzact
map, whic`~evor ocoure laer., tloor plane and elevat:~~na for the propoee~ houaps
ehall be aubmitted to and approved by the Planning Commieeion and City Cu~incil.".
(See Reaolution Dook)
An ratl call the foregoinq reaolution was panaed b~y the f~llowinq vote:
RYES: CAMMISSTONF R3i A1?.+:ed, Ferano, Gauex, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland.
NO~S: COMMISSIONERS; t:~ ~.
ABSENT: CdMMISSIONER~: eymour.
RECLA~SIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. 7N7TJATED dX THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING
NO. 72-73-49 COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805;
-' ~ propoaing to recl~soify property dlescribed ae Porti~~x B
of the Mvhler Dz•ivo Annexati~n, an irr.egulaxly-~haped
parcel of lana c:~nsisting of approxlmately 8 acree having a frantaye oF 'k'Y=~~~
mate~y 700 fset on the south side of Santft Ana Canyon Raadt havinq a i:aximum
depth of approximately 4S0 feet, beiiiy- boui~,~ed on the west by Porti.on A from the
R-A, AGRICULTUI2AI., ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COt4MERCIAL~ ZO2JE.
Zoniny Supervianr po-- McDuni~l. noted that Portion B w~~j an 8-acra parcel propoeed
to be reclassifi.ed to the G-1 Zone~ that prior to annex~,tion, said p~rtion was
covered bf ~hree County of Oranqe zones, namely, EO-AR-l0,0UU, GH3S, and lU0-
C1-10,000r that tl-~e land use consisted of a single-family resi8ence, plant
n~~raery an~i a vacant s~rvice etation and restaurantt that the area was within
the study area o~ CAnexal Plan Amendment No. 125 which provicied for the estab-
lishment of a new ~+cceso Point 9e on Santa Ana Canyon Road at the eaetern purtion
of subject proporty and was appxoved by thd Ci~y Council on May ]., 1973~ that
Aubject property was loc,~`ed within the Scenic Carridor Overlay 2one, a1s~ adopt-
ed by the City Council ~n June 1, 1971= tha* subject •~roperty was designa-ted on
the Genaral Plan as a neighborhood ahoppinq centor, and tlie commerc.ial si.te pro-
posed would be consiaL•ent with thd neighborhood ehop~ir.g cc~nter dosigna.tionr and
tha*. it woulcl s~rve the aeeds of the propased sinqle-family reaidentia]. areas
wh~c:h aurruund the proper~y. Fuz•thermorc+, ihe rsason for deaignati.ng this as
neiqnborhood c~mmercial uses was bpcause of tne acceas Fotn~s ~.o Santa Ana Canyon
R~dd.
Mr. FrancAa Horw+~th, real oetate broker represen~ing owners of the restaurant
and qas statlon property, appearec3 befor~ the Commi~siar and Snquired ~rhether
tala propE. ty woulc~ zemsin ae C-1.
Mr. McDan'sl :~oted thst t.he County zone tor this waa CH35, and the City of
A~aheim wc.s proposing C-1, however, the etaff had not compared development
atandarde betw~en the County and the City of A~aheim zoning.
Conmisaionor AlJ.red noted that if anyone wsnted to upqrnde his propArty, he
wauid have to ~~et tho Sceni~ Corridar Overlay 2one reqt~iremer~ta, as well as
tYie cor31t3.o; ~f the reclaeeificdtion. ~
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANN'ING '.:UMMTJSTON, May !', 1973 73-311
RECL~ASSIFICAT70N_~0. 72-73-49 1Continued)
THI: HEARING WA~ CLQ3L*D.
C,~~ma siunar Allred not•ed that thobe peopZu havin~ commerc~~l zonit~g under tha
Cc~~~nty on their property ehould underetand thet becavae ot t11e 0~»eral Plan
Amendment No. 135 cov~ri~~g circulr.'..:~n ii~ thie area, it would b• m~xtremely
c~iEficuZr. to approve orher c.han the pr~pose~ :onlny, ever~ thouqh a~oning
~aquent might be mndo.
~ ma~ies.tone ~ FAran. ~~f'fered Rer~lu~ion N~. PC?? -107 end maved !or ita pasea-qo
a,~d ~doptinn to rc ~ommend to th0 Cit:y C•~ncil. epproval of P~Citlon !or Reclaeei-
iication No. 72-73-4~ estnbllahinq a re•_.lution ~f intent to C-1 zoninq !or
Portian R af tho i~ohlex Drive Annexetion nree~~ Aubjecl tu cunditiono. (Sne
Rosoluti~~ Buak)
nn r~ll cel~ the foregoLnq reeoluti.on wae paeaed by tho followirq votac
AYES: COMMIL'STONN:RS: Allrect, :• ^rano, Gauer, tierbst, Ka-y~aood, Rowland.
NQEG~ COMMI:tSxONERS: None.
ABS~;NT: COMMISSIONERF Seymour.
RECLASSIFICATION - P'IAI,IC H~ARING. TNITIATr'D BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING
Np, 72-73-50 C~~MMI3SION, ~04 Last Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92605~
~~ ~ p:~poainq kh~t properCy described ae P~rtion C~f. tho Mohler
Jeive Annexd'tiun, an irregulsrly-ei~rped F~arcol of lanc~
conc~atinq af appXOximately 59 acre~, havi.ng a frontaqe ot appraxlmately 1615
~eot on the sou'ti~ ~ide ot Santa Ana Canyan Road, having ~ maximv*~~ dcpth o.f
approxima~ely 1^ feeL•, being bov~ded on the west l~y Portion D and nn ~h~, esst
by Mohle ~rive, be reclasoified f:on~ t.~e R-A, AGRICULTURRL~ 20NE to the
R~Y.-1G,000, RF,SIDENTIA~ tIILLSIDC, ZQNE.
Planning Supe~visor pon McDuniQl noted for the Commission that auh~ect prope:rty
was immediate3y east oi the C-1 portion, having £rontage along Santu Ana Canyon
R.oad extcn~iny a.il tha wa}• to Mohler Drive, containing approximately 5'~ acres,
and the proposed zaning was compazable to that previously establishad ~r. the
County .
Mr. Phillip Joujon-Roche, Preaident of ~anta Ana Canyon ~roperty Owners Aeaoc~.a-
tion, appe~red befoxA the Commiss~ion and atated thst as tihe Commission wae av~are,
tE-e intent c,f c:ze Oranqe Unified School Digtrict was proceeding to acquire by
conde~nation a portion of Poztion C, ther9fore, their graup w+~~ zecommending
that the portion not proposed for the junior high school sitc. bC inclu3ed in
P~rt:on D for one-half acro, hillsid9 zuninq because it wab a cont.iquous psrtion
of the aroa on the map mark9d in green, and with the schoul proc:oedirq to break
off one portion, it would make sgnse t~ placo the balance in Portion D€oz• the
R-H-22,000 2one, :*ith Gal Giorgio Road being the dividiaq ],ine botween the
school parcEl and the balance of the propert~~-
No one appeared ta represent the Ae]. Gic ,l~ pronerty.
Mr. Dirk Bedford, 21112 Mohlez Plnce, appeared ~efore the CommisaSon and 3tated
h.: was the only resi~ient in that arcn snd woulu +~.rgantly recommend that ~.his
include his property into tho are* marked 1n green for F.-H-22,000 i:onlxtyi that
the new hcmes adjacent to the property that weze being built on the Del Giorgio
propexty were a minimum of one-half acre, wi~h som~ having ::wo acres~ that many
p~ople owned horses, anc3 they wanted to be included in the one-half acre zoni~ig.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowzy, in responso to CommiBeion questioning, Atated
thut the ~_vmmSesion could zcne property for n losaer zoning than had been
advertieed but not for a zaning that was. 1Qore intense, and c:he recla.asi£ic+~~i~n
in connectian a3.th thie zoninq wae for R-H-10,000, therefore, the portion eas~
of Del Gi~rqio Road could bo deleted from the R-H-10,000 Zon- a-d p'aced in the
R-H~22,000 7one since tho latter wAa a l~s~ intenae zone.
Mr. 5tewart Moas, 21~63 Santn A^^. Cr.nXon Road, appearad before the Commisaion,
noting that he also rapresented~ the ~+~nta Ana Canfon F'z~per'ty Owners As~saciation
snd indicated they had slide^ wnich ~.ney har' taY.~n of the area, not only c,f the
axea under coneideration but the a~jcining proF~=rti~e a.•~d the gr.een area- which
....
~
77-312
MI!JUT~"8, CITY YLANNING COMMLSSTUN, May 14, 1973
Rt~'CLASSx1~ICAT70N N0. 72-73-50 (~ontlnv~d)
w~~uld illuetrete wh~t th• pzoperty own~re in the area were hoping cou19 be
aacompliel~ed by present~tnq the general develo~ment of th• a-xna a~ it- preeor-t1y
exiato~; that it wes hup~d ths cnreyon Noc1Q develop ne theaa~ pici.ures w~uld
depict~ end that thio would bo a uni.qu~ oppurtunity !~r th~~ Ci.~y o! Analteim to
develop ~n ostate-typ• e-rea, a~nce hn would hate to soe chanqee mad~ to nn a~reR
that wa.~ deve~.~ed es nowhere ols~ ir~ tho City at 1-aahmim.
ComMis~ionez Farsno inquizud whethur Mr. Muse ~rrns in opposltlon co Chs d~reiq-
natad qreen aren ~nd hi~ slido preaenta~tion would bs in euppo~".. uC tha~t~ whe:a-
upon Mr. Moee exated thst he waa in levor oP. the R-H-•22,000 :.un~ w.th ~- rosolu-
tion oP intent, r-nd thfl pioturee would preaent etr~n5 nhuwings ir~ the fu~ure
when oth~r zonee wi~h highar deneity wer.e requoat~d to be 'tnaludud, thsrefore,
they would like to aee ell that portion oE R-N-10,000 eAat o! Del ~~i-orgio Road
be incluSed in the R-H-22,000 Zone resolution af the azea, which WOUhuolewas~irh
nppzoximr~taly one-halt ucre, zoning on the property, at~d einco the
aeparating the porti.vn waet o! De1 Giorqio Road, th.l~ would 14eve one :~rea Gon-
tiguoue to the proposad R-H~-2~,000, end this wou13 be ai~ ideal opp~~xtunity t~
presen~ to the Commisoion to impresa on them what had bean develapad tn th~ ared.
The Commiasion obaerveci tltet they had alr~ady viei.ted thb +~rea and know r~hat it
looked like.
Mr. Mose noted that it was his cp~.nion thAt t:~e R-H-2a,000 Zor-~ wae moRt idcal
ior the araa~ wteeroupon the Cammiesion noted that Averyone had a ri.qht t.o z~sk
for a morQ intense zoniny, ~nd '-~ wuu.Ld be up to the Cammiabton and City Council
to determina whether or not the r~queat was appropr.•iate.
Mr. Lowry, in reapcnse to ~ommlasion q~iestioninq, noted that to h~s kn~wledqe
thero had been nA condemnation proceadinc~a init.ta~ed by tt~e City o~' Anahe~.m on
the property on tt-y w~ak sicie of rel Giurqio Road, laowever, thi• could have
k~ee:i the Oran~e Unlfiod School Diatrict cundemnatian proceodi.ng.
Mr. Oti:o Henning, 20Z66 Santa Ana Can~~ >r. Ro~td, ~ppeared before the CommisefAn
and noted thst thy awi~or of th~ ]7+ Pcres af ~a~d belor~ed ta Mr.. Del Giargio,
and he sho~ald be prae ~t and ::eazd regard'_nq rha rroposal, therefore, he would
au~geat thati thia item be continue3 4n;.i1 Mr. Dol Gi.~rgio rouZd bA present.
Mr. Sam Uaylord, 7^61 Del Gi~rgfo Roac~, appeara~' bafor.e the Comm9.asi^n and noted
that Del Glorgio Roail wai~ an accesa road and inqulred what would happen to it~
tha~ it was pxQSOnt1}~ lined with eucalyptus tre~:s and waa a pleaean~ place tc~
qet i.n and aut of~ tY.at ~he B~Bford property was a one-half acre pak~el l~ft
For Mr. Del Giorg_o's dau~hter, therefore, he felt *.hat the requeat before the
Comniss3.on to ex~_ude that portion of t'~e pr~perty east of Del Giorgio Road
would be iri order.
Mr. Bob Haitbri^k., 2~371 Mohler Plac , indicated he waa vezy much in ~avor of
the R-H-2~,000 zoning.
Commisyioner Hexr,st observed that perha~s Mr. Del Giorgio t;iaught hie prcpert•1
wc,uld b~ zoned ac~ hia prQVious zoning since it was advertised t~ bo similar as
County zaning, but perhaps the Commission miqht wish to conaidar giving him an
oppoxtunity to review this.
Mr. McDaniel not~d that ~.he porti~n east of Del Giorgio Ro$d had E9-22,C~00 and
15,OC0 xoning in ~ho County - not R-H-10,0~0, iU,000-square foot lots.
•PHE HEARING WAS CLCSED.
Commi~sicner Rowland inr~icated he would abstain from any participt~Cian in
Rec?.assifiaa~tion No. 72-73-50•
Commias:ioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC73-108 and moved for its passage
3x~d a~option to recommend to the City Covncil that Petition for Reclesaif±c~tion
No. 72-73-50 r,o approved, d9leting that pc~rion of }~e property enst o£ Uel
Giargio Roac3, and aubject ta aonditiols. '(See Resolutton Hook)
On rol] ca11 the foreq ~nq rt;olu:iu.= w'as passed by '`~e following votea
AyE~: COMMiSSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauar, Herbat, Y.aywood.
NOES: COMMISSIONETtS: Nohe.
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: S~ymour.
ABSTAIN: COM:NISSIOi6ER5: 2towland.
w
~~
MINUT~9, CITV T~t~ANNING ~UMM.:SSION, May 14~ 1973 73-313
RECLAS5IFICATION rLIC HEARING. INITIATEQ HY THR ANAHEIM CITY l2LAtiNING
N0. 72-73~51 .:OMMISSION, 204 t*.aat Lincoln Avenuo, Anahoim, ~a. 92805~
-- propoaing t!taC proparty aescribed aa Portion D o! che
Mohl~r Drive a~nfi~xatiote, rn irregulxrly-ehapad paro~l af
land eouth oP Sant.a Ane ~dnyon Raad, npproximately 15(1 feet oeot of Anaheim
Hillu Rosd, conaiating af approximately 422 acree bounded on the norC::~a~t ~nd
ea.t by the city ).imi.ts~ r.he ~outh by khe Anahelm Hil].e Planned Commu~ity, and
on tt~e north by Portiana A, 9, nnd C, with r+n eaet~to-wort ma~cimum dimunsfon
oP approximately 7f,00 last, be real~-e~if.ied L•rom the R-A, ArRxCULT~tUL, ZONE
to the R-H-22,000, RESIDENTIAI, NILLSIDE, Zt~NE.
Planninq Supervisor Dcn Mai)eniol rev~3wed rht, luaatian of tha propaxty and thd
proposad zoni.ng for ths praperty, no~:i.ng L•hat it coneiated ot.' a majority o!
Che Mohier Drivo Annexetian, and that the zoni~~g uore nnar~y appraxime•~oQ the
zaning the praperty t~ad while ~ndex tlie jurisdiotlon of the C.~unty.
Mr. ntto Hen~ninq. 20266 sante Ana Cnnyon R~ad, nFpeared before the Commiseion,
no.:ing that he~ hac~ 37 a~cree contiguova t~ Anat~6i.m kl~'lls, and he wae inetrumbntdl
in ha~vinq the County 20,OOU Diatrict eRtablfal~ad on the propertiers in the
Mohler Drive Annexation because the County haci advised him thie should Le ~he
zoi~ing i! tia did not wmnt chickei~ ranah ~ ta loca~e in tho are~ - tY~i.s wa~ the
r~aeon fox tt-e 20,000 deeigna~tion along Mohler nx•iver ho+aA~~er, MohlF.r Drive
was only about one-third of the qreen area, and na<<~ of t.~~e peuple eout.h of
~hat area balonged to the Improvnment Asanci.ation with wham he had talked, a11.
indicest3.ng i:hep did not ~,ant ~he I~-:'- ~2,000 Zone, ~particulr~rly thase who were
contiguous to Nnaheim Hilla, who had been nermittea zoninq of 3 to 4 and up to
7 to 8 unite poz rcre, dn~! some o~ the lota were as amall as 6000 aquare feeti
thst he wa~ about 1000 feet from the golf cuurse whers higher dennity was b~ing
~roposed adjaceiit to il~is 1000-Poot strip; that he had s plan propared on which
hocnos were propon9d which h~ had oubmi.tL•ed to 9evelopers, anci thes~ developere
had advis~d him that the lots and homes were too larqo and it would be best to
t~velop ~hQ property with ~ownhoueoa because there would be 'tov;nho~ia9 on the
Aneheim Hill.n prop~rty. Furthezmore, tha Santa Ana Cany~on Improvement Aeso~ia--
tion could have their 22,OQ0-aquare foot lots, but ta conaida:: extending this
al1 the way down to the o~uth end of the annex9d portion w~as unfai.r since he
did not feel they ahoul.d be ~ayinq taxea far thoir prop6rty and not getting
some return.
The Commission noted they were interest~d in ma.intaininq a low density far the
area, although some of tha azea of the annexation had been considered und
appro+red f~ r a t~lightly hiqher denaity than one-half a-re estates~ ths~ the
density of Az-aheim H112s overall was only t~p~+roximately 3+ units p9r acra, and
if this coe;ld be retained in the canyon, this would creata canai"zrable epen
epace, however, the Commiasion would cAnaider a xequeat for higher densitiies
but this di@ n~t mean i.t would be considered favorably sinae 6 tc 7 units per
acre tor the Henning 37 acres would be a gr9at deal more than wauld bo ctpprop~i-
dte for the area or that had been grantQd in Che past in Anah~im Hille.
Mr. Henn~ng noted that he, too, was not in favor af flattening 'he hilla out as
Anaheim Hills was doi.nq, but to4~nhouses could be built wi~hout cutting dov;n the
hills.
The Commission noted that Ai~aheim Hills had to cut the hills in order to get
even the lower density they had on the property.
Commisaiorier Allred inquired whether Mr. Henning would conaiddr the R-H-2?,,000
Zon~ until such ~i.mo as hQ proposed develapment of his propertyt whereupon
Mr. Henning stated he w~uld b~a amenab].e to R-H-10,000 zoning.
Chairnan pr.o tem t'aywood no~ed that an article ap~eared ~a one of the local
papers on May 13, 1973, regarding Villa Purk wh~rein there were 29 homee priced
fron $75,000 on up, which were put on the market and were sold ovt immediately,
and even the bu118ers were amazed that theee homes went so q~ickly. There ar~
n great many people who are lookinq for half-acre aitAS and are wi.lling ~~~ a~and
a great deal of money for e beautifui area that i~ gres~~.
~
~
MINUTEB, CITY PLANNIMC COMMISSIO~, Mey 7~4, 1~73
RECI~ASSIFICATIOl7 N0. '72-73-51 (Continued)
73-314
Mr. Chs.rlea TArxy, reel esta~te agant, appeares bs~ore kha Commi.~~:lon rsprese-~t-
ing Ms. Jemrae ~ankine, ovrner o! the 2S-e+cra par.cal adjaaent to thE Anaheim Kil.ls
proparty, and etated hia cliants were aldn intier~~Cqd in hlgher d~+t~eity ah,a~n
b~inq ~roponad, po~seibly i200-•cquare ..oot lote oz ~v~n ta townhouoe density and
cluatere on 10 ncres, with tlte balanoe o! t,hs ZS-aaxe p+-raal be~ng left in it~+
nature~l stater and thnt he wauld be in aqr.~e.nont Mith Mr. H~+nni~~q's at.~tement
oP 10,000 ~quaro Yoet zon,in3 or eomething lese
Mr. Philltp Joujon-Rucha, 21527 MohYer rla~cs, apvcared bdlore thc~ rou-m'BU4on ~r~~
atetmd he would like co etert hia preaenta~tion ahowinQ where thg homc,~s wa.~a
located on the mag, and that altihough they had a sli.de rre~aAntr• :on ta ofter,
it wuuld not b~ prA~unt~d aince the G~mmiseion Nas very frimili _ wi':.`+ ~.ha area.
Mi•. Joujon-Ruaho hen presented his ma~, indic~~ing tfio varicue are~s, notlnq
the location of the ach~e]. e~its, indioatinq tlie groen dota r~~resented homdc
on one-helf acre or more airos, anS 80 or -nore of th~ea homea were clustered
eround Mahler DrivP and Mohler P11^e, t~hile s~ill otherA w~ze locuted on ~el
Giorgio Road; tha` these were lots oF very low dansity~ chat thoy roaJ.i~ed thnra
were a number o; l.arqe arQde own~d by Measrs. A~1 Giuryio end !i<<ning, as wel]
as uthara, who msy not feel as concerned about retainlnq a].o~N density for khe
ar.ea, but hQ wouyd liko to puint out to the CommiNeion chdt G~n~:-a~ Plar~ Am9nci~-
ment No. 122 cal].ed for law dens~ty in Sanca Ana Canyo.~ ~~uth ~.~f h.he riv~r and
low-modium or medium d.enaiL•y north oE the ri.ver~ tha~ hiqh ~ieneity wae now be••
ing developed raorth of the rivert and that he relt th~9 wtsa an flpp~rtunit.~ ~:o
establisr a reeol~kion of int•ent which would uphold edid Genera.l l~lan Amc~ndment
fnr low dens i ty .
Mz. Joujon-Roche then reviewed tht various h~Laing developmanta approved in the
past few montha oti the Budlong, Aanker, 'Liheric and Audlong, and Yarba prnper-
ties wharein mure than 180U units were pr~~ve~ed tor npprox3.mstely 42S acre~,
whi.ch provided an anple 3upp1}- ot R•1, R-2. and RS-500U zoned 1lving unit~t
that the R H~•22,000 Z~ne was a very sp~ciat zone oreated far the hillside area -
theref.ore, he ~+a~ild suggest tha:: tho City start using i~. In ~tddltion, the
t~tal of Santa Ana Canyon under the City of Anaheim'a juriad~ction wa~ 16 squaze
miles from the S~nta Ana Mountaina r3dgeline to Esperanza Road, havir nAwhick~th
o£ 8 miles, and what was under disct~ssio:i was a very small 4U0 ac:'es
they were not asking £or the world, however, this Santa Ac a Canyon e_ea was very
u;-ique, and the City Council and Planninq Commission l:ad indicated n the past
that it was ur-ique by setting up the Scenic Corridox space~, circula .ion plar-,
etc., to assure that this would remain a unique area~ that there w+s a definite
market for one-:.alf acre eetates, as Chairman pro tem Kaywood had r~inted flut,
using Villa Yark as an example, whicli waa doitig quite well, and sir.ce Villa
Park's k,uildiag permit.s rangec~ fr~m 52 in 1962, 45 in 19fi7, 29 in 1969, bur in
1972 they had jumpad to 54~, h~wever, not all w~re on~~half acr.e lots, some
were onR-third a,id one-fourth acre lats wh3ch werp acljacent to Uranye, and Villa
Park was now ru~-ning out of deairablg land with tr.eas on it, t~nd builders who
had been auccessful in Villa Park in the past could becoma intnrestQd in looking
at the Santa Ana Canyon araa, even Mr. Hennxng's land, for pasaible c+ne-half
acre aites - these were just a few pointa to corsider., anci the area had consider-~
able beauty .nd the residents of the aroa wantel to maint~sin ~ame of the atmos-
phere of the Santa Ana Canyon now exic~ting.
Mr. Bud Whitten. 5U9 North Bradford Place, Placentia, appeareS before the
Commi~sion and tndicated where his pra~erty wae lor.atoAt wher~upon Chairman pro
tem Kaywood noted that a r~ssolutidn ~f intent t~~ R~tl-10,000 r.~i been approved
for his property.
Mr. Whitten then stated that hia taxea had 3one up 2000•, and at hia age he did
not have that much ti~re to wait for ona-hal! acre e~tea to be deve2o~edi that
hc~ would like ~to see anyone who wae intereated in one-half acrF aites to see
him after the meeting~ that he had not evan received oftase for amall lots, much
~eas 22,000-square foot lo~s~ that. his taxes e-nounLnd tc~ $2200 a year, and he
would h~vu ta se17. his property becauae of thAae taxes, therofore, he would like
tc see th.is property maintainad as 10,000-equare ~oat lote etnco chere wbre ao
ma~ny 5000-aquare foot lota, although lte did not fnel many people wanted auch
:asqe lote a8 R-H-22,000.
~
MINU:FB ~ CrTY F~GIINNING COMMISaION ~ Mtlj+ 14 ~.1973 73-31'S
RlCGY.l1qSIFICIITIQN N0. 72-73-51 (Cont.inuad)
Mre. AarbNra I~Ieitbrink, ~1371 Mohtdr Place. appearod be~fures the Commiesion and
Mtatwd L•h~-t ~h• war ano ot thoee "ahichena" whc~ l.ikad tho 22,000-Aq~xara l~ot
lok zon~, thsro~cre, she wea in lavor of that zone ~ince ehe planned to .li~~o
out the reat af hsX lif.~ in that area.
Mrs. Berber• I.arsor~, 21425 Mahlor Place, a.ndica~c+d she wae also i.n favor oP
the~ 22,OOA-squ~ero xoot lot zoning.
Mr;~. A.npemsry Ortronder, 21362 Motile P1aco, indict~ted she wa~- alsa in favor
ot the 22,000-YQ'~1dY8 Eoot lot zoni.n.,.
Mr. :itawazt Moas, 21463 Santa Acia Canyun Raa~, appeared before the Commie~ion
and nokad the~ h~ had Gne additi.on~l i~.em to brinc~ to tit-e Cammissio~t' e att~n-
t'on roqardiny tho ea~abllshment of the R-N-2'l,OQO z,one, and that waa that he
h~sd tel.knd with Rod Gacket~, ttie Coordinat:or of tho vreenbelt Cummi.ttAe for
Or~nge ^ounty, who liAd ir~formad him that thc~y had planning and rosearchi.ny
going o~, a~d whilo they had 9G.H figures, the finnl fiqures on coet••be+nefit
r.Agarding 3enta Ana Canyon an9 Silverado Canyozi portions of Orange Counky would
not ba e~~~ailable until later in the year, hc~wever, those fiyurea he did t~ave
indicate~i that i.f hc~ had an opportunity to pre~~ont thi~ before the plannlnq
G~mmieeion and City Council, it would behoove i~kie C~.ty ~f Anaheim to tnov9 Very
c++rafully at~d elowly until these f.acts and fiqiires were in, ~ince tha C~ty
tn_~ht find thle deneity miqht ~ot be what thay iiesired, and the concErned
Citia~+ of Orange, Villa Park 1r~a Anaheim may }iave differetit ~~ast ChaC obvi-
o~iely his organizntion wauld like to sr,e lowar deneity zoning, and thie would
ba the thinq t1~a atudy might show, however, there: might be mitigutin~ factoro
to conf~idor, th~ere~~re, he would st.ggest that rhe z~ning be establishnd et
R-N-22,000 Aince tt.ia would prove t~ be mare of a h~lding xono far. much of the
ldnd, mnd i! Vii].a Parlc could sell homes at the price they wera, thQn alftez'
t1-ey n~ lonqet 1'.ad any propex'L•y to build, pepple wou1~3 ba com~.ng Co the Santt~
Ana Canyon ar ee~ and that he wr~uld hope the Gommisuion would move wi.th ae~ution
rogard.i,ng any dc+velopment. in ~unta Ana Canyon.
Mr. Henning agnir. appaarr:_. b~:for~ t}ie Commission, ^~~t~nq that it wa~ his opinion
kliat Port.ion 0, which h~~: G~7 a~res, should bF broken ~~~ into several seceiono
wher4 oeveral ~er.si~;~~z cuu~d be permitted; that he wa~ in favor of ona-half
acre sitee, but when ona consider.ed o~her ~roperties~ fuw of L-he people lived
thora, n~ t l.i.ke himself who ~wne.t 37 acr:;s and Mr. Del ~iargio who owned 69 acres,
eince he~ diA °c,t feel it w~n fa.lr to assign this type of:' zoning pruposed f~z
hie proparty. ~urthermore, when tlie Mohler Drive Annexation was proposed to
come ko thp City of Anahei.m, those re~idents on rioh? ar Drive had advised him
that they were wi.lling to ~iave 7200-squar~: fo~~~ lot;,, h7wever, h~ did r.ot feel
it yhou?.a R11 be in the same zone.
Commi~Fiane~r A11rHd ob3erved that the R-H-2"L,000 Znne wouYd only esta~lish a
ceaolutidr~ of intent for the propezty, and if any property owner wanted s more
intenr~e zone, he could f3.le a rec]assification gor aaid zone.
Mr. ,tamc~a Stroop, 4127 Weik Avenue, Dell, appeared bef.ore the Commi9sion, not.ing
that he h-~d 2 acres adjacent to the R-1 property on Porticn A, and sin~e it was
~t~rt o£ n]..f~tle valley, groposinr~ 22,000-soiiare foot lota for his propsrty wauld
qn2.y givu him i- yleld of 4 lots, however, he still would be b~ckinq up t~ R-
1 ot~ which A maximum of 4 units per acre wuuld be p~rmitted, theze£ore, he f~lt
hia property, since itc was ad3acent to this p:'op rty and was in +:he valley ad~a-
cent to R-1 property, shouid also be ~oned R-1.
THE H~ARTNG WAS CLOSED.
Gommissioner Harbat was of the opinion that perhaps the Commi~sion might con-
oider ~ step-up zone raCher than having 22,000-square ~oot lots for this en~t~re
proporty, euch as R-2, RS-5000, R-1-7200, R-H-L0,000, ar.d R-H-22,000, and that
Mr. Stroap with his 2-acr.e parcel wocld be ~equired tn have R-H-22,OOU, which
aould be immediately a~iu:ting R-1-7200, whereas it would be more appropriate
Co ha~ve R-4:-10,000.
a~~.~in,,.c~-.v ,+.~~
Q~ Kdywood waa of the opinion that terrain wouid dictate ;vhat t;ype of
9ansity would bo appropriate f~r that property.
s..
~
MLNUTR~, C7TY PLANNIN(; CONiF1I89I0N, May 14, 1Q7:. 73^316
R~CLASS.IE~'ICATTON N0. 72-73-,51 (~~ntinua~)
t;ommisei~nex Ne+rb~t nnta<°: thur he~ wou~d no~ a7ree with jitluwinq t.t-e tienniny
property to have ths eamc: typ~~ oP zoniny e~ Atidheim tiillu Rir~ce developanant
in thn canyon would be diot+.`ed by tei-ra.lrx, }~owaver, he wae also not in aqree-
ment with the Senta Ane Cany~n Propc+rCy Ownere haeociatiun and rvaidt~ntp on
Mahler Drivo who want.ed half°ncre ogtatoes to cover t:hia 4:2-ncce ~arce7. bacauee ~
t.here probably v+ne n neAd for l~ae hhan anc+-half parcels in the canyon, and man,y ~
peopl.a would wdnt. t.o have hill and c~ nyan env.ironment, perticularly tha~oa who
were rekired living i.n townhouoe~, ~hey ah~u1~9 bo given view lote ds well t~e
those tha~ wore nat roti.red, kt~erofora, he did not foel ~1:e~t 400 ucrea ehould be
ti.ed t4 on~ pRrticular zone becrzuse the.re was r.oom for everybody.
Commidsionex AZlred inquirod wl~ether Commi.seionei Herbat fe1L• that Portian D
rhouid bo cii.vid~d into eeceral zon~es; whereupon Commie~eioner Herbet ntatad
thet wx~ trua - thnt more then ~ana zone yhoul~ be r~neld~reA., and pexlnaps t.he
stepping ~ip in zon~ woul8 be the rtioat ap~xopi•iate.
Cht~lrma~l pro ~ei~~ I:a~w~o9 r,oted thak at~7ce this wa~ a reeolutian af inttnt for
R-Ei-Z2,OG0 Zone, the property ownere uould requeet e more intense zone latPr
on, t,oweve~, she iled yet to aee enyono askinq for d loaeQr d~nr~ity than tre
exieting z~ninc7 on tho prop~rt; , usually it wa~j Por hiyhnr density.
Commi~aioner E'arano noted ho wantod to clodr up a que~tion in his minc3 and
inqui.red ot Aeais~ant Developmer~t Services Di.reotor Rnnald xhompeon and Zoning
3upPrvisor Charl~a Roberta whe~her or not ~he R-H-22,Ou0 Zona wes in re~pon~e
to a request cf ~he Planning Con~mi.asj.om m~da eama time ag~ ta eotab'li~sh other
tltan flatland zoni.ng atandards for hill~aid~ clavelopmenti wheraupar- Mr. Thompson
s~.a~ted ~hat ~his was une of the zonde that had be~n de~-vloped ~ip to the present
ti me .
Commissioner Farano the» notdd that tl~ero wora aom~ development stanci~rde that
could not be applied to the hillaide a~raa•, ~heretore, hillaide standards
sh~uld be eatab].lshed for hi.llside zone~ becauo~ they we~e diffarer.t from flat-
land st.andards, such as was being used in AnAheim Hil?.s wherein maoy vari3nce~;
from the Code were being requerrted~ ~hat eventuellf tho ~it•y would have iiill-
aide zoning with standArds, ancl thie wou.ld ba ar.e~ more :.Uno that the City ;iad
IIOW wf.th R-H-10,000 and R-H-?_2,OOC~, with 'the R-H-?2,000 being *.he firnt si~n
of hillside zoning got.ten. ~o iar sinca ~ho l~et requesk was made ~~herein ~he
Commission wante~ more ~acitute with the PG Zone, *_herefoce, he fe?t that Y.he
Commi~sion ,ahould i-nt be tamperinq with what c~u:Ld ~e develoT~ed in the hilZei~e
axeas until theya hillsido ~one atan3arda were A~tabli~hod, paz.:icuiarly since
the Commi~si.on did not know what would be appropriate, eithc~ R-H-].U,000 o.r
R-H•22,OOOj and that he would recommend that the Commisaion accept staff'3
recommPrdation.
Commissioner Herbst nuted that he ~:no .i.n agresment witll the r,oncept, bu~ he di.d
:iot feel tinat the abu~tin:g proparty o!vnere ahould be raquired to have a ccn~-
si~ler.au~y less c7ensxty.
Cnairman pro tem K~ywooc? obaerve3 ~haL• From tlie new~paper ari:icle lt would
appear that the real pstate market wns rea3y to absorb upper pric.e homes fro~n
$75,000 up, and she had ~een over and over agAin where t;iese high~sr pziced
home3 w~re s.~lcl rapiuly~.
Commissioner Farano offered RHSOlution No. i~C73-1Q9 and moved for its passagt~
and adoption to recammend to th~ City Couneil that Feti.t{.on ~or ReclAR.sificat:ion
No, 72-73-51 be aprr.oved, which should include the portian east of Del G:orq3.o
Road previously considexed as parr. of Porti~n C in the R-H-22,UUU, Res.~dent.~F~l
Hillside, Zone, and subject to condition~s. (See Resolutfon Hock)
Prior to roll call, Commissianer Farano inqrzi~:ed liow long it would takn rstaff°
to present fuxther development standarde for hillside zonas~ since he l~oped
staff would not let down on thir~, placing the CLty Counoil and th~ Conmissiori
back in the same position they wer,e in the paFCt.
Mr. Tr,ompson noted that the c~tatf snd the Planning Commiseion would have to
h~tve a work session in the near Puturs~ that the R-t1-22,Q00 2,one was tL1e result
of th~ fact that aome zoninq Nae n~eded for t11e Mahler Driv~~ Annexation prope~•:-
ties, and it appeared ~h'_e xone aa~ t~nore apprapriate ttian the other hi1lP~de
.....
~
MiNUT~s, r,iTX t~LAN1tiNG COMMiSSiON, May l4, 197'~ 73-3t7
RECLA85T~ iC1-TZON N0. 7Z•-73-51. (rontinusd)
zoneu, such na the R-H-10,0~'~A end the R-L ZonM !or the pzopertie~i and that
tha r.~aeon why etat.f had not pro~~ntad any additional 1~illaiQh zdnas wa~
beaausA the me~arit,y of. L•he ~te-tf had bw~n ti.ed up with mee,ting S+_ate•-mandaCe~
c~nad]..lnea~ on Open S~ace, Redavrlopm~nt, and Housing Fl.emsnta, howevar~ wh~n
these were *.ekon enxe oY, then ~ts.tt would agai.n work on th~ ;~illai~le xonea.
On rall call tho toregaing reao7.utiUn wne ~aes~d hy tha ~ollowiny vote:
AYES~ COMMxSSIONERS: Allred, Farano, GAUe~x, Hesbot, KayNOOd.
NOESc COMMIgSTONERS: Nonh.
AB3~NTe COMMIS°YONER3 s 5eymour.
AHSTAINi COMId7SSI0D~ER8: Rowl~,nd.
RF:~ESS - Chai.rmnn pro tem Kaywood mov~d for u ten-minute receee at
9 ~00 p.m. ~
RECONVFNE - Ghairman pro t~m KayWnod r.~oonvened Lt;i: ~~~adking at y r'l0
"-'~"'- p.m. , Com~ni.s~ionere Allred And 3eymour L~oing abeent.
ENVTRONMENTAL - PUBL~C HEARING. INITTATED HY THE ANAHEIM CITY PT.ANNINC;
IMPACT REPORT COMMISSION, 204 Eaet L.inaoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 52805~
' ~ to consiQ~r s~- amendment. t~ the Gcr.eral Plan, adding a~
GF;NGRAL PLAN Redevelopment Element in accordance with hhe rhquirement~
AMENDMCNT t~0. 128 of Sectian 65503 0~ tho 3overnn-ent Code ~£ the State~ o~
Cal.~fornia.
Fl.auning Su~arvisor Dan McUaniol ydvizwed. the Envlroamental In~pact Roport for
ttie c:ommiasf~n, noL•ing +hat it hac3 been reviewed by tlte ~TR Revtew Commi.ttee~
thnt tha Redev~lapment Element of tho General P] an was propoc~ed because thA
Anaheim Genezal Pl.an did not have one and becaus~ State law require6 that
certain ele:nentc~ ba adopted prior to Jun:~ 30 ~ 1y75 by the Gity ~ouncil j t1~a1.
the Redevelupment Elem~snt was also required pri or to t:~e adoption of Proj~ect
"Alpha" ;*.hati the puzpo~e of a Redev~lopment Element wsa becauae af pra;c~c~ions
f.or rodevelopnent t.hroughout th4 r.ir.y Mherei~i six m~jor sect+.ona wer.e px'oposed,
and a de~~ript?.on uf the pragran that could be used in redevelopment was sug-
geste~ for the proj~ct area wher~~ typical densities weXe pzopoaed and the nead
fos redeveln~ment wae obvioucts and that a land use ~riteria had t~een aevetop~~l
to aeaist in implementing the pla~1 ~nd the implementation techniq~ae~ that wc.uld
be used.
lleputy City Attornay Frank Lowxy no':ed that this was a Gen~r~.l Plan Element
for the entire city requirpd by 3~a3:e law and was similar ta ~ Ci rcul~ti~n
Ele~rent or housing Element. etc.
Chairman ;~ro tem tCaywood noted that when a specific plan was ir•~raducdd, L•:tera
would be a pnblic hearinq on hhaC p1an.
Commissione~ Gauer requested tt~at tY-e boundaries of ^~he RedeJUlop:ner-t Elemer~t
be in~ii ~ated on the mag.
MY. HcDanie] then introduced A~sociai:e Plannez Chri.stian Hogenbirk, who had
prep~red the Redev.~Iopm~nt Element and who would he available :.~ make any
furt}-er F~restntata.on.
Commiasioner. Rowland noted that if n~ one was prPaent to preser.t any com.neZtary,
he would like ~:a clos~ the heAring on the Redevelopment Element of the Genexsl
Plan.
A w~man in the audienco inquired w:~at khe plans were to taka care ot . ~y o£
thc~se deficiencies.
Gummissioner Rowland note~~ tha~ th:: City ~f Anaheim h~d to adopt the Rodavelop-
ment Element of the Genera.l Plan as part of the 5tate law by a given date, and
the public hearing would not bo held until the need azooe which would esta~bl~lah
the framework of zeferen~e to eva.lu~te the problem areas and the study area
which encompassed a qreat majority of the City of Ansheim which had be~n con-
atructed over ten years agot and that the~ defi.ciencies aet farth in the report
MLNUT~S, CITY PT,ANNINC, COMM 'IS: ~ON~ M~y 14, 1973 73-318
ENVIRONM~NTAL IMPACT REFnRT AND ~iEN~R1~L PLAN AME;NDMEN'~ N0~,128 (ConClnuAd)
includod mtxed land uses, in~cloqu~te lot a~.~ne, +~reer~ 7ubje~t to floodinq. eqed
etru~t~:r.on, inadc~~uato property maint~anance, ir~auflioi.e~nt Nublic uCilitias,
ine~cq~~nte traPfic and padestrian air~ulation, ~'lel.ic:i~nk and dead-end streets,
l.mpa! .red ec:nnomie proAuct~ vity, and ~leclining proper.ty valuee.
T'H~ EiFARING WAS CLOSEp.
Mr. 1lagenr,ixk appeered be~oro tho Comm~s~ian and nutec9 thaL• the ttc~'levelopment
-~;lomont providad etaff witti a Pramework ot raforence to evaluat~ px•olba.am atioae~
xhat tk~~e Element qr~ve the Itedeve.topment C~mmfsoion n tool Poz z~ concer.tretod
ptan o! aution ae it related to thosc deficienuiee, howover, the~a wes ~no
epeaiFic yla~1 propose~l for ~dnption with thia ~leme~~t.
C~mm~c~a~~-nai• Ro,,,_~ and o~fere ~~ ~m...~ ,t~.~.n~,. secq~..r~~v Commibeior.sr Fa~rano nnd
MOTTpN CARRTEI7,~~ha~t th~r~ning CoMm y~s~un, in~aonnection vith tha filing
~F a:i EnvironmantnJ. Impaat Repart, finds t~nr~ Qet:ermi~~oa that tne IEIR Review
CottitniCtac.'3 report found the report to be ~dey4a~.a ub ai- informativa documenk
and follur.ed the c'ity's estebli.shec3 guidelines and there would be no significant
a6vc~ree environmontal impacta~ and, therefore, tha Co~.nmieeion recommenli~ to the
~ity Ccuncil t:hat sa~:.d report be ado~r.ad aa ~he Counc:ll's Envirorimental Impact
S tntement.
Commibaioner Rowland offc~red Resolution Na. PC73-110 ar.~ iaoved Eor i.te p+asenge
and adoption to adopt ~eneral Plan Amendnc+at No. 17A, astablishiny the Redevel-
opm9nt Flement nf the Anaheim Generral Plan and recomme~~ding to the City Council
of the City o£ Anah~im thst Goneral PZan Amenclm~,nt No. 128 be appravod. (Seo
Re~solution Sook)
On roll aall the foregoing reaolution wao passed by the [c~llowinq vote :
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gaupr, H~rbst, Kaywood. Rowlsnd.
NOES: COMMISSIONEP.S: None.
A~S~NT: COMMISSIONERS: ~llr.e~i, Seymour.
I`:iVIRONMENTAL - PUBL~C HEAFtING. INI7'IATED BY ',C}iE AN'1HEIM CITY PLANNING
IP?PACT REPORT COtiMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805i
-"'- to consider an amendment to the Hous.[ng and Rosidentlal
G~13ERAL PLAN E1Qment of the General Plan in order to com~ily with
AMF.NDMENT N0. J.26 Sectior~ 65302 of tlie Government Code of the State of
California.
Planning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the Environmental Impact Itepcrt on
the Housing Element of the General Plan which encompassed ail areas of• kho
City of AnahQim and its sphere of influence, being generally bounded by liolder
Street on the west; the Riverside L'reeway, ~rangethorpe Avenue, the kichard M.
Nixon Freeway, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad, and thp~ Santa Ana River on
the norths Gypsum Canyon on the 9ast; and Chapman Avenue +~nc: the ridgelino formed
by the Santa Ana Mountain.s on the south ; that thp a.r.ea ext:er~ded approxl.mately
4 miles in a north,-south direction and nearly 20 miles :tn ar.~ eaFt-west direction=
~nd that the EIR Re~iew Committee was of the opinion th+it nu significant adverse
environmental impacts would result from i:he adopt~.on oi tt~e E lement.
Mr. McDaniel then rfivie~•e~? ~:~e tious ing Elemeni:, notinq ~.ha.t the Ananeim General
Plan presentl~y had a Hnuaing and Residentia]. Elemer-t, and tYie proposal was to
amen8 L•his Element whic:t~ had .four basic ~ections pertainirg to Houaing and
Residential Element, Elousing Objectives and Policies of the Element, and
Implementation t~sthods~ and ':hat Assistant Planner Ann#.ica Ssintalahti woul~ go
into more detail or answer questions if the Cocnmission had any.
Commissioner Rowland requested that Misa Santal.ahi;i bri~3f tlie Commiasinn on th~s
~lement.
Mias Santa].ahti discu~sed the housinq issuea, noting thn~ there were two primary
iesue~ s one was the housing s~ructure, the age of the unit, wh~:'e overcrowded,
1:enant occupanay~ tenant ownership, vacancy, and value o~ tD~e ur_ite. Ths aecor~d
would be the age of the tenanY.s, emgloyment statistics, income and minority
groupst that there was a aiqnificant number of m9.nority residents in t- qiven
area which woi~ld be a problem in Anaheimt that half the homes in Anaheiin were
~....
0
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZUN, May 14, 19?.3 73-~19
ENVI1tONM~NTAL IM?ACT REPORT ,~NU GENl:RAL PLAN 7~MENDM~NT N0. ).26 (Continued)
over 11 yaare ol.d in 1970, an4~ ~Ypically, when n reoidence w~a 20 yeara old,
malnt~n+inae enrl upke~p ahould be p].ar:ned for beceue• deterioration stnrtedy
thet only lON c;t the homes wrre ov~r 20 yoare o1d, and thaee werH loceted in
L•he C~nter ~;it ~ Areet that thie wac~ e imi lai• to Pro jact "Alpha" oinaA elmoet
half tha unita .it~ tho nr'a wera moxe than 20 year• old~ that therc could be a
hc~us~nq problem becaiise o~ tha age of thbab atructuzee~ tt~et batween 1955 and
1965, xhe highaat pdredniagc c,i ~aal,:~:~:.~." ^'-r.y ~+er" bu1l':, ~nd within the
n4xt l~ to 2Q yearm, tliose home~ weet n~ th~ Senta Ana E'reeway wuuld roaah the
sarne aqa t~t the snme timo ttnd wou].d aleo rQach khiA de,terlacation fact~x, a~l-
though it wae nat preeent at thia timo~ ttiaC in ~971 t•t~e OzanqH Ca~inty ktanlth
Da+partmAnt oonductod a dwelli.ny unit aurvey nnd later did a moxe objectiva
study of. tho area, i.n which it was de tormined that thoee homes on Pett Si:raet
epgeer~d to be d~terior.•atirig, and this we~~ ~he ~ame nrea wher.e dwalling unite
weze mcre then 20 yQara uld, w1-ich wer.a ov~rcrowded, wh~ch m~ant more than one
perr~on por room, an3 thifl did exiet in Anaheim in concent;ratc~d areas. but it
wae fouad that Anahei ~., ~n the wholA, .1d3 vury f.^w r,ouaing prublems since lees
than 2~ of tho dwellinq unite W9L'8 oubatandard~ that only lOt of the housinq
wds more than 20 yeara ald= that the Ynedian dw~].linq uni~ value was $24,800 1.n
197~, with on].y 15i of the clwellinq units bai.ng valued at leas than $20~OOOj
~ha~t. one~half of the dwalling units w ers les~ than 525,040, and the balanca was
ov~r S25,OOUi that t.he rental values were $40 lc~as, with the averaga city-widA
being S137, and ~hat in the Center Cii:y being unde.r $100.
Miea Santulahti thdn stated that the popula~ion iasu t were most ~igr~ificant
aince ±n moat instancas the family income was a cril:eria of t2~e type of home
people could afford, and thu~e wiCli low~r incainea could not afford to live in
e-reas er.cept thoae which were de~erioratingi thnt tha minority groups w~ere in
this area because they were sufferinq from a lower average income; that 6~k of
the populatinn involvod el.dexly citizens over G5, having incomes that wexa Eixod
with n~ potenti.al tor mord money, therafore, they inugt live where they werQ and
cou]d not afford to movet t.hut l0a of those over. 65 li~ved in substandard condi-
tionst that the Mexican-Amer.icans li vod in the ~enter City Area, a~d they could
A15U be livi~ig under substandard oonditfar~s, arid some type of help should be
offered to this type; that tl~exe wexe four methocls a£ f'inancing ass:lstance, (1)
interest aubsidies for the acquisition and rehabi.litation ~f housing, (2) mort-
gage insurance, (3) proper::y 9.mprovement loans, ancl (4) leasQd F~ublic houainyr
that perhaps Anaheim coulcl not coi~~e under this cons:liieration because of the fewer
percentage that came undax' this cat•e gory, since low-CQBt housiny was for people
who could not improve their houeing situation and because there wero not a suffi-
ci.eiit number of homes to qualify fox' this type housingj that deter.ioration of
the home,a woul.d be one of the cor,si.derations, however, man;~ of these hames were
not det•eriorated to such an extent t21at they could aot be rehabilit~,ted; and
that the downtown area not only had substandard unita but also street conditions
and alleys and other us~s th~t ma~e this redevelopment as u solution to housing
problems ex.igting in Anaheim.
THE HEARIP7G WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rnwland offered a motic~no secondad by CommisEtoner :~erbst and
MQ'I'ION CAR.RIEQ (Commissioners Allre~. and Seymour being aos~at) that tho Planning
Commission, in corinection with the filing of an Env±ion~.aental Impact Report,
finds arid deternines that the EIR Revi.ew Commlttee's report founii the repcrt as
k~eing adequate as an i.nfozmat~ve documen~. and folluws L•he City`4 established
quidelines and that there would be no significant adverse environmen'ta1 3mpacts,
and, therefore, the Planninq Commission recommende ta the City Councii that said
report be adapted as the Council's EnviranmenL•al Impact Statement.
C~mmiss3oner Rowland offered Reaolution No. PC73-111 and moved for it.s passa.c~e
and adoption to adopt the Amendment to the Housing Element c~f the Cen~ral P3.an
and recommend to the City Council adoptian of said General Plan A;nendmenC No.
126. {See Rasolution Book?
On roll call the foregoin~ resolutio~n was passed by the io.Llowing vote:
AYES: CUMMIS~T~NERS: Farano, C,auer, :i~rbst, Kaywood, Rawland.
NOES: COMM7SSIONERS: None.
AASENT: CO6IMISSIONERS: A1;Lred, 5eymour.
~
73-320
MINUTL~:i, CITY PLANNTNG COMMI55TON~ M~i,y 14~ 1~73
ENVIRONMLrNTAL - PUBLI~ tIEARI[3G. INITlA'PED BY TI~C ANAHTzM CITY PL1~NNxNG
IMPACT REF~ORT COMMISSx(~N, 204 Fe-at i.~.ncnln Avenue, Aneheim, Ca, azaos;
""-'~y~ ~ to consi3er ar~ amondment ~o the Genoz'dl Plan by the addi-
OENERAL PL•~-N tion ut an O~~en Space and Conservati~~~: ~lemont in ar.cord-
AMENpML~NT Nb. 127 ance with the raquir~menta of ~~ction 65302 of the Govern-
~~ ~ mant Code or the Stnte nP Cal.i.fornia.
Planning Suparvlear pon McDaniel reviewed the Envir~nmentel Imp~sct Report on
Che Open SpACe dnd Cunsorvat~on k:l.omen!: oF the AnahAim Gencsrel Pldn, noCin4
thnt dll c~~.io~ w~re raquired by State legi~latinn ta ~repeze, +-~oPt, and eub-
mit an Open S~ace and C:on~erva~ion L~loment for the Gener~a], Plan by Jur~e 30,
1973i thst L•ha 3tate of CA11.fornia EIR Guidelines Qp•'~cif.i.ed that•. Goneral Plan
Elomunte ero sub jua~ to the roquirQment for preparati.on of aii F.TRi that thd
Reviaw Comn~itt~e rdviewed tlie EIR and det.ermined that iC Pollowe~it the City's
Guidel~ines to i:equirements for +~t~ Environmental Impact Roport and was complete
ae an informetiv~ document~ and that the Gommittou waa oE tha o~ini.on thaC no
t~i.gnif.icant ddverHe environmental impacte w~uld c~eu2.t from the t-8option of
this ~lement.
Mr. McDaniel then ~ioted that AssocluL•e Plnnnar RonAZd ContreraA, who had pro-
par.ed the Open Spacc~ und Conaervation ~lement, was Avnilnhle to make a pre~aenta~
tion and enawer questio~~s.
Mr. Cu~~creras uppearnd before thd Commi.ssi~nr~~n:r~oltaa •regcrvoirs thwaternwol)•s-
Spac~ p],an, rec.reation land, ~cenic landa, g
agricultural lands an~l soils were covered~ that under recr~ation~~l J.and reqard-
ing pazks, the City's pollay pr3s~+ntly provide~ 1.5 acies of neiqhborhood and
communit;~ ~arks f~~r each 1000 persuns, t-owever, in ta].kinq with ane of the Parke
and ~tacr~at.ion etaff inember.a, it app~:ared the invent~,ry of pa.rka was somewhat
out of ~ate anct r~hould be r.orr~cted i.n aome areas of th~ ci.ty ~ th~t it was k~ro-
~osed to increaso this acrqage irom 1~S L•n 2.5 acz~ss when ~he City acquired
property in the Horaeshoa gai~d area; and thst Anaheim Lako war nat includFd in
this i.nv~ntory becaixse this wa8 a wat~r reservoir area.
c;omm.issioner Row].anc1 inquired whether thi.a would be a p~liey or an invent.oryt
whereupon Mr. Contr~ras stated tt~at it was propos~ed to b~ an increase in policy
to 2.5 ncr~s af paxks for aach 1000 peroony, and this~~~~c~ark~ whi.chm
Lake and propert:y near Horseshoe Dend/~rak and ~1ve
would then br.inq Y.hiy up to 2.5 ~cz'es pPr 1000 popula`ion.
Conimissioner Rowland then asked that as the population oi' the city iiicr.eased,
would the P~rks and Recreation Dbpaztment look for park space that: wou18 oupport
the 2.5 per 1000.
Park Super3.ntendent Dick Kampheiner appeared befure the Commiasion and adviKed
the Commission that the ~resent policy of the City way ~o acquire 1.5 acres per.
1000 0£ neighborhood community park sites~ that in the staff`~ calculations
they had not .recogn~.zed the other parks which had 'neen acqui•red or leaFed or
proposed to be acquired, and these had n~t :,ean included in the 1.5 per 7.~00
poQulatxon s~tatez~:ent; that it would appear 1:hat ttie C:lty would F~robably attain
the 2.5 acr.ea pei 1000 populatian o£ tatal pazk lands, however, this did not
mean just con-munity ar inunicipal parkt~ ~u ~I~,,ahe ke should be considered
part of the park inventor~~~S~~rb Wells w~ich~e~~C~y' shauld utilize as a
rPgio~lal type facility~ that the 2.5 acres per 1000 popu].a'tion w~uld be mor.e
in keeping with what the C~unty had pro)e~ted as standaxd f~r cities within
Orange County; and tl~at the Parks and Recreation Departm~nt did recagnize these
extra plecas of land, therefor.e, thc:re was nu reason for ovezloaking thQSe sites.
Anaheim Stadium,
Mx. Contzeras furtr~er noted that two gclf courses, Ana.heim Lake,
Rnaheim Convention Center, ~nd Disneyland werF also in~lnde~ ial the parks inven-
tor~, although the Stadium and Convention Centor ~nd Aieneyland had uniqu.e
taurlet-typa facilitles.
Mr. Contrera~~ in reviewing the scenic landa, ~oted u~e~tietasPrriillsidesonq the
Riueraide Fre~eway and Santa Ana Canyon Road ha8 uniq. Santa A~na Canyon R~ad~
vegetation along the river, and eucalyptug trbfla along
that the City's Scenic Corridor Overlay 7,on~s ad~pts~3 by City Council re~olution
extendaa from the Newpoxt Freeway to the Connty ~.ine, and ar~ those prapertiea
anaexe~! into thQ city, ~they wnuld k~ave to comply witF~ the Scenic Corridor Over-
lay Zone requiraments.
.w.w
~
MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING CUMMISSION, May 1~1, 1')7J 73•-:321
~NVZRONM~N'fAL iMPACT REI~ORT ANp GENCRAL _~LAN AMP:NAt1EtiT N0. J_27 (~onCinucB)
Mr. Contreras then noted l•1r~k undc~r thc~ gxeonbolt c7~signation, Ar~r-hoim har~ var~
few exiytinq grernbalt area~~ end that prees~r~ntly the nafghborhauc~ community par.ke
and oL•her ~uch use~ wero comp].ataly iso].eksd Prc~ q~Cll c~~her dnd naz~o wero
ll.nkwQ by eithr- rt•!ing or hiking trriltr, footp~ ne, natural atrtl~mr~, or water-
ways, alkhouqh it wse hopad la~cer thak thesA cou.' 3 be linkod by s~mo t.rai.ls or
gereame+ ~r left in rh~.ir nmtux•al B~At.O.
Mr. Cantrerac~, in revie,wing the ree~x~vairs~ » wnk~. wolls, notod ktld~ T.h~+ ~it:y
had lour z~eervoir eitas nnl~ 34 wster wella, w1Ch wAln~nti Ganyon fteser.~roir
located in Rneheim ttill.e at Walnut Cnr~yon Fioad e~.aL• of Nohl Ranch Roud, khAt
Ol.iv9 Hills Ranervoir wa~ l.ocated at r~~~hl Ranch Roed eouth o:~ the Rivoiai3e
Fzeewayf that the La Palma Reaozvoir and ~3oo~ter S:.ati.on wa~ lacatod on the 90L1CI1
eida of La Pa1mA ilvonua between Citz•on and Wast Strc~etsi thnt the L.i.n3a Viata
Reservoir and sooAter Station wa3 loe:ated ~n Tuatin Avenue nor~h ot Miralomae~
that Wr~lnti~ Canyon RaAOrvo~.r anc~ Olive Ftillii Reservoir ~~rero open and ~erved as
vi5ual o~~~an apace roAie£. however, no rear~:ation~nl activitioa oP any kind were
permittod at• those sitc~sr and tha4 th~ LA P~.ltn,~ and Li.nda Vint•~ R~se~'voirs had
concrate ro~£ covers and wer~ parti.ally acroor~eid from view with landocuE~iny.
Mr. C~~ntreras Xeviawed the tota]. amount of agr.icultural l~n~.s wirhin thQ City of
Anahoim, notinq Y.l1at 297R acros of ~he Cir.y's 24,154 acree w~s devoL-od to the
raisiny of. chickens, lit~entock and agr.icul.turo, wi.th moat of the ag.ri.culturdl
crops consisting of truck ciops, true fruii: ancl berxy c.ropst that to dato none
o[ fihe agiicultural landa in the city have appli.ed for. agricuitutal presprve
status i that 3ppro::i.mately 134 acres of C~~unty land lncated in the SoutYieast•
Ind~~strial Ar~a nortli of Anaheim Stadium was under aqric~altural pr~e5erve~ *hat
an additional 2200 acres of th~ Nohl Ranch (Anaheim tI:l11sD l.oaat~.:d ~~utside tha
city limita was under an agricul~:ural prdserve agreement, a1'though applicatlons
hnve beeTi fi1Pd with tha Caunty to withdraw iti and thr~t approximately i2Q4
acree af th6 Irv:.n~ Ranch ayxiciiltura]. presexve was located within t;h~ city's
sphere of influence~ tiiis being locnted between Weir ~.a~A GyE~surn ranyon, t~ast~rly
of Gypsum Canyon to ~he Cleveland Kationa~. Forost and extendiny sauth to 'the
ridgeline of t.l~e Santa Aria MounL•ains.
The soils portion ~f L•he Elamec~~t was then reviewed, noting that Anaheim was
wit:hin the central lowland comF~rised of Downey and Tu3tin Pla~ny, with the
Down~ey Pluln containing alluvizil 3eposits, sand, mud and ot.l~ez materials furmed
thousand5 of ye.3rs ago by the ~~ant-a Ana Rivpr, and the Tustin Plain was formed
by alZuvial depUSits from Santiago Creek and other smaller r<vers flowing from
the southern pointi of the Santa. Ana Moun~tainsi that the Santa Ana River was qne
of tho large~t r.ivere in Southern California in term~ of tatal watarshed a~cicP
it start~s fr~m Mt. San Gorgonio and flows through C~range Caunty at 28 miles in
length and had many important water recharge ar.Qas in the Orunge County water
Distr.ictf and thati the Otange Cc~unty Water Di~trict owned ~nd uiili~ed aQproxi.-
mately 750 acrea of the Santa Ar.~a Riverbed between Katella Aven+ae and th~
Imperial Highway Bridqe for poncling Colorado Rivez• water and natural flows of
the river to allow the: water to perc~~late into the qraundwater basin system,
and in addit~.on, they also owne~. two large ~prezd~.ng basirs within Anaheim,
beirig Cr.i.ll Basin, cornmonly kno~n as A.naheim Lake, containing 90 acres~ and
the Warnes Basin which was planned to be appror.imately 100 acr.es in ~izE when
compl~ted - both would serve a vi.tal function Ln replenishing the ground water
suppl.y basin.
Mr. ~::ontrE:ras noted that sand and gravel had beccme the County's secon~9 most
valuable resource, wiL•h petroleum being the firat, and c?i~ drilJ.ing and oil
storage conducted on appr.oximately s~ total of 2566 acrest thvt oi1 driiling
and oil atorage was conduct~d in lancls northerly of Orchard Dri-rc between
Lakeview Avenue and Kellogg Drive, south of the Yo~ba Lincla Fr~eway; ar~d that
more than half of the total p~troleum extracted in the County aame from on-
shore and of£-ehore wells located in the fields of Huntington 9each, with the
remaining oil coming from the c~ambined fieic~s of Anuheim, Brea, Yorba I~inda,
and Fullerton.
Mr. Contreras, in xeviewing the flAO@ plains, noted that the Oranye Cocinty Fload
Control Distxict had the reaponi~ibility to provide faci.lities fc~r the control of.
fload and etorm wnters, with un•a.aually heavy rainfall or atormn, several retard-
ing basins acted aa raservoira Eor the over.flow of waterJ and that flood control
~
MINUT~:i, C3:'i Y PLANNING COMMI~ 9ION ~ Mdy 14, 1973 73-'322
FNV:IItC)NMENTAL IMPACT ItEPORT ANU GENERAL FLAN AMENUMENT N0. 127 (Gontinue~d)
uhannele r.onnoctAd verioue ratardi~q ba4lna conaisting ~f ths P~acen~ia ttetard~
ing Baeiln, tho ltaymand Rcta~:ding baol.n, the Or+a~~qe County Flood C~~ntrol 5ettling
Aemin, and ~he r,ilbsx~ Ratecdinq Haein, with tho l.a~ter being ut'l.lizod f~~r
na~veral yeare by thcs City of Anahnim ~s r~ ma;I~r part of tho Anuheim Municipnl
Golf Course.
Mz. Ccnt.rarar, in dummutio~~, ~tate~i that thero wc+ro sc~ven objar.;tiveA and poli-
c:ies and technlquee for open ~paca, name~y, :o ex~,nnd end enhhnce pn:rk lende
and open ~paoa nreas, c,s a vita.l nafiurnl reeour.c~ o~ tb~ commur,ity~ to provide
rnsidr,nts of ~he cammu,~lt},~ wi4h vi~auel, physical ~+nd emotional reli~f. from the
~:c.:-ge~tion of urbar ~urroundings~ L•o serve zll ~ocio-c+conomic: r~egmonts of the
communi~~ by pro•viding a~re7.3.-balanced and convenl.ently looated open epace and
can$ervation Ay~tams to caordineL•e open space development wh~.ch would +~saietc in
direct.tng the desir~d iir)~an growtli AI1C1 land ur~e pattern~ to p~•ovi.do f.oz tho
consezvation uf agrinultural la~nds, ac~nic vietas end other natural resources
so ~hat: they could be usod ae z~eaources for yeara ta come~ t•o encouroqo mul~.i~le
usE of land for opbn spr~ce buffers, water storage recharye areaa, naturr~l pre-
ser~~es S:or co~nservation, creat.~on o~.tea ~nd other ua~dt and to asuiat and
~articipate with othar agenci.~a toward achieving local, r4g3.onu1 and etatewic~e
conc~Qrvation anr~ opon ~,paco goal~ and plane and to ir~terr:elate with tli.use plar~s
wheze phXaicall.y ancl e ~anomically posaible, and, further~n~xQ, to implemunt thi.s,
the concept a£ c:ombini ng the n~r.egsary el~menta - Open cpace and Canoervation -
concerned it~sKl.f. with the consoxvation and preservation ~f natural xes~urcea,
nat.u.ral features, scenic beauty, agriculture, xecroation ar~d apen space facili-
t1.es and water ressources which Are vital. to t:hc well••b~iing of residen~.s.
Chairman ~+ro tem Kaywood, in z•Ff~rriny to the c.ontinu~:d policy of agricultural
lard prese:rve~, fe] t ther.e sY~o~i:ld be ~one change in the assassment pollcy and
:lnqui.red whot:her the C~.ty would have to ask for this change or the property
owne~:•s, because tl~e: present a:asessment practi.ces Forced people to develop their
lancf !aecau~e ~f high taxns, ~nd i f. a property ownery n~d~ n hi ro -~,~~
~r.i~t7~ 3~~~~a ,~~iCUlt:ur~:, he mu,st go tc~ a preserve, and
t ° ,l~- lti(.I.Y% ..rG.i.t LL-!.• LL ik4C.4~~-~ sGa-.J~ ~rf~~r_~ ~ ~• ~ .d~
~;.::~~ ~•_~' ~.~: ~ ~` .
...E~o-.,.~o+/.~~; tt.c..c.~'E.!<.~~-~"~
Depury City Attorne}% F'rank La~xry advi.sed the Commis~i.on that this type of u
chanye would have to qo th.rouyh the stat~ L~gisla':.ure, however, thia wAS not
part ~-f the G~~nerxl Plan to takc a lobbyist posit.ion in that.
Commis~i.aner Rowl.ar.d offered a motion, secon3ed by C~mmissianer Far.ano and
MOTION CARRIED (CommissionFrs Allred aA1d Seymou: being absent), that the
Planning Commissior., ir. connectio» wit:i th~ filing of ar. Fnvironm~ntal Impact
Repart, firids and deter.mines that th~ u1R Rev~..ew Committee's report found the
repor':. as being adequate ds a~ infarrt,ative cio~~.iment and follows the Cit~~'s
estal~i:l:Lshed ~TUidelin~s, arid ~.here w~u1d be no siqr-ificant a.dverse ~nvironmantal
~.IItD~~Ct3~ and, therefore, t~he Tlanning Commiss'~.on r.ecommends ta the City C~unail
t:hafi sa:id rep~~rt ~.~e adopted as the Council'r ~nviranmental impact Statement.
CAmm!ssior-er. GaL.er' effEere~] Resolution N~. PC73-112 and moved for iL-a passage
1nd adoption to adopt tk:F Open Space dIIC~{ Co ~sexvation Slement ur.der General
~'lan Amendment No. 127 and. r.ecommendi.ng to the City Counc~.l adop~cion of General
Plan Ar~endment No. 127, (See ReAnlution B°~ok)
on roll call thc: £oregoir.g zesolution w~s passed by the i.ollnwing ~oL•e:
AYF.S: COMMISSTOtJER5: r~zranc~, Gauer, t~erbst, ICAywood, Rc~w'and.
NqFS: CAMMISSIONERS: \one.
ABSENT: COMf~ISSTONER~: Allred, Seymour.
.~.
~
MxNUTES, CITY FLANNING COMMI~SIbN, Hay 1~, 1517:9
ItEP0YtT8 71ND ~- ITRM N0. 1
RffiCOMMEt~D~-TIC,NS COMMONYTY~~t1~~E`l~LpPNiEN'P PLAN pR0~7~CT "A1,P'HA"
7~-3Z3
pY,enning 5upervisor po~n McDaniel noCad Tor tha Plnnning Camm~.aN~on that ~he
Cemmunity R~devslopmant Cbp1R1~.N6:.on v~ao reque~ting tnat the Anshe~im ~'l~nning
Co:ara~asian 8eturmir~o vrheCher thz C~~muntty R~d~veloi,menC Plen Pro3oct "Alpha"
wou1Q have a~ny eigr-ifiodnt e Clact c~n th• ~nvircnu~ont ~nd whe~hez thp ~ro~eo~
vrnn i.n oonforme-noe rrith ~he 1~ne~heim Gena~ral ~.~lan. Tho ~ov~rnment Cade, 8tate
o! Califarnid, ~~::~1on 65402, pzovided in pa~rt that: th~ 7^r.a~, body ~ the
1Red~v~l~pment 1lgenay ~ ahnll not udopt s red~nve7.aps~nk plsn un~il tlxe pAan
had be~n aubmi.l:tad ~o and .re~orted upon by tha PJ~anni.ng Gammi:~nion hav~lr~g
jurisdictiori, as to i.ta c~ntormit;/ with th~a C~.ty'r~ General Pl~n. Ttto Celi-
Eorni~ Hen.l~.h end 9a~fet.y Cade ale~ raquir~ea tha~ 'aeFore Redbva~lo~~nant Plan
Pra~~ct "A].~ha" is ~ubmitt~d ta t.h~ "ity Council, the ~P.lr~.nning ^ommisai~n
et-al~ make +a ginding tt-at the ple-n ;~ i•n aonform+incA wi.th th~ ~Aneheim tie+n~ral
PJ.an, and tha~ etaff h~es r.evieNOc~ tho Plan and la~ind iC te be~ t.n c:onlozmenae
wi~h the General Plan. ~hyrePur~a, etaf! would rauomne~nd ~haC the ~l~nniny
C'~mmiseion f.orw~-rd ~ re~aoluti~on nx mation ~o ~h~3 C1.'~y Cuui-c;11 ~dvining that.
body that the Redevelapm~nt Plan '~r~~ect "AlphA" is :iix vonformnnce Wlth tha
Anaheim Genaral Plan. E'urthexmozr~, thn Redevelopmasnt Ayenc.y (L'i.ty Counail)
nnc! the RodevAlopment Commir~ei~n would h~1Q Qublfc hoari.nge latex ~n a~ic!
Proj~at "Alphe~".
CammiRaiunex Harbet offer~cl a motton, oecax~da~l by Cummi~sinner ~~arano and
MOTTON CARFtL~O, finding and determininq that »he pra~+osac9 Rwdevelopmmnt Plaa
Pro~ect "Alpha" ie in cpnformance with thv Anaheim Ge~neral Plan and that it
xould hAVC no sign~l~icant ill eifects an the environm~nti. wi4hin tbe intmnt
a~ 9eGtion ?.~000 ot. r~ec~. of r.hc CaliEornia ?ublia Re~ourcae Cods.
)1DJOIJRNMF:NT - The~:e bE~:iny na furtber '~~ueinesa to di:tcuse, Commissionor.
~~ k+erbst ui.feretl a motion ta adjaurn the meetinq.
'o~nm9.ss ioner. Fazano secondefl the motian. MOTION CARR'tED.
The meeting ac3journe~l ut 10:10 p.m.
Respec*fua.ly submitted,
~~~2~~l2 ~~ `~_-
ANN Y.REBS, Secr~tary
Anahai.m City Plaaninq Commie~sion
AK~hm