Loading...
Minutes-PC 1970/08/24N-~._ _ 11y ~, l. ~ ~ L " ^d ' '` x + rt 3 ` ~ '' - k ~~T„~f i ~ r k ~ q? r y{ + ' .y 1 ~' ~ ~ ~ } i } 1t - t1- ~ f r ~ VyV , i: ~ -.. 1 2 ~ J y , i r . _ - + 4 ~ . , i .,; . t .... , c j _ r , t ~ L~ „ , r ~~ ;~ Y ~ . '` City; Hall " - , l.; ;~ z ' ` r AAetl(k1ID~ Celifol~li"a Y y ' ~ , August 24,~:1970 ~~ ~ i r~ , l ~`, : r~ ~ ~? .~ r ~ ~ ~ .. 1 : .~ ... .. ,, ^ , ' ~ .~. ,"y ' +~~;; ' < A REGUI.AR MEETIIVG OF THEsANAHEIM CITY~PLA'JNING ~OhQiISSION , ~ , ~ , A+ ~ . 1 `~ t y. " u ~.~ -4 ! . v,. 2 , ~ ~.~ ~~ v ~~ r i y :~ ~, ~.~ ~ ~~ ~.~~ :.~ .~; .^ ' . . ` ,ic REGULAR MEETING A,regular meeti a of,the Anaheim City Plsnning Cotmniseion~was call d x ~ ~+ , e ~ ' ~ - ~ ~ s~ to order by Chairman:'Herbst'at 2:00`o'clock P M~'; a quoi m be>ng ;present. , t, s : ;. ~ PRESENT CHAIRMAN He..bst ~ ' = ;. ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~: ~ - ;; ~ '- COhQiISSIONERS . Farano, Gnuer, baywood, Row2a+ld,`: Seymour ~ `a~i t ~ . ~ ` ABSENT 'COhIlyIIS$IONERS ': A11red ~ ' "'~" l ~~ r .PRESENT Assistant DeveTopmeat„Services Di ~. , ~~ ' ` ~. ~~ r ~or:: Rane,;:; Thomps~n ,' Deputq City Attorne,r:. ; .Frai>k ~; :jwr e r . y , , Office Engineer Jay Titus ~ ~ Zoning Supervisor `:Charles Rober,ts • Assistant Zonin Su ervisor;-; 8 P M ; ~ f~ ; . ~., alcolm Sla vg ii, er Planning' Coa~i§sion . Secretary , !' Ana Kreos ~, ~y ``~' ~s~' -~ PLEDGE OF r ;' , , .' . ~ •ALLEGIANCE Commi i - ; , . ~ ss oner Kaywood led in Ehe Pledge of A21egi'aace to the~F.lag. , ` ' , ~' ` , , ; ~ ~ -APPROVAL OF - Commiasioner Seymour offered•,.a motion to approve=the,Minutes of . , the ' THE MINUTES ` me ~ , eting of August 10„ 1970, with, tHe following correction, seconded ~` . ~. c: - ;by Commissioner K w d ' '~ Q, a;r oo , andrMOTION ,C~:RRIED: ~ Page 5281, paragraph 4, "Ch_=irman~Her~st. ~~` ` f~ • ~ - ;, ~ 'RECLASSIFICATION CONTTNUED PUIILIC ~iE9RING ALANSON R AND,H.AZEL M. LOUD, P. 0. Box `NO 69-70 50 ' ~ ~?x:~ 2039,`Pomona,;,California, Owners; S7ATE-WIDE INVESTORS, INC., '443 East Wa'rdlow Rosd L n h ' ~, ` ~~ , o g Beac ;:California, Agent;,pior~rty VARIANCB NO :2171 ~ described as:. Portion t,'- A zectangularly shaped- arcel of l d ~ '~ ~~ ;; p an ~consisting of approximaEely 1 7,i~cres, having a frontage of;approxi- ~ . ~~'~ • mately ,136 ,feet on ,tl±o. doutc side` of Lincola Avenue, ,liaving a:naximum depth of approximately 595'feet, aad being lecar2d ~~p~ ~imately 280 feet t of th `' ' ` ~ . ., wes r e centerline of Stinson Street;.aad Portion H- A rec,tBnguLarly shaped pbccel of la~ ~d ' o is n ; . .c ns ti g of.approximately 1.S,acres, having a frontege of',:approximately 132 feet on he t .sonth side of Lincoln'Avenue, having a mas~imum:dep~h o£'~ppro;ci~ateLy.60L feeE, and ~ being`located approximately 420 feet w st f t ~. e o he,centerliae`of Stinson.Street and beiz:g contiguous to'the westerly.boundery of Portiou A,, and further described as 2704 We t ' ' 4; s Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1,. C~Nr.P,AL CO2~.»iI Zi:i~~L, ZANE, . . ;', REQUESTED CI.ASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTI6.L, ZONE.(YQRTIONS A AND B). _: , , A ~ •REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARL+ SETRP CK AND . _ (2) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE - ,. . . FAMILY RESIDENTIAL'USE,:TO ESTASLISH A 42-UNIT APA.FTMcNT ` COMPLEX (PORTTON A ONLY). ' ~' ,Subject petitiona were continued from t:~e meetings of June 2, 29, and July 27, 1~~70, to allow time for the petitiotter to sub it s ~ . m revi ed plane. ' ~. Assistant Zoning;Supervisor Matco7.m Slaughter reviewed the location of aubja:ct prepert+~ use es , s tablished in:close:proximity, existing zoning on the property, and t~~e re^Lest !for R-3 zoning with waivers of ihe i ~ ` max mum bui3ding height:witfiin 150 feet~~of R-A proFr~r~y and minimum,side yard setback, noEing that subject peEition had been titu d n ~' con e ei ce d..ne 2, i7.970, ,to allow Che petitioner time Co sevise the plana in'order to incorpor ate more of Ed : ;~ . ~,ne ison easement for recreation purposes and ta redesign the plan to provide more o ' ~~' `° pen space within the,project, together with a wey to eliminate'the`barrar_ks appearance; that th s e revi ed plans..now projected_42 units distributed in groups'of three of 14 mnits h . eac having`a aeparate recreation-leisure'area within Portion,A only; thet the Planning Commiasio ' i n s or ginal objection to the project was.,primarily to the lack of use of Portion B'within the E2'ison easemeat fo r recreational purposes~ and.that a written agree- 'ment be submitted in which the Ediso~~.Company granted use of the easement for r e ecr ational purposes, and the.Commission might.wiah to inquire as to tt~e status of this agreement ~ T he efo . . i re, the primat~ coacera of ti~e Planning Commisaion was sti2l whether or not the . _ . 5288 - r ~ Y' '« 1 Y i •~~ r'n.w++«a 'xVS a9 ~lc.M1' ~Fr.f- ~r, r't'"33~t'~°: H y~~ l ~ i ~' R . . , ~~ ~~ ; ~ ' ~ J ~ , _ , , •' ' - ` a'_PIINUTES, CITY`PLANNING COMMISSIO~Iy AL$usG 24~ 1970' §'2$9 =tRECLAS$IFICATION applic8nt h~3d ~ir,,~or-i.orated tee ez~vement aTga within Ythe pl,ana: for ' 'NO 69` 70 50 ` "~:landscaa+ng,, ;ec~ ,,since tfie revised `plana pro jecteii' use of :.Pa.tion A ~~ -- r ' ~ -, OTl ly - VARIANCE Nn~At?171 ' '~ ,` : ' ` ' ". ,, ~ ~" (Contir,~ed). M¢ 4.r,y ,.pnba:, 4<•3 Wardlow,Road, Long Beach, representing the agent ~ ~ `fqr .tne ;,eticioiler, .appeared before the ,Co~ission aud':.noted: that the a ~ `~ `- ;. 'Ca~aigston, at the £irst public hearing oa subject petitioas;`liad ~ ~ requested that the idevei-~pN~,~consider incorporating more open space:in the°~roject, rhat thal evised p'~ans b;ad marej~opeaspace, but theg~wera?still:remaining withii~..Poitior.''A'by sreduc~ng the n~ber;of unilCS from. 50 Lo ;4G and:;incoY~~irating;,a11 the recr2~tiosi=leiaure". area which inr.iuded :a sorim~ing poo1, that they,;wer . ha ing;diff `cu1 w~ oC~tr~;{,y~~ing any type of sgreement iaith•the rciison Company as;`to utilizing, Ehe'easemen~.;f~~r Le~.a9~.i.on=l~~ia.zr~~ ~ ;area since~ ttiey claimo~~ tnis was ,part of- the ~asement~'agreemen., w~d=;~+t~use [rdc.ta ..uufu : tear up aciy ~,:andacap~~,,g when hey':drove ~ iri to wash ,do?an the lzn~s -' 3~o~s,e ~e,c, theq; were ~ ,willing t<. increase ,chis' landscaping beyc~nd the; 3'~-foot side"yard~s~:tba k,~;said setback; '.;ap~lying onl~~'to the` front!:Cier. of'aparfinenfs..`since;the ear,•tie=s had a>6'~`fc~oC'setback., .: . : , ~ ;. : ~~;The Co~ission inquired as:co the-;'writtE'~n agre~m~nt with the Ediso~-~ompaay thar had,been ;requesfed . Mr Herieas r~=ptied t'hat they had b~en una ~le to;obtain this.•agreeuent wi.th Edison, stat~.ng `that hp; aid-ao~ object to landscaping'.but would objr,•cc to ariy'stzucCuxe placed..on the 'easemeiit, and`;that~a`grass area wouid' be ~acceptable; since. fhe' trucko could: travel over =~ `said grass.,are~. „~ `Commissioner'Rrwland-.noted;that the p1sn,,adequately demonstrated the projecE had been - ,turne+i' inwarsily; and there was no Ionger a; need 'for the side; yard:waiver:siace anly. `the ~ front pei~tion,,~.or ~; r?~~,- was; I~ rerst,, less than required fo~ a side ~ard :aetback, ; and that oince adequate x~=~ieation arear~t+att,,provided ~ithin.'Portiori s~.;..chere war, no na^d :to use':Po.+~tion B.~' , Commissioner Srymour.:noted1~':that the petitict,?er's ageat hack iiad'cated 2, wi!_ingness to ', ~ :.`plant ;grass ~ai, l msintain scid..laridscaping on Portion: B, and:i~aquired wt;~~ther or not, he ! :would i~t+~u:ate t~~ ~~is, i ,~; , Mr Heneab rt~~;lieil tuy~ the; reason they Yiad xioC' ir,dicated s.iiy 2andscaping. on Portion B r was tkie fact~;Ehat tlie Edison Compariy was.' making it;,very 'difficult <for the~u, and if trees ~ and ot:lier sk,rubbery.were planted aad the:trucks,;.snd personael:were ;are~ess and damaged `them cir t~=e them,dc+wn,~Edison indicated`tY,ev wou2d not atzempt to take care of their ~ rep2acement - cherefore, aince the deveioper was also ~relae,~:~t_Co have to replace these, every tittempt had been,made:to incurporate Iandecaping within Portion A. ~ Commissianer Seymour comp.limented the develope: in sevisiag the plan su that more open ~ space was proVided -'haweve~, it would }~re highly desfrabie if this attractive appearance could be,further improved by planting :rees, as ~;~YT as grass, on r^artion B, which would ~ not interfere With the Edison Company trucks and che washing-down of the high teafiion liaes: clr. H:neas n~oted that it was their inten[ion to lsnt ~ Q grasq on this vaca,-~c_land so that ~ ' t~nere wouYd not be a dust proble~n, and.if the Commission so requeste3, then trees would `also be planted - hnwever, ~f sny problem arose.With thP Edison Company, they would just ~ screer.'-in the apartmenr developmettt with a wali-or £ence. C No Ane appeared in opposition to subjec..petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOScD. Comn~issioner S~ymour offereu kesolutior:.No..YC70-151 and moved for its passage and adoption ~ t~o xecoamiend to ti~e City Co.uncil that Y~tition for Reclassification No. 69-70-50 be ~I ap~pxove., subject to conc~.itions end the stipulation by;the pet~tiuner t~hat grass and trees ! v6uld-5e planzed where possible so_'as not to interfere with the'Edison power lines on ~, Fortion B. (See Resolucion Book) : ~ f t'in roll call the foregor~;g reaoluticn was passed-bp the following vote: ' AYES: COMMISSIQi~~:RS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, 1towland, Seymour, Herbst. ~ 2~OES: COMMTSSIUNERS: :lone.. ABSFIv"L'~ C~MMISSIONERS: P.llred. ~ ~ `. Cot.~iseioner Kaywood o.ffered Resolution No. PC~0-152 and moved for its passage and saoption ~ to grant PeriLion for Variance No. 2171, aubject to cunditions, togeL~!er with the stipula- ' ~ tion.by the petitioner to plsnting of grass and trees on Portion B. (See Resolutior. Book) ~ ~ ~- '~ ,; - 5290 ' , iur; y, ,,,- , ;,. ~r - ~~a~~vu~ i~v vz iv ~v ~.ana ,; Var~ance No 2171 (See•:Resolution Book) y r , ' „~ ~ ~ ' ~ f .' t _~~. ~ : ,~, ~ ~ ,~.,~~ .: i ~ ~. ~. 4~ ' On~roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by„the followin vote c g 1~'~: J r, ~ • . '~ . r . : ~ ' r ' t 'r ~ .. . ~ -.... . ~ ' ~ . 71,, : . .: ; :. ~ ` AYES:~ 1"COMMISSiONERS Farano; GaueY; Kayteood, Rowland, Seymour'; Herbst h NOES ~ COMMI~~ Q3:v~RS 'None ` _ S ABSENT ; COMMiSSI0NER5 'Allred.' ~ z ~~ 3 ~ ~ ~ r ,:.,. ~ ; ; ~ i ~. ~ :. ~ " ' ~ '..,i ° _ ~" , .... ~: ... ? ~ ' RECLASSIFIGATION = CONTINUED PtFBLIC HEARING GERALDINE E: ROTH,.ET AL,,P 0 Box R , ~ ~ ` ~ l ~ , ~ NO 69 70 25 Placentia, California, Owizers, JEEFREY~H MILLETT, 1303 West Valencia ii•' , ~ - ,. Fulle,rton,,California, Agent, property,;described as:= An ir"=egiilarly ' t= ., ~- UARIANCE N0~ 2142 shaped reel of tand consisting;of app"roximaEely 90:2 acres, having ~ L ^ ~. approicimate`;frontages of ;3;100 feet on'~La Palma Avenue (fuEure) - and ~ , , TENTATIVE MAP OF .,' 3,780.feeC.on the`ACcHison, Topeka & Ssnta Fe<.Railroad rsght of=wey,, TRACT NO 7137 ` in :i ~, , , hav g a maXimvm.depth of:,approximaEely 2,200:;feet and being locaCed = ~ REVISION N0 1 : approximacely~ ~ 800 feet east of the centerline of'Zmperial;;ttighway. `~ ,' ,'- ; Propeity prEr«t~~<classified COUN'-'Y Al~, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT. ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ - ' , Q ~ ~ RE UESTED CLASSIFICATION: R=2-50 00 ONE FAMILY 20NE l ' ~ ~ ~ , d ,y • ~ ~ ,~ ~ , ~ ~ .;" ,'; ,. ' REQUEST~D VARIANCE'c WAIVER OF.MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH` ~ ' ,r . ~Jr ~ ~' "~ ; , ,- , . TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST SUBDIVISION JF SUB,TECT PROPERTY INT0-.451 R-2-5000 ZONED,LOTS, : i ~ ~ ~ "' ': ~ ' ' ' ' w?. ~~ Sabject petitions we"re continued from the Jine 29, T970, meeting for'a report as to " ~ ~ annexation apalicafton before"I~9FC0. : ~. - ~. , . ! u~~ _ ~ Mr Slaugh~er noteh the location of sub~ECt p'roperty, previ'o~~~.continuances of subject J r" ~ ~,etition,:acid the fac,, thaL LAFCO had indicated that.the ep~~~e of influence of.the City x*.~ r of Anaheim would.not~ extend northerly'Eo ~speranza Road. Furthermore I~SFCO would act fi ~t;x , ., upon the petLticner's 9anexation request September.23, 1970 - therefore, staff would. o i,i ~ rec mme~fd continud:ice of.subject netitions to Octa~er 5, 1970; for this decision ~„ r~~ ~ . , '.Comm~issioner.Gtt,ier.offe~ed a motioa,Eo continue aonsideration of Reclassification No. 0 - ' i~ °' ~ 69r7 : 25, U~triance No. 2142, and Ter.tative Map of Tract No: 7137, Revision No: l; to the ' s :' meetiag of,Octobr.r S, 1S70, in order to receive the annexation report of subject petition. ~v'~ Commissioner Kaywo<d secor.a?ed the motion. M6:'IOtT;CARRIED. , -~i~` , - r . ,w '~ , ~CONDITTONAL USE - pi?BLTC HF$RING. 'CLADA PLET~, 3302 West Ball Rosd, Anaheim,'Califomia ' r' F~ ~ ~ , PERMIT N0. L19d Oamer; WESTERN DEVELOPI~??p CORPORATION, FRANK E. HORPEL 'JR. 4050 {~-~. , , WilshirerBoulevar~,: Suite:,507,-Los Angeles, California, Agent; { ;It : requesting;petcmis,ston to:ESTABLZSH A CHILD NURSERY WITH WAIVERS OF ~1) MiNi,w1M REQUIRED FRONT YARD LANDSCAPED &ETBACK :(2) MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIG D S , i,~+ "~ , N I PLAY ` AREA',"AND (3) MAXIMI'wi NUMBER OF SIGNS::ori property described as:` A rectangularly shaped ~~ paxcel of`land haying a frontage of approximately 200 feet on the north side of South rw~ StreeE, having e-maximum depth of app;oximately 155 feet, tieing,,located approximately k20 feei•,east of the centerline of Sunkist Street; and further described as ^511 and 2521 ~^' . Eas~,South,Street. Property.,presently claesified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistanc 'Loning Supervisor Malcolm Sl.aughter'reviewed the location of subject property ~ 'a a;'; , uaes,es.tablished i.n close praximity;_and:the proposal to establish a ci-i~d.nursery with waivers of the required fronc yerd landscaped setbeck, maximum pei~miEted sLgn display ' '!~ . = area,;and Tumb~.r of signs, together with,the fact that revised plaas had been submitted Thuraday of the past'week - however,:staff was ur.able to fully aneYyze the plans and !'. present a reporE to :re Commission to determine whether or not additional waivers would be necesstry. Trerefore, a two-week continuance would be reco~ended. No one appeare~' in apposition to subject petition. ~ ~ .`"" ~ "` .. . :~. i~ _ ,.~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Augumt 24, 19,70' S291 CON!?ITIONAL USE ~ Commissioner Kaywood offere~, a.motion to coatiuue consideration of PERMZT N0. 1197 ;~ petition for Conditiocal.Jse"Petmit No, 1157 to t'se meeting of (Coatinued) September I0,.1970,,ir. order t~~ allow time for staff tri atalyze the revisen'plans and xo p.i~aibiyj=eadvertise subject,petition for additional waivers. Co~issioner Seymour seconded the motian. MOTION CARRIED. ` . CONDZTIONAL USE~ - YUBLIC HEe1RING. ARNOLD J. PR09ISOF,, l00 Barzingtoa Wa3k, T,os Angel.es, PEIRMIT.NO. 1198 , California; Owner; requesting,permiasion to ESTaBLISH A PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL CLUB AND DAY CAMP FOR CHILDREN HAVING OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL~ ' FACILITIES on pruperty described a~a;. An irrpgularly sheped parcel of lar,d consisting of approximately.l.5 acres, locsted north and west of the aorthwest corner of Ball,•Road and,Knott Street, having'approximate-frontages of 170 feet on the west side of~Knott Street and 20 feet an t?:e aorth side of Ball Road,'a_d ~.aviag a maximum depth of approximately 390 feet as measured from Knott Street. Property presentlp classified C-1, GENERAI. CON4IERCIAL, .ZONE. AasistanE 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaug.ter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established.in close.proximity, and:..che proposa3 to estaolish a private educational club._and.day camp having recre:ationai facilities for children within a smail shopping. center, utilizing three of the commercial stores and extending a pi8y area eaclosed by a chainlink.fence approximately 93 feet'iato the existing parking area; that tl:e p~etitioner had indicated`the children'would be picked ap and delivrred to their homes by bus - therefore,.ao childrEn would ~e transported to the.facility by private means; that the Co~ission would have to dere inine whether or net the proposed use was compatible within an:existing commerciai shoppiug cenCer; and ~?~at if it were.deemed appropriate,'Ehen consideration migY:t ne givea'to limiting the fenced-in area so that,it would aot.encroach within_tHe ae~~nd accesaway, wnich would interfere with the.vehicular.circulation, and also;to..determining.whether or not,the petitioner would be;willing to upgrade the land- scaping on'the site aud to;repair;the 6-foot`masor.ry waii along the Kr.ott Street frontage since both.were requirements of the C-1 s3te de•relopment`standards. Mr. Ar..ald Provisor, the petikioner, appesred cefore the Co~ission and noted thae he saw no,redson why Subject properCy snould nnt be brought ap to Code'requirementa as to the wa11 and:landsceping, and he wo~Id stipuYate to renovating t:e landscaping and,maintaiiting it, as.well as=repairing'the maso^.r5 wail; that iC was his'impression the pFans submitted provided,for vehicular circulatiun aroead t'r:e chainlink'fence - therefure, he could see no encroachmeat.into the.traffic pattern ia the ce~tiar itself; and t~at:he was uafamiliar with the requirement for fire .ydrants and was of tne opinio:i`tY~ere was sdequate circula- ~- tion to permit fire trucks into t~e shop~ing ceater in t~e event of an emergea~y. The Commission E3s~ised t'~e petitio;ier that tnere cvuld be a special provisiar. in tae ordinance affectiag use of commercial properLy for the type of scho~l use proposed sir.ce a ninaber of.the children would be affected, similar to tl:at of a regular scho~l. Za~ing Supervisor Charles Rooerts r.at~d tnat the Assistant Fire Chief requested this condition be included in the recommeaded conditions, and tk:e petitimaer wou2d have to contact the Fire Chief as to any requireme~ts. Commissioner Rowland.inquired why ~s parcei map was a condition of approval; whereupoa Mr. Roberts stated that as far as the Ciry waa able to determine, this was just one large C-1 parcel which exteaded anoLher 400 feet westerip - however, from documents presented, a portion had beea sold off to the west wi.thout benefit of thE~ filing of an approved parcel map.. Furthermore, as a point of clarification regardiug the circulation, he would have`to review the plans with the petitioner to indicate the r.eason beniad staff's comments and xequested a few momeats to explair. this to the petitioner. Mr. Roberts, upon completioit of nis eatplanation to the petitioner, iadicated that the petitioner had agreed to the staff's recom~endations and that Conditior_ No. 6 should reaolve this problem, No one appeared iu opposition to subject petition. THE HE?iRIIiG WAS CLUSED. Cv~¢nisaioner Rowland expr?ssed some reservation as to the proposed use as part of a shopping center - however, the City had recently denied a request for a similar operation (Uolphin Club) because of its being proposed in the cer.ter of an R-1 area, and because the Coffinission was cognizant of this fact, he would urge thi, petitioner to apprise both the present and prospective tenants of the fact tka~ a portion of tha parking area was proposed to be devoted to a scree~ed-in pFay area. Furthermore, the architect shonld attempt to resolve some of the less desirable aspects of this play area by making it as attractiqe as possible, rather thaz the stark appearenee of a chainli~k fEnce. ~,Y ~~ +',i ~ { i ~ ~, ;;.~ , ..,~.. - - ._.....~., - - - - . . _,. , ~..,:~. -. ._.. : , t..:. ..~». ~~. ..: .,. ~, , x » ~ ~~ -.~._. ~ ~ '. ~ `_ MINUTES~ CzTY P'~.ANNING COMMISSION~ Auguet 24„ 1970 . 5292. = COIiDITIONAL,:USE, ~- Commissioner Rawland offered Resolution No. PC=/0-154`and moved for its ' PERMIT N0: 1198 -,. passage aiid`adoption ;to..grant Petirion for ConditioneL Use Permit No. (Continued) I198,:suii~ect to~conditions and the,'stipulation by'the petitioner that '. the--,existing masonrq wall:;would be repeired and the'landscaping + ~': rtcovated and mainEsined,,togetnei with'providing a~parkin; plan that " would';be acceptable to Ehe City ;of Anaheim,;'that a:finding:be made teat the petitioner ` '`- should appr,ise a1l~exisEing and:'prospective.ferianta:of the`?fact that a`portioa of the par&ing;area was~to he utilized:•as a'~screened=in play area; and ~thst the architect should ` attempt to~>improve'.'`plans;that woald effeceively reduce the undesirable appearaace of a - play';area enclos~d.`wiEh-o~tl~ a.ctiainlink fence. (See ResoiuEion.Book) . Oa roll call:the foregoing resoiutioz.was passed bs+~the following vote: ` AYES '-, COI~tISSIONERS Farano;:~~-auar,`,Kaywood, Rowland, 3eymour, Iierbst. NOES:.;,.-0OMMISSIONERS: Ncsiei ` . ,,.,"ABSENT: '. COI~IISSIONERS: .'Allied. ': ;. ` VARIANCE N0. 2191 - Pt1DI:IC E~AKING.D.PaUL HuFFMp,,N, Y900 Prairie Street, E2lchart, Indiana, _ Owsier; W. MiCH.~7~SKI, . N& M Apaitmeats, 254 Rio Grande Avenue, - Placeatia,,California, Agent; requesti~g WAIVERS OF (1) FREE-STaNDING SIGN LOCATION, (~)°:MaTIrI[JM NUMggR OF FREE-STANDING SiGNS, (3).MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE=STANDING SIGYS, AND;(4)'MINTMLIS SIGF.CT.EARANCE~ T0 ESZ4BLISH A FREE-STANLING SIGN ADVERTISING?~ USE NOT LOCATED ON:THE PREMISES'oci property described as: A rectangul$rly " sheped parcel of iand raving a fro~~age of,'approaimat~Iy,142 feet on t~:e south side of Lincoln Ayenue, tiavi~g a masim~ depta of 'approxicoately I85.feet, being iocated approxi- mately 670`feet west of the ceaterlin~e of Eaciid'8treet, end further described as 1742 West~Lincoln,Ave~ue. Propert~+ prestat3q cEassified C-F, CENERAL:CO.'~ff~IERCIAL, ZONE. > Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malc3lm Slaug~ter reviewed the location af subject property, `uses,established ia:close.~raximit~, snd the proposal to retain aa existiwg 32-square foot sign~advertising tfie apartmen.s-to tne;rear ofrthe ao~erciaY parcel oz-Lir.coln A~e~ue; that these.two:parceZs were held<under'separate.ownership ~ow, 3ut formerly had been aader the`ownership, of the petitiener;::arsd.the siga was,advertising a use nat.;on t~:e premises but, was wiEhin an ,access easement t?:r~ugh the caamercieZ prg~erty; thst3~ additiaa to~ the ~:.aign;under consideretion,,an'additioaal illegal sign`'advertising "iacome tax" was an the_easterly',property line;.that`the existing sign cnder consideratian was 70 feet froa 'tne;restaurant aiga, whareas Code wouid require a 300-foot separation; tns. ;.ce sigs wae alsoYproposed on tre.property 1ir~e,.waereaa Code would require it to oe 56 feet fram the,easterly property line; and.that the.siga advertised the spartments to the rear of '.ttie commercial property - hawevEr;, sa3d propert; did.not have street fron~age aad was a landiocked,parcel except for tne 28-fooL eccess aesemeat, said easemeat inciudin,g the r.ight to establish a aign at this location. Therefore, alth~ugn the petitioner wou3d `appear to.,have a herdship due.tu'efe IaadYocked parcei, this kardship could have been created by the petitioner tnroagl~ a lot sp2it in violation of the City'of Anaheim°s Lo= Sp1it Ordinance.which required that a lo•. :nave frantage on a dedicated street, aad that in additioa to s free-stsnding sign;'~chere were tr~o r~of signa on the apartment project which were in a sad state of repsir,and appeared to be ia vialation of the Sign Ordinance, which permitted only 20-3quare foot sig;es oa anq R-3 pmper:y. There£ore, if the Planning Commission determined t:~at the Y:ardship cZaimed was justifie3, taea a condition of approval of the va;iance s~oul,cl be to require'removal of tre ex3sting roof signs and any ~ther illegsl.signs oa the propert;, and tltat the e;tisti.g free-standing - sign be inspected t~ uetermine if it met-B~ildi~g Code: Mr. Welter Michal'ski, represEniirg N& M Apertmeats, sppeared oefore tre Commissioa ar.d 'noted that when the epartment complex was purcHased, tk~~ <i~;, at its preser.t location, aPS a2so purc?:ased; and,thEy had assnmed this was a Iegsi, sign; thaE.the sign w~s built in 1963, about the time the apartmeuts'were completed - hawever, with the high winds during.the past year, thaE sign had bi:ea blown down and a new rne had not been erec.ed untiT two months ago because".'funds were not available to replace the siga; that upon erection of said aign, Ehe Zoning,Enforcemer.t Officer had advised him that this siga was not a legal sign - therefore; subject petition was before the Commission, requesti..g approval to retain the eacisting sigs; that he Was assumiag thls w&s just a replacement aign for the sign e-ecte3 wh2a th~ praper~~ wao built; ai~Y:ough the sign was not ~egsl to be~in with;,arid t:cat ttis was :.he or.Fy mean~a of advartisi~g t~e prapertq be.ause ~f the fact that'it did not haae fron~aga on a dedicated street. Furttermore, the req;~ire- ment as to height of the : sign was ur.knowd to him, ar.d 'ne had built tF.e sigr. rimseif, said.sign being considerably sirai2er ~han the originel siga sinee it wss his ir.Cent ~ot to have this sign nlown oyer;.again, and tnat there were many other sigas erected in the city which were cozsiderab3q l.cwer tha~ the sigr: he had.. The Commission advised Mr. MicYsalski tha~_there were many r.~aconformiag sigas in the city I which had been erected pri.~r to t?;e adoptio,^, of ti e Sig:s ardinazce - hu-aever, wherevcr a sign,was proposed :o be repinced, these.would i:ave t~, meet Code requir~eme~ts. - i I f ~ i r; ~ I' ~, .` ~. ""at''~`',y°'r~.;'~Yfi"~i'~;'+ry'.,~e~a'.1*~"""ra ~"~r b~.~; P , (y. t ~ - ~ `~ "'MINUTES, CITY PI~ANNING COMMISSION; August 24, 1970 5293` ~;VARIANCE N0. 2191.~- Mr. Michalski noted'.that~the sign;was absolutely esseatial tq retaining ^.?! (Continged) , _this.;income_:pr3perty;_and-if the property to`.the east were,to:be ' •>.deveioped,;~;e'would.:then raise his aign but.not to c=eate any problem, ` andttfiat.he`would stipulate:fio_;raising this sign at._such time:as the ;!`pioperty,to Ehe~easE developed: - _. . ~.`The Co~ission inquired as'to the'length of,,time.the petitioner would need to smortize . _. , . '<:the eXisting;sign:in order..that any subsequenE,`sign wouad.be in conformariti:~e with Code as ,, , . to height ; ,: , ,. . . 'Mr 'Michalaki'repli'ed that`if he were required.to replace the sign:wi2~iaa one:year, this would:create:a definite.hardship;"on him, a~d that a minimum of three y~,~rs .:~uld`be needed <ici order.to'.realize'the 3~vestmenE in'ttie exiating sign. ;Mr. Michalski•,-in.:response to;further Commission questioniag,.stated that the sign:had been ` built;concurrent;with'the completion.of'the apartment.development and had'been located in a flower.bed'where;the,preseat sign`was now"located - however, the present sign was considerably_smeller. : No one:.appeared in opposition to subjAct petition. ~ ~`THE HEARING~WAS CLOSED. _ Discussion was held by the Commission:on the request for approval of an;existing, non- •;'confotming sign;,the fact that the owners of:the apF~•.tments had a hardship and,,indeed, _ . ,'had an,:_easemeat right between the property owners xo erect said sign within the easement; :.:that.c~nside=ation;might.=be given to'allowing sufficient time for amortizatioa of the existing sign--_however,:•any subsequent sign:would>have to be built'in conformance with ': Code;~although it might not be able to be located.other than at its present location. !'Co~issioner'Kaywood inquired whether or'not the "income tax" sign belonged to Mr. Michalski; • whereupon he,,stated'he thought the previous owner had placed this sign there because he ~ras in.the business, but it 'did not-belos-g to:himself, and it cfluld be removed'since it was an easemerit property, The Commi'ssion ttien inquired whether or.not.:he had di'scusaed remoyal o£ Ehis eign from the :'easement with"the owaer; whereupon Mr.'Michalski replied he;would discuse this with the . - owner`and adVise him the sign had to be'removed as required by the Commissian. Zoning`,Supervisor.Charles Roberts noted.for tHe Commission that the existing roof signs ~an - the apartment comp,lex were not permitted by C~~e. - Mr: Michalski retZied that:he did.not want these signs on the roof, but they had beea there since the project w~s built, and.he felt it advisable not to remove the signs so as not to 'damage the roof - howe~er, he did not have any.object:±ons to removing them at the time the existing free-standing aign was to be increared in height since he would have to hi~e ' professionals to remove them. Comraiseioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC70-155 and moved for its passage and adoptioa to grent Petition for Variance No. 2191 for a period cf three years and subject to the petitioner's stipulation to removal of the roof signs at the time the existing free-standing 'sign was rep;~ced, and that the existing "income tax" sign wauld be removed, saf.d petition being;granted~on the basie that'the petitioner had a hardahip in not being able to advertise ` his'property since ~he'apartment complex was not located on a dedicated puhlic street. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing resolution was passe6 by the foilowing vote: AYES: CONASISSIONERS: .Farano, Gauer, Kaywaod, [~owland, Seymour, Herbst. NOES: ` COMMISSIONERSd None. ABSENTs COI~ASISSIONERS: . Allred. - ~ ~ I ~ I . , ~'_ ,~~ . .., ~~ {ye'~c :~~~:'.i ~ ~'k rr,~ z~'~vZ "~'~'et xc~;€"e,~„ y ~~+}e~1 '~ M~' 'F t '~~, s T ig, `~`--~ ~ `." : ~~,.T~~ T~x *1. r ~~, '~ ~v .^'.A+>a' _ ~`s [~~~. 6 ~ kt3~D t ~ t _J y ~~ ~ ..+ ~.~; .~n tini ~. ~ah~-.±fr3~S...*`c'b~~ r ~ , -.,:~ l -u~ Y~ ~"~ ,~~. ~ :.; ta~ ..~. . . . . . ~~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ . ~ MItr'UTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION'~ August 24~' ,1970 ;, ~"~ ' ~ 5295 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - accessway could be resolved so as.not to present an undesirable : ,~: ~ NO.:~ 70 71-9 eppearance': ~ ~' ' VARIANCE N0: 2196 Mr,' Simpson then noted,that staff had recommended a connecting link ~, between the north and.south acceas:road -.however, from Cheir stand- ~'` CONDITIONAI,'pSE~ '~ poinC, this,was~undesirab.le; that they had attempEed tc offset the PERMIT NO :1196 . st=eet, but-it was very difficult,since.they wanted to &eep the parking ~ (Continued) area:as close as possible to the:units so'that they would oot create a ~ problem in walking to the units for mothers with children and persons ' witN..many groceries to carry;,and that'in.order to maintain the ~ economics:of the development, there was little else'that could be done since they were ~ attempting`to retain as low a density as possible.in this development, and presently there were.only 25 uriits per acre, whi,ch.was considerably.lower than the average all-adult project. - Commissioner Rowlaad inquired.whether or not the petitioner felt this project should sink or swim as it was ptesented - hoaasver, he was more concerned.about the environmental aspecta for the cormhunity"of Anaheim and the family living proposition where a project had a one-quarter.'mile of deadly, t~.,o-way,traffic with a backing-in and out situation o•hich,had..been accepted ia the past end would be accepted again - however, the biggest problem wr.s to find some method of reducing the deadliness of this visual appearance. Discuasion was held by the G~is$ion and the developer as to a possible solution to this problem, with the developer. concurring that he would attempt to reaolve this problem - however, he"woul~i_prefer thaC subject p,etitions not be.held up for revised plans, but that this be resolved at staff level; .tv which the Co~ission concurred. Commissioner Kaywoo~ then inquired ~whethes or not the nursery could be relocated northerly; `whereupon Mr. Morris replied that the,y hsd attempted to recognize the environmental differ- ,encea:with both adults and children • thus the location as propoaed was selected. Further- more, there.`would be a visual barri~e~ wbict~ also acted as a sound barrier, nameZq, the carports southerly of the nursery ar~a: Mr. Simpson.further nated that they had certain physical restrictions on this project; , that they were also concerned with the enviromuent of the projecr and were planning to f 'spend approximately $350 per;unit for landacapiag alone. ~ • Mrs, Fred Miller, owner of the co~erciai property at 2160-2170 West Ball Road, appeared b efore:the Comdiseion and stated that she.and her 1~usband were not opposed to developing subject property, but they were co,ncerned. ss to'the manner in which the developer proposed to,take care of the water run-off aince lihe developer was.proposing to have carports along the northerly boundary of subject property, and the natural run-off from their property was:southerly,across subject property, and when it would rain, their co~uercial develop- ment would be completely flooded if this run-off were not provided for. The Commiasian noted that since the natural drainage could not be changed, the developer would have to provide for this run-off regardle3s of the manner in which it was handled, and then inquired of Office Engineer 3ay Titus how this could be handled at the time of development. Mr. Titus replied that the City Eagineer generallq resolved this with the parties involved, and if the natursl drainage were from the Miller property through subject property, this drainage would have to be sccepted, and a conditiom of approval of the recommended condi- ~ tiona would resolve this. i,,_? _THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. i ~ Cammissioner Rowland offered Reuolution No. PC70-156 and moved for its passage and adoption ' to recommend to the City CounciY that Petition.for Reclassification No. 70-71-9 be approved, ; subject to the recommended conditions and a finding that the developer had been apprised of ! the drainage problem thaE existed by the natural drainage route acroas subject pro ert from the property to the north, and that these p y ~ with the developer, owners of the property to the nox~th,8and1theeEngineeringhstaff,meetings ~. (See Resolution Book) ~ E t On roll call.the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COt~iISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst. ~ NOES: CO1~AfISSIONERS; None. ; ABSENT: COI~IISSIONERS: Allred, i j ~ -- - : I_, - t - .._._ , : _ . -:-.--- • •i . -,~_ __... - __._._._ ~ . ~ ~i^ ' _ '° ~9'~is3€Yw iPa~.i~"+"~+"3:;4`A^~,~'.~9£.~'..w[~1~i?~;YI n€~ g,A2~: r'~cx+c,,,.~c'.: ~ . t r y~ s 5 ti~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ . MINUTES, CITY:PLANNING COMMISSION, August 24,~,197Q . 5296 1RECLASSIFICATION ~Commissioner>Yowland,;of~ered Resolution No..PC70-157'and moved for its :N0 .70-71 9-': ~;passage and adoption~.to graat Petition for Vari'ence No. 2196, subject :.. ,;, ,to conditions; amen+ding Condition::No. 2 Co indicste;that, !'providing, ;VARIANCE NO 2196 however„ that,the trafffc.pattem~~and.laadscapfng.of the northerly . 'access.:shall be submitted.•.to and approved b~+ the Development ~ervices . : CONDITIONAL ;USE ~, .: staff'!. ,. (See;;Reaolution Book) ; -:'PII2MIT< N0.• ~ I196 . .. - (Cont3nued):.' ,On roll call'.the foregoing resolution wes passe3 by the following vote: ~AYES 'COI~AfI5SI0NERS Farano,'.Gauer, Kay*wood, Rowland, Seyu~,aur,'Herbst.~ = . .; NOES .,', COAIISISSIONERS • None • .- . .; . , _ , ABSENT;~, _CO1~AfISSIONERS: . Allied. ;. ~ Commissioner''Rowland offered Resolution No. PC70=158 and moved for ita passage and adoption ~,to grant Petition for'Conditional Use'Pezmit.No.. 1196, subject to conditions. (See. ' Resolution,Book) On roll call`the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES COr4tISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst. NOES:` COMMISSIONER55 Norier 'ABSENT: :,COZIISISSIONERS: •Allred. GENERAL PLAN.;, - PUBLIC-HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO2Il~IISSION, ~AMENDMENT•N0.--122 .:204.East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Califozaia, to consider a'change in-resident^.al densities in the Santa'Ana Canyon Acea between~ ImperiaL Highway on the west, Esperanza Road on the north, Weir Canyon.Road on the east; and Santa Ana Canyon 8oad on the'south. Associete,Planner"Donald.McDaniel presented`General P1an Amendmeat No. 122, noting the proposal to ieview the land use designaEiona°in the Santa Ana Caayon Area to determine whether or not'~any change in.land use or potential had taken place.Eo consider an incr~ease in densitiea;-Ehan that indicated on the'G~neral Plan; that th~e•exhibit posted on the east wall iridicat;ed three,:~metho ~ da.which could-be used for developing this area; that the study a=ea was:diyided into two.sections, that north of the river and the ottrer between the river and Santa,;Ana Canyon Road,:between Imperiel Highway and Weir Ca~yon Road; that the > no=therly n~rtion was noE depicted for anything;on the AnaHeim General Plan since ~t the time tne General Plan was edopted.it was"not within the sphere of influence of the City of"~~naheim - however,-_on'August 12, 1970, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) had.,established the AT&SE,Railroed tracks as the northerly boundarq of Anaheim's potential in the'Santa'Ana Canyon Area, and that this vould be a prime consideration in the General P1an.Amendment. Furthermore, the Cit.y Council had requested the staEf and Commission to study the,potential densities in the Santa Ana Canyon Area, and this study was culminated in the General Plan t+mendment with three altematives: a) low density for both areas, b) low-medium density for`the entire area, and c) low-medium density for the area north of the river and low density for that south of the river; that the primary concern on all of.the exhibits was`that of circulation since the northerly portion was somewhat locked in between the river on the south and the freewaq on the west and the railroad on the north; and Ehat the Publid Works Department and the County Road Department had been conducting studies to elevate a portion of the northerly parcel so that an overcrossing of the rail- road tracks could_provide northerly circulation by way of extension of Fairmont Drive through-the study area, . Mr: Stewart Moss, 5461 Mountain VieW Avenue, Yorba Linda, appeared before the Commissiou representing the Santa Ana Canyon Property Owners A§sociation and noted that thase he represented had vested interests in this area inasmuch as in the past the option of development of the area was nagat.ive on the part o,f the sesidents - however, these resi- dents hed arrived at a point that development would occur in,the canyon, and, Eherefore, they;'did nor oppose it, but they would be very interested in any and all development p1Pns snd requested that they be:given"the`opportunity to-,review theae plans proposed for development of the:area; Ehat the Association had ,~'number of talks with both staff and the L'oaunission regarding development in this aree;~,and that it,was his desire that a clear pi~ture could:be gaiiied throu~h this public hearing that he could take back to the re.si- dents of the area: Furthermore~; since they'were primarily interested in the area south of the Santa Ana River, it was o~cessary that he obtain a better idea of what was proposed~ for the area'south of the river, that tqey would prefer condominium-type garden apartmencs I for some of the area rather than low-cost housing with a high density; that it was hoped I the area would retain.its suburban-like characteristics; and that the Association requested I continuance o~`the proposal before the Cormnission until such time as they could review all i of the proposal and its implications to the area of interest. i . . .. .. . .. . ~' ~ ; r lk~n ~f,^f'~' "t ~` : , . g i i • .. .. . ~.. . ..,i, .~.., , :.~'. .,,., -".. ~~cn, ,,~.":.'. ';..i. ~'...:: :.:.:.: - .rr,F~;"„>' ~.~ ~ ~~~~- ~:'~'~ f~ ~ ~~. .. n ~~~~ _=. ~'~ ..~. . ..: . ..... > - • ~r~". . ,..- ,. ' ~ . ' , , . . . . ~i~ ~ MINUTES, CITY Pi~,NNING-CONAiISSION, Auguat 24, 1970, ; ; ; - ,. ?; . . . . _., ,_._. 5297 ~GENERAL PIAN Chsirman 8erbst'noted that nince there had been some plans of:develop- AMEDTDMENT N0. Y22~ ment,for.~the,properti`es;;iA ~he;SanEa pna;Caayon Area presented both to (Continued) the':Count~+ aad ttie City:,of AnBheim whicti could affect,development - throughouC,;Che Sente Ana,Canyon Area,,this prompted initiation of the:' ,~ •.,General~. g1an~Amendment. ' _ ._ Mr -:Arthur'Dickenson,:11271 East Ocean Drive; La Hsbra, app~r~d before the Cocnniseion and:_noted°he owned prpperty in:the.canyon ori:ZSohler_Drive.and inquired',whether:or not the:color,code on~_the.e:Mhibits coald be explaiaed~since he we~s sure it held some .. ; significance. `;', ; . Mr..McDaniel theii reviewed the color coding on,the proposed amendmente to the Geaeral Plan and;IIOted;thet the map also,depicted the circulatioa in conformance wiEh the.;adopted Access Point Study'for the Santa Ana Ca~poa Area end also, reflected the,propoaed regional park for the.no=th,side.of`the riverbank. ,FurChermore, Exhibit.A depicted the General`Plan as it now`'existed for'the portion south of:the river, and all three exhibits,indicated what could ~be~done for the north side of'the.river not now encompassed in'~the Genpral P.lan. Mr. Ernest Danker, 5132 South Ohio, Yorba<Linda, requested'that the location of his property ' be pointed 'out .on ,the Eichibit. - Mr. Mark Andrews,:operator of a real estate office on Sa11 Road, noted he had participated in the developing and'selling of. land.thro,ughout the County for years; that he could speak far'himself and mAny members of the Board of Realtors in the proposal for development of the;cariyon sia~ce this wes the only vacant land available;.that Chey were also interested in„the three alternatives prepared by the staff and asked Ehat the densities proposed in :these ar~eas.also be'expiafned;because`maaq people:in'the audience were not familiar with the terminologq:as it pertaiaed to acreagea. Mr. McDaaiel noted ti:at a differere: concept of density had been taken by the staff, and the actual,number of,units per acre was. not'made a part of the densfty study since it would be extremely;difFicul= to spply this in the canyon area'given the topography, scenic beauty, problems with the`riverhottom or overflow land'- therefore,zoniag would have to be the actual numlier of units Lliat would,coatrol this as to density,.and Lhe'low density category ~ included R=1, R-H,;sad R-E Zones; that low-medium density permitfed single-family homea on,5000-aquare foot lots, mooile home perks, and apartment development with approximately 12 units per acre,'and medium density would be apartmenta with.more than 18 units per acre and;also pcxmitted mobile nome p~rks. Mr:~'Howard Budloag, 20046 Sauta A~a Canyon Road, appeared:before the Co~ission and noted that they owned propertq on both the north aud south sides of Santa Ana Can}~on Road, with SO acres being oa the;south aide and 14 acres south of the new freeway; t1~at it was his opinion ~he'properties 2ying along the riverbottom as depicted on the Plan should be amended to permit'deasities ia th~ law-medinm category - however, t1~e property south of the freeway should remein Iow density; and that his family had owned their property siace 1932. Chairman Herbst requested that the Zoaing Supervisor read a letter on file from the Army Corps of Engineers`regarding possible flood con~itions which could be a very important factor in determining the densitg for this area. Mr..Roberts then read_a ietter from khe Corps.:of Engineers which had been received by `staff in reaponse`to a proposed de~eYopment for single-family homes along the north side of the river east of Imperial Highwa~. However, the contents of the letter applied to the entire area encompassed in the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Budlong noted thst he had lived in this area during the flood in the 1930s - he thought 1936 - and saw what happened to the entire area. Hovever, with the construction of Prado Dam, it appeared there would be:little likelihood that this would happen again. Comments from someone in the audience regardins the spans of the river now being constructed both at Lincoln Avenue aad with the Riverside Freeway prompted Mr. Budlong to say that the bridges across the river were of some concern - however, even though not wide, if the channel wese deep enough, it wou2d hold t'r.e water,,but did not hold Che water in the '30 flood because there was no dam. Chairman Herbst noted t2:at the Commission had.to cons3der a1Z the evideace by experts in the field of flood ccnditions whea determin3ng what type of density should be permitted in the canyon area since the higher density with flood conditions meant danger to many lives. Mr. Budlong stated that homes on wreels, like mobile homes, would be better than homes with'stationary walls. . `_ ~ ~ ~ '_ - , _ _ ~ ~ ~ " MINUTE6`; ,CITY:PI.~,NNIDI~ CONQSfSSION,.'clugust' 24, 1970 . ~..52Q$ GENERA.L;PIAN s Mrr Daaker'aga3.n appeared before the Commission,and noted that he was AMEND~EPiT,N0..I22 boxn ita 0five.i~ I895; and:their>l:ome was'located-in.the flood area ~ ' ,. (Contirued) , : east of 'tl~e ~0%ive Bridge, Etiat the ~;river in .1913 -almost-wiped out E4,a~s'eim, a~d eaochex?,Cfiood _iri the-2920s washed out all,tfie br3dges ~ ~ Eo FisaE ~[r~r~t ia Ss,Kta,Ana; that..in 1916 a flood cut`;he arid his brot~er=,off.si~ce tkey were aQeteeing a~:r`anch oa=Jefferson,Street'whi]e their parenta • _ lived in Aneheim, ~ed . t'~e ~o^?y, atay;!,they.',were- able to get to their...parents' ' home was- to .. ' _; .welk ~ the tles ;of ~the `Soc:th~rn .Yacif,±c` Railroad; thai the next.rbig, flood occurred ?on March 3, - - _ 1938; and t4sq_-,,had.•pZant~d~a~.area•.witn;orange;tiees;;in 1934;' and,all the'45 livee lost in the County.occurr~3._betct~en Atwood,`and Etie ocean, and if;the'County`were to experience anothe=:,:flood,, m'~e wav ttte~Eagineers predicted;~'teen'Ariaheim,.South,Fullerton, and Placentia ehould be-forewarned'because he'had see:~i:what ~~he Sa~ze Asse River floods had done viping out.Anaheim'three ~imta sad changi~g t5e`course`of tl:e Santa Ana River from ita former terminue at l.os Alam:tos B9y to Nesa~or~ Ssy; and ths: there..would be less damage to'the `;px'opezfy, ia.*;ie etndy' ares_.ttea~ below tiie Jefferaoa~Street bridge. Mr. Jeff Millett, repreaer,ting th~ Geraidiae Rotn-Kraemer property, appeared before the Co~isaioa~and no~ed t3at canaidersble taik3ng .'~.~d.gor.e o~ regarding ~irainage; that the Corpa of Engineers! 400=ysar scorm would wipe ouC the millione of,dollara the Flood ~ Contiol..Mstriat h`d epea_ on c:F:ea::eii^.3 ~~he xfver wall which the'Flood Control'Diatrict etatad;would'ltold a water'fLow et 35~OOOIcubfc £eer per aecoad (cfa), and atatemente made by the.Corpe of Ezgir.eQra.regardiag Cra ;;00-year fLood wou2d'mean 7000 feet"more than the rlver walis couid,hoid;.tha~t the letter further aoted tk:at even with a greatly enlarged reservoir, the atanflard.projFCt fload; rdgsrdlee8, would be 20,000 cfe'- this would mean raisingrthe Tevei §C112 farther; ar.d t}:aC he #eit the U. S: Army Corps of,Engineers was projecting eomet:lieg e~ an overki,l besls in order tu.eeli buitd3ag an addiCion to the rreervoir,to Cengreae, whicn Cl:~;: did noi~ expect to conatruct withi.n the next 17.years. Furttiet~ore, if t:teee pro~ecL`fl~~cda were a posaib+_ifty with-tre Bevere flooding in five different placES, ~haa the ~~nsiw.: of :he reservoir should be atarLed i~nediately or Anaheim,'wou2d become cumgietely wipEd oLt' - thereforer after d~.acussione with the Corps of Engineera..he Feit ti:e:e was too'much emphasis p2are6 on possible flooding in this area. Commis~iaaer Rowland-Eaun it~qulsed whe::.~r or noc Mr. Millett felt the vhole flood iain area was.aa~e,:and wouZd he s uke hia li 1 on;that. F Mr. Millett iepl~ed tt~at i.-. qrder tu bu3.lfd on the Roth-Kraem~sr groperty, they would 'have to oubmit a letter frpm the Cor~ss af Engi~eara.arsd from the Flood Control District.regard- ing.,theiz ~tipuli~~oa La tF,~,facc t;ne: ehe ~and was Lcildable - thie to be submitked to the _State Board of Rea1 Ea~act. Commi~sionec Rovta~d then r.ct~d t:_at t:c~ urpos~ of the concern by tl:e Comnisaion wss protection, not fur a fiivtu number of yea s tc: £~r ti:e procection of human life, and , iince no one was aurd when bvaa ~ 1Q-}asr etorm wouid occur - whicn could be disasirous to thR:prea - tl;e Commiasi~~ was f+ace,d wi h s praale.m; ehat he, as one Commisaioner, could 11ve with ttiE pqaaibillty of a prop rty c,wner of large landa riaklAg hie life ~avingo, but to riak ~~;imrn lives wae not v argument Du~ s rtasemcnt, and ae long as thio'area vaa one in whic:i the Cammissioa~might h.ave aomQthing to say in the future developman~ of, Withuut ~atm to 2::,man lifE, carrful a~centiun a:sould bR given to any developm4nc qf it aince t2:e Cowq~adion had ru aay-ro during No~~'e time nor during the Huntipgton Bpach ilood • therefore~ there~wae no resaon to creat~ chaoa for an area if it coeld be prevented, ar:d, t:~erefore, he could sEe no 2ogic in the diacussion with MT. M~.lle[t. ! Mx. M111ett stated he did not feel there ~a~ any logic in the otatements made by the Corps of ~ngin~era s~he,-: cney sta.ed tne d&m (reo~rvoir) ohould be enlarged. ~ Coam~isoioner Faranu ir.quired what logic tliare wea in the Baldwin Hilia cataetrophe or th• slipp~ga of homea in Pqr wgueoe Bead ti~her. people attach loglc to money since people had to live there, they d1d not kpow the prpblemo ~nvalved in enginearing, and there was no logic on drair.age problema. ~ - Mr. Millett noted that-they Were rceqnltted to ~rrlve at eome solution and were attempting to de~ign for 3t, and if ic were a drein!aga problem~ than they ahould design for this - however, h~ Pelt the Corpa of Engineore!had gone overboard in their atatements. Commissionar Farano i~trated ttiat before h~~would m~ice any daciaion, he vanCed more anawers from the enginaezs end n ore authari.t~tiva dsta-althaugh ha Was nat queationingMr. Millett's quali- fic~tion~ ~+~~ to sn~ina~ring in hio ~t~teaieat ;agasdirg tha Corpa of ~ngin~tr~-bat in hie eetim~tion'thi~ W~p a ver~ sariou~ ~itu~liun and shauld not be glos~ed over lightly. Mr. M111ttt n~tod th~pt in dlacweienoi,Witli.th• Corpa of Engine~rs and the Flood Control Di~trict in Santa A~.a :h~y a~irR rhrawl'`~g e21 kindo of statemenca, even to the point of having t~ro diff4renc oete of rulx~, a'nd iis clieata had an R-2-5000 project approved for which th~y W~uld reve to daaign !t~ to gro.tct against any flood. E~ 't ~ :,,{ =~, ~ , . '~~ ~ . ~~.~ • ,~~` : ,~~' ~~~ ~ • . ~.' . ~ ~..~ ~ ~ ' . MINUTES, CITY PLFiNNING'COMMISSION, AugitsE'24, 1970 - ' S299 : _: ;... . - GENERAL.PLAN - Co~isaioner. Seymour-~observed' that ,the flood control pmblem was just AMENDMENT'N0. 122 a_part_of,the problem facing the Cou~ission, and at the timP of any '(Continued) development in this, aree'a great deal of research'•would have to be ~ made before any projecE was aPProved. Mr: Millett noted they had a.letter.in the`City,Engineer's.Office for several months regarding=Tract'No ..7137`:.- however, this letter had.never beea answered; and in conclusion, ' noted-that hie clients favored Plan B. ` Mr.:Danker.,again:appeared before the~_Commiasion.and.stated that: if he had a choice in building,'it would be'in'the area where they had planted treea in 1934 because they had no loas of+any trees-which'were very amall due to high water, and there had been a severe flood.in 1938. ` Co~isaioner Gauer noted that anoEher consideration which the Commisaion should review was:the problem,of aeseseing tHese propertiea, and`Ehe County Assessor should be available to answer ueetione re ardin these q g g propertiea in the event they could not develop since it.would.appear th~t:taxes ahonld be lawer if property could be used only for agricultural purposea.bncauae.it.wauld,'be part of the flood plain.- thie could produce aufficient money to:take care of taxes and produce some income for the property ownera. Chairman Aerbst noted'Chat it was not only,the flood plain the Commiasion would have to consider but tha'hillaide'area, as well. Mra. Ste1la:Danker.'8582 South Oceanview, Olive, appeared before the Co~iasion and noted that during th~`last ~lood there Would ttor have been the damage'that occurred if the Corpa of Enginsare had bean petrolling the area in the canyon, and as it was, the bridge held out as much'as po~siblo but once it gade way, then one great flueh of water went down tha canyon,:and her neighborb had to alimb the treee to eecape even after the Corpa nf Engine~s~,had adviaed them averything wae ~afa. Mr...Albart Yorba~°20911 E~p~ransa Ro~d, appaared before the Commiasion and noted he was born:and r~ar~d in th~ asu~b.~tw~en the.rallroad Eracks_and'tkie river and saw both the 1916 and :1938 Plrgds;,:th+~t A~r~~aor Hi.n~haw a~sstsed thair property ae ona parce2, and Whsn'th~ St~t~ Cook'a.portion>off,'th~n the useeior`had broken-up their property into thr~~.parc~l• and`a~~~~~~d th~.portioa Co ba.~old to the Stats at a lower amount than th~ir oth~s prop~rty •'thut th~y Wue ~1wn`vary little for their property. Furthermore, in 1938~ Cii~ Yorba 8ridg~ held tha aater back •11.th• Way to their property, and there wa~ not •'bix o1 w~tqr n~~r h~r place; that th~y also had'oWned l4 acras near the Warner Lamb~rE factory and khi~'prop~rty Wa~ lo~rer than Eh~ riv~r; th~t he would rath~er build hi~ hom~ ~.tt th~ ~19od plain chan in th• ar~a Wast of th• brldgp~ and that ona other item of iqqerepC ~+AS t~~ gqqt kh+IC hhe Yprba Sri,dgs and.channel were cut doxp to one-Cfiird ita fornier size, and al'though hewas not an engineer, he had.lived in this area and in 1969, the flood near the Danker property was a 125-foot channel with two separate channels and there was only a smell amount of water at one end of his property - therefore, if the Engineers would have held back the water, it would have gone to Atwood, and that they had been try- ing to get a chance to do something with their property because che taxea had become so high that they were unable to pay them. Furthermore, i£ the area were so dangerous, then ell of Anaheim and the County would be gone. Commissioner Gauer noted his reason for bringing up the tax asseasing problem was because of the fact that if the Corps of Engineers stated that homes should not be built there, then the County Assessor should assess these properties as agricultural land. Mr. Yorba stated that they had been assessed at a high rate for years, and he could not understamd why the people in Yorba Linda were worried about drainage on his property since they did not take care of their own drainage problems. Mr. James I.iberio, 1720 West La Palma Av~enue, appeared before the Commission and noted that he owned ,propercy on both sides of the river; that he had 45 acres he had been trying to annex to k6e City of Anaheim for some time - however, because of the regional park being proposed, everything seemed to be in an uproar with the County stating the property was worthless; that the County Assessor did not object to appraising one's land at a high value, but whem it was [o be developed for a park, then all types of excuses for obtaining the real worth of the land were brought forth; that most of the property owners in this general area north of the river, whom he had repreaented in annexation proceedings, wanted to be annexed to the City of Anaheim because they could not hold on to thpir properties because of h3gh taxes; that before he had purchased this property he had an engineer make an investigation p# it; that he had gone to the Flood Control District to check out the problems of thia property; that they had had several meetings with the Flood Cuntrol District, and the,~ had informed him that his property was 10 feet higher than the river - therefore, there would be no problem in developing the property; that he could see no reason for projecting schools in the study area if it presented a flood hazard; that ~ _ ~= ,~:: ~ ~ ~ MINUTES,~CITY PLANNING COMrIISSION, August 24;:'197~J 5300 ~ GENERAL PLAN., - Ehe flood.hazard problem had been blown way out of proportion sincE ' ~ rAMENDMENT N0. 122 they had.been..informedsEhat if'a major.flood'occurred, then 6naheim : (Continued) Stedium would be:wiped:,o'ut;.and'that the only thing he_could see was f _., that the County was making"every attempt to-keep the Value of the ~ . property down in=this area proposed for"a park so that purch'ase of it could be,at a very,minimal~price. Furthermore; in;p,reseriting direct,questions fo the . repiesentative of;tHe•Corps of:Engineers; no~answers were;,given;'that thr_y.had fouglit ~ th3s;probTem for•almost;one and one-half years and'had gotten nowhere;, that meetings had ~ been_held with ttie F1ood.Control_aistiict, and'they:said that the.pr.aperty could be ~ : developed.aftertthe freeway was:coastructed end the.:"flood-control chanriel improved - . _. however over a. ear a o,'when~the ° ~ Y g. property owners he represented,applied sor annexation, nothing.had.been'done.to-the nort'h side of the rive;, but at that time,they had indicated the.new.channel-wes inadequate - sti11`they spent>.the money to put,in the.north`end of ` the'?riverbed;on the riprap, and the bri.dge cnannel:at Zmperial was cut down l00 to 200 feet, and this could be a reason.why. taxes were so high, because of the waste of money. Co~issioner Rowland no.ted that pe.-~taps he wou.ld have information,that might help in the matter.of why,the bridge:was.cut down and why the.amount of sp2ce was reduced.for water flow, and:this was because of the insistence of tre Army Corpa:;of Engineers'plan to have the.Santa Ana River improved similar to that on the:Los Angeles River, and this had been their-plan for e.number of years, which could be a way o..f d~oing it if they wanted to keep the:bridge.down -'then they better have-an improved chanael all the raay. However, this ` was;in diametric opposition to the`study t,~at tead:been going on for somc time and paid for,:by,the Tri-Couaty Conservation Lesgue of which Orange:_^ounty was a member and who had authorized.the spending-of $30,OOQ recently to a landsca~e arche._•ct ta'study the Santa Ana.River.from its origin to the ocean to determine its ahility,to maintain its natural course aad aatural flowage to see if it cauld survive as an ecalo,gical climax as it had in Ehe past few generations.. Th3s-presented two totally opposing points of view - that of a`government agency ac~d one ~ho beYieved in paving thfs area and the other who believed in leaving 3t as naEural'as poseible. ~ Mr. Liberio noted.that the League of,Cities Conserwation Graup wouid like fhe property owneis to'leave the area:.as it is - they did not ~:ven want the riprap that had begun; that`:they had.a march of .300 [a 400_peopleawaYk3,n~ alang there because they did not want ` this riprap; and they wanted it so.remain natural an~d,leave t~e river go where it wanted to'go -.this was`their opinion: Furtheimore, the borps,of Engineers, after asking them why,:t6ey were making the bridge smaller, stated tha~c they were doing the~wrong thing, that`the-Corps of:Engineers representative had staL•ed that'the bridge.should have been at least 100 feet,wide or more.',Mr: Liberio, in snswer.to Comm3ssion questioning, stated that the Army Engineers designed.the bridge, but he did not know who was building the bridge, and it could be the State; that they had asked the agent for the Corps of Engineers a direct queation as.to vhaE would be adequate there and how much more would they need in the riverbed, and he could not give an answer be.^.ause they were talking about something theE:could happen but had•never happened - like a 400-year flood; that the Corps of Engineers had no idea of whaC it would be - they were going only by statistics which they had, whicH could happen just as an earthquake couYd happen and wipe out half of Anaheim - these were the things they were talking about - probabilities whicn may never happen, and after again asking the agent.what would happen to the balance of Anaheim, n; had indicated there would-be more loss at the south end of the County,not at any particular point, than there would'be in the area under consideration because the property in this general area was higher than Anaheim itself; that it would probably spread out beyond the bridge at Imperial Highway than any place else where very expensive homes were already built; and'that they had gone through Chis discussion of flooding many times with the Countp and would probably go through it many more times, but the property owners should have some answer on development in this area - however, all the property owners were fully aware of the fact that the.County wanted Eo buy the property for a regional park, ansl Y.e was sure they wanted to buy it for the cheapest price possitle - this was evidenced by the fact that the Board of Supervisors had appropriated 2C of the tax role for the park. Commissioner Rowland noted that the statements made by Mr. Liberio and Mr. Yorba regarding the reductian of the value of their property in order to obtain the land for a park might be, indeed, in someone's mind, but he wishtd to assure everyone that from his point of view this had nothing to do wiiatsoever with any decision made Ly him; that the property owners should be given the amount of money for the property as it was worth on the open market, and he would not condone, advocate, or understand any deviousness on the part of anybody in government to this end; that he wanted everyone to know, and wanted to make it very clear.,,•that`he w.~uld no[ be sitting on the Planning Coimnission for one second on that basis since he would have no interest in devoting the hours that he did to this job for.,any such purpose becausE if he were going to steal, it would be for himself, and he woul~.take the consequenc~es and risks for himself and no one else in any wsy, shape, or form. Mr. Liberio then stated i:s was glad a member of the Commission had made that statement, but those were not the words of Supervisor Baker, who had indicated Chis property should i: ~ f ~.. ;i~ ~ I ~ i ~ ~ I ~:~ ~ I . . ; = •:~ ~ ~ _ ' - - ~~ , ~ • ~ "MINUTES, CITY.PIANNING CUrL:?SSION, Auguet 24; 1970 _ 5301 GENERAI. PLAN ;': ~- be kept as an open'green area - this statement was made when the ~:AMENDMENT N0,''122 property owners had tried to annex to the'City of Anaheim. Mr. Baker (Continued). had~indicated that`if ttiey-r~mained in the dounty,.in all likelihood :ie would'be fn £avor of;permitting them to develop':.their'properties; '. ~that;wfien they had'presented their.request to the Orange County • ~;,Planning Commission,.they.had'made the~.same'statement.;as the Anaheim•Plenning Commission -` that they could not=:make'ariy commitmeut"as to 'purchasing the:property,or';trying,to keep i'the price down or:tolretaiii the area=foY'a park, but;:the Board.of'Supervisors had a`: ° ;?,different'poi~rt of vieFi -.'they-indicated>they~did~not.want the property owners to annex . to the~.City:of,Anaheim:but,w~re more interested iu•'keeping'them:iri "'no man's land", not in ~Yorba'Linda.or in Aneheim~but a~County"strip -:however,:it was "the'feeling,of;all the, ~,:property owners in'the area that~~Lhe Flood C~;nErol' District` ~ras. aEtempting,to get the Corps;of Engirieers and anyo+e,else involyei~in:Che`flood hazard{,in this area to present • letter8 of concem `and oppo$ition`.-~ust-to keep:the ~price of this.property,`;down,to`a level 'which they could;purchase'it.for.a r~egional park. Commissioner Rowland:noted:that he~coul3 not determine at E'his time just how this property '~could~:tie put;to its`best:adyaritage,as_it?:per~ained to.tHe people who were,using it,<and,it mighE'very well be best suited for a park;~area; but what.he was attempting tq say was that 'the.Planning',Commission was not interested`in seeing the::property owners held up without `proper compensation £or'their property, and i;e;would not think there was any way the` -.Commission could abet that,, and;.Ehat he could no`.,..make eny statement at Ehis time regarding this::. ;. . Mr ~Iiiberio:reiterated the fact that the F1ood Contro,l District and the Board of-Supervisors had.tried to get the.Corpa of Engineers to send letterr, a-x~ead by the staff which would . ';indicate.all'.the,hazards":in thts area - however, the Citq of Aneheim had approved an 80-acre tract`for a mobile`home park, R=3 development,".and commercial uses, and there was no indication.:thia would be a hazard because,they were going ahead and developing their property. Furthermore, he wished.to atate that he would-go on record:as being in favor of ExHibit B. ' ` Coa~issioner Rowland expressed Ehe~thought that perhaps a recess should be taken. Commissioner;Fareno;noted that he,did not feel~the Cormnission should terminate the public hearing;at.this, time;,~tHat.a great deal cf ground had been covered`but there was still more"informa[ion needed,'and the`Co~ission should try to_ do everything possible to obtain _this 3nformation - therefore, he felt the public hearing should remain open ao that all the people who were~present could voice their opinions on additional data-that might be 'obtained by the.staff f=om vaiious sources. RECESS - Chairman Herbst called for a 10-minute recess at 4:10 P.M. RECONVENE -.Chairman Herbst reconvened the meeting at 4:20 P.M., ail Commiasioners except Allred-being ~,oresent. ` Mr. Pete Sorenson,.representing Presley Development Cr~gany, appeared before the Commission and noted that they purchased and sold property'and were before the Co~nission on develop- ment in this area in the past and were presently negotieting the purchase of 50 to 100 acres:of land south of the::freeway now under construction; that they'wouid have to make a decision, just as the Cormnission was attempting to,`es to engineering which related to flood control - howe~,e.•r, he did not heve the;answers,.just as the Cormnission indicated they had no answers; but this decision~had to'be made'shortly since it was obvious that <if a 100-year, 200-year, or whatever flood storm as written by thE'~arps of Engineers occurred,,such a flood would flood everyEhing downstream, and if this happened, was the City:going to stop any;further development in this area and throughout the County where flood conditions might exist? Was the'City going to accept this unusually difficult and controversial flood letter as a standard? Fur.thermore, he was fully aware that the Commission could not sit here, as one Commissioner stated, and-endanger the lives of. people, but were they going to`be in danger _and how was''th'e City going to approach this on~,question? Mr. Sorenson,then,noted the oth,er question'he had was that of density, and he would like Eo have some;indicstioh from the Commission as to the type of density because they were interested only in.developing.an area wliere 7200-square foot lots or less weuld be permitted. Chairman Herbst noted this.was the purpose of having the letter from the Corps of Engineers read because this area was a potential flood threat and could determine What density the Commisaion should decide should be permitted for this area. Mr. Sorenson noted that if this threat were i~inent, the answer was obvious - the City would not allow any building beceuse they would not want to endanger one life for even 10,000 feet anymore than they would for every S,OOO cubic feet of water, or whatever, because if there were a real denger and the City had already zoned that porti:3a to the .' - - ,~ ~ <r,:~ .; y ~ ~ _ N ~ `.~MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMNIISSION, Augist~24,..'1970 5302 . GENERAL PLAN north.for mobile~homes and apartments,sdevelopment_of that property . •.AMENDMENT.NO 122 -; may.,have to be stopped. ;However, apartments:did'~not have to fi.le`.a (Continued) letter through Elood contiol clearance with the.,Department of Real Estate to:',obtain.auEhority,to sell`the.,~ots'anY houses;,but, again, resented and.were he wondered whether::the floo'd;control; problem'was~ieally.Ehe probi~m . P they.going.to dictate,the densities for`this srca. Co~issioner Rowland noted tha~`the F1ood.Control District did not make:the policy by,xhe Planaing Commission,,-but;all'<pertinenE:informatiori that was brought.forEh.for.;the Coa~ission, to~coriaider that was germane;to;the problem only shonld be,considered by,the.Commission ar ';' any publicbody like the Co~ission for whet Yt was wortH and for no other •reason since at.some point -. .: ia timewhen,the Comdission had an anszier and the developer had a definite proposal;:' then` they `: might be able to see that what'Ehe City was proposing here;was.absolutely.safe; and if there.were,any danger:ihat the Commission.could:recognize,:;but:could not,recognize the magnitude of it; eomeone else~would:have to take the'burden'and this"would fa11 on Ehe. ` man,who built the hcuae or•develo ed the ~' _ p progerty or the owner.. ~~Mr. Sorenson noted'that:such e flood could wash out the freeway, and no one would be killed. iI - . . I Commissioner Rowland stated thar that was a problem that the developers in this area would ~ have to:live~with, and, for instance, the City of Huntington Beach had to make a responsi- i bility law whereby Ehe.pioperty owner when purchasing the property signed an agreemenr ~ -.' that.it'was:his iesponsi~ility,if they were wiped out because of the types of problems i such;as floods,~.ocean.storms,; etc.; and said~agreement to be filed with,the State Real "EstaEe Comnii'seion:: '. , . ,: : . . _ . . ., , . . - • M> Sorenson'then noted thaC ehe decision would`remain as to~which'engineer carried the most,weight:` However, he wished.`to go.,on record.as being in favor of Exhibit B. % Commissi"oner Farano noted there.was one thing that came to mind that might overcome the ~problem Mr.;Liberio:.Ealked about,-,that`if ~fter all fhe evidence presented the Commission ~ deteimined:this was a buildable;area - whether rigtit or wrong -'and the;City then went ~ahead.',to ~zo'ne this.property,,whsteder,.decision:was mede:by the Commission would be to the ~benefit,of the property~owners,;and~any.efforE`to.lower•the:,price`of xhe land valuation r would;:be:negated in:the County's.>attempt to~purchase?a ~cheaper,park site. However, the `Commission did not now°have the answer;`;but the Commission :ihould try,to find the best • answer possible. `- ' Mr. Sorenson.inquired'as to what manner would be available to the property o~ners to be ` kept up.to date.'and'appsised of the data the City's representatives wight be able to ' obtain and upon which the Commi§sion might ba§e their decision. Commissioner.Farano noted:that he was going to propose [hat the hearing remain open for the purpose.of allowing the property owners an opportunity to discuss the later evidence that.might be presented,;such as'technical data, in order that the Commission cauld arrive at a conclus~:on from information that had substance. Mrs. Hazel.Maag, 5865 Sant~ Ana Canyon Road, appeazed before the Co~ission and noted that 'she owned several parcels of land in this area and.inquired whether or not she would have to have higH=rise density or could she.chose the 8ensity she wanted. Chairman Herbst noted that this was the purpose of the public hearing - to determine what _. - type of reaidential densities would be in that as•ea since certain parts of khe area wol~ld need a shopping center, possibly'apartments, schools, etc. Mrs. Maag then stated that they had taken part of her property for a school and for the Sta[e'highway, and now they would be taking her home; that she had lived in Anaheim during the flood of 1938, aFproximately:a block east of the Elks Club, and the water came almost to her:chin,"and when it,had receded rapidly, there were all kinds of animalt~ and birds - so the water would run through;Anaheim if a severe flood did occur. Mr. Yorba again ap~eared'before the Commission and stated.that they had had several meetings with the Board of.Supervisors and the Orange County Plann3ng Commission regarding the flood question, and the:question was directed;to the Corps of Engineers at that time, and they stated the dangers o,f;the'flood, but what he could not understand was that when they put in the Prado Dam = at which time his family yad lost 85.acres - they told the property owners at that time_that the dam was engineered correctly so that no one would have to worry'anymore about floods downstream, and at the first hearing before the Orange County ' Planning Commission, they had demanded to hear a report from the Army Engineers regarding 'i tliis;_that they,called another meeting at which time the property owners requested informa- ~ tion as to what the could do with their ~ Y property because they were unable to pay taxes ; anymore after having held their properties for so Long, and at that time they were told they were maki.ng a study and it would be 15 years or more before the report would be down j to the bare facts of what it would be like, and after they had asked when this would be ! l _ .... ~ .n~ ....... .. ..:.. : ,.,.> ~. ~ , . .,. ~.... . . .-_ :R • :. :r., ~ _,=" - ~ ~ ~ ~ i MINUTES; CITY PI,ANNING .CO1~Il~fISSION, August 24, 1970 ` : 4 ~ > ~ 5303 '.GENERAL PI;pf3 - compleEed, the agent,of the Corps of Engineers.had stated not before AMEDiDMENt N0, 122.: 1985; or 15-years;away, or it could be:longer, and they then expected (Continued) the.propeity owners to sit by idly until some decision was made;';and, i in all likelihood,by.that time they co,uld change~their minds a half a ` ' dozen timesi' To,cZarify the question,for Commissioner Rowland, • ~ Mr Yorba stated_that the Corps'pf Engineers;had advised him it would be 1985 befoie.they would.~sEart'on the`dam.~_Fu"rthermore, as for raising cattle, as one Commissioner had stated, , the~-Tast man..who.liad raised catEle;.in that area had lost six heifers one ye ar and last year had;.lost~two, and these were only~because people shot.them end Seft them rather.than`cart- ing:them away., - Mr Moss again appeared hefore the Commission and noted that his organization had spoken with'Ehe Plattning Co~isaion and~staff before.ebouE-their`expressed purpose,of preserving the,rural atmosphere of the.canyon as much,as;posaible; thet they were trying to set their lines~'along'the.point of'not making any real strong,battles against development of the ' canyon ~however,.development shouZd be in as orderly a.°manner as possible with'retention of the acenic driqe through that aree;. that they would attempt to attend as mAny Commission meetings as;possible to meke sure that.whatever was planned £or the General Plan; develop- ments.to follow would be as close as possible to these requirements .- that was the primery >-purpose'of their association; and that another asaociation in the area of Peralta Hills might be active, but they had not;coordinated''their evidence wiCh them, but 3t was hoped the canyon area would be developed with the acenic beauty that exists there now. Cheirman He;bst then noted that he felt a good cross-section of evidence had been presented to the Commis'sion and inquired of the Commission whether or not they wished_to continue said General Plan Amendment,No. 122 for.furthei 3nformation. Commissioner,Farano was of the opinion that General Plan Amendmeat No. 12 2 should be continued.and,,further atudy made by the Coawission.at a work session, discussing some of the possibilities as to various`controls;.type.of density permitted if it were:deEermined that the flood.danger was<not..as imminent as set forth in the letter; further evaluation by the;Flood;_Control District and:the Anaheim City Engineer'regarding the evaluation of the leEter f'rom the Corpa of Engineers iegarding flood conditions; the suggestion made by Commissioner'Gauer as to the reason for changing the siie of the.bridges since they were noui being reduced,,if.there'were this denger of flood,' and,to what level it did exist; and to determine'the raEionale of the Corps of Engineers and oth'er engineers' statements since ,he would like`'to know for.himself;whether oi.not they were telling one story to the , Cotamisaion arid another.story to other people since it:.was important that the Commission determine the best poRSible solution to the problem. Commisaioner Gauer stated,that he could •not understand that if the area were sub~ect to flood, how tfie bridges could be cut down, especially the one on Lincoln Avenue which was cut,down two-thirds, and this he had observed after driving very carefully through this area, and this situation was the same at Ball Road end Imperial Highway. Commissioner Rowland`noted that the only working statistics the Co~ission had were those which were,compiled and.furnished by the Corps of Engineers; that some information had been submitEed by the F1ood Control District, but these were not comparative statistics nor"were they in-depth statistica so that the Commission could make some kind of decision. Furthermore, since the Commission had heard different statements, perhapa it might be wise to have other engineera present data regarding this flood plain area. Commissioner Farano noted that perhaps`the City.Engineer could do an engineering study - however, the cost involved might be prohibitive, but the City might hade to take this into consideration because if.the City were ever Eo make an~.kind of a decision or determinaEion, it would have to be,.for always, not for a short period of time, and he would not be in favor;of any of the surrounding property owners participating 3n this speciaY study since he was not desirous of having any influences being contributed by them.: Mr. Slaughter noted that '~ecause a number of questions had been directed to the Co~ission and saised as to the manner of construction of the bridge~ across the river, he had talked with the City Engineer during Ehe recess, and the City Engineer had indicated that the bridges as presently designed were designed to take.care of the river when it was eventual- 1y was,developed as the Los Angeles.River was and was channelized, etc. Furthermore, the bridge designs may have been done before the complete drainage and run-off study had been made: Mr. Dudley Frank, 17411 Irvine, Tustin, owner of property in the study area, appeared before the Commission and noted that 'if the Commissi.on were trying to become involved in the flood control problem, this might be a problem which the Commission was not cut out to do. ,. y. . . .. , ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY;PLANNING COMMISSION, August 24,~1970 ~5304 r - : GENERAL PLAN` - Commissioner.:Rowland then:~inquired whether~or:not Mr. Frank felt the ; •;AMENDMENT.NO:!.122 ;; Co~ission should completely ignore`th"e flood'control:problem. ' • (Continued).. :, _ ~. Mr Frank stated that what tie was attempting to say was that one way or another the flood conErol problem would be:solved, and if no problem ;existed, theri~there;would•be no'need to.,~wor=y:about;..it since it would b~e.soTved to the satis-. ;faction of tlie bodies indolved, riamely,.:the.builders,,the•lenders, and`thQ purchasers.of ;the ~homes . ': ` r ?, ,. . - Chairman Herbst doted that~:'the coacern-of ~the°Coaunission happened to be the health and ;safety;of the;commuriity,.and, unfortuiiaEely „ Elood control,:had to be considered a part of •. safety.; and-;there.was no,way of.;gettingieround;'that fact. ~: ,. 'Mr Fiank then stated he,felt any::decision on flood control,:would be coming from the engineering<,staff of the.city. Commis'sioner Farano-:noted that as':far as,he was concemed, the Cos~ission"would be making ~:t}~at;:determination;~;whether or not they were:right c~`wrong;=and Mr. Frank would have to convince him,otherwise : Mr Frank then noted::Ehat.if ttie Commission.felt.it was their prerogative.to take thi,s into consideration, then'there.was.nothing else lie could:say. ' ¢hairmen Herbst then stated that there were.some areas.in the,riverbed which might be covered,in a massiVe:stroke that aertain`areasicould.be built on,a master plan basis - ~then'Ehese property owners;.would:automatically`feel that they could.build on it. However, .,portions o"f:the,property mighE not;be buildable;and,-these were,the things_which the Co~ission~had.to~determine - maybe i[ should not:even belong in the sphere of'the build- 'able area but should`be considered part:of the`ri~~er; Mr. Frank Ehen stated~that:`if it were something,tiiat,was going to be subject,.to a'fmood, he did'not.believe'a:building.peimit would„be issued.. Coamissioner..'Rowland noted'that.that was unlikely because people in Long,Island felt the "same',way in:1962, and they.,loat 80 milTion dollars of their'residences because they had ;a valid;building permit to build their:homes and they'lost tfiem in`two hours. .;'Mr Frank stated that,he did,not want to be argumentative - if the Commission wanted to be ~, . _ . _ 100%.sure from.now;on, he did not think:that.was posaible;,that the`only point he wanted 'to make was~tfiat someone else would solve these engineering problems, but if the Commission wanted "to.wrestle wiEh the;:problem as the Orange County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors; everyone was very concemed about it and wanted to do their best to solve it, and what:it ainounted to was that each place they were given constant continuances and delays, and._it had been a year and a half that these property owners had been fighting this battle -,everyone who heard.about it wanted to solve it for the property owners, and he hated.to see another body wrestling with the problem.. Chairman Herbst noted that it has gradually become a.problem of the City of Anaheim,.and xhis was one of,the reasons for the public hearing. Commissioner Farano.noted that if all of these people were wrestling.with this problem, then perhaps it was:a big problem. The people had presented.their views and the Commission had heard.a.good cross-section.of the:property;owner's' views and desires: Therefore; he would hope.that anyone who would appear before the Planning Co~ission at any subsequent hearing would have something to contribute.and'have some facts in which the Commission could-sink their teeth and consider rather,than.just wishful thinking - it wasn't that the Commission did not want to hear the;people make their speeches, but it was more important Ehat more concrete he2p be given for the Commission to.make a decision. Mr. Frank noted that he had:a feeling to some extent that the business about the flood conErol was a"red herring~; and,there were some other reasons for it which were not brought,up=;in the public'hearing, but it.was e means of blowing things down., holding back, 'and delaying things until:the County was ready to do something with it, and that they had had this feeling of road blocks in-other areas, not just the flood control area. Commissioner Rowland n~ted`that rir. Frank was considerably late for the hearing because these areas were covered very thoroughly and vehemently. Commissioner Rowland_offered a motion to continue the hearing until such time as sufficient informsfion was ayailable for the Commission to review - however, the Commission must stay on top.of.this problem and'must pursue it diligently since there was nothing more important to the-City of Anaheim than this area; that this was one of the most important problems the Commission had ever.faced, and a proper timetable should be set up so that the propesty owners would be apprised:of some idea of what was going on in the thinking of the Commission . _ . _ _ , '; . ... , ... . ..... „„ .~r.m~.*~n'wass't-a. .+c: ~,x'!,r Y, , ~.. ~ ~ .. . .. . ... . . ,. . .. ~ . .. .. ~ in•i i. ~ ~ n«T1~ :. ~R r .r.. ...{ . '. .. ~ - ..~~ '. ~ ~ ~ . Y ~ ~-' s ~ r ~ ~~.,~ ~ ~ .. - . . ~ ' - ` ~ar~ MINUTES; CITY~'PLANNING.COhIl~fISSION, August 24, 1970 5305 GENERAL PLAN'' ~ --and he, for one, did:want any, surprises,sprung on him or the Commission. AMENDMENT N0. •122 (Continued)`~, `Assistant Development Services.Directoi Ronald',Thompson noted that ~'there'were:several.zoning;applications;in the County which the County ' ~ had-continued.for the City`of Anafieim'•to:'report.back to them on what would be appropriate;as to-development and density, and if the General Plan Amendment-were • continued,'tHere was a possibiliEy-that;:the,Cify,would no.E be'alile`to get Ehe County to continue the..:zoning>petitiona before,them.until the City had arrived at some decision.` , Co~is'sioner Rowland'atated:that a communication shoald be submitted to the County on the same basis as~'the..Co~i3sion was;_communicating_with'both the staff aad the property owners ;:present at the public hearing;.namelv:; that the:Commission did not know what`they were doing,~and needed.additional`:`time;to find aut..more'facts.about'how to arrive at a solution ''since'the Co~ission could=rush this'too`much;and steamroll themselves into some action '`which'would be detrimental,in one,way,or:enoEher to the property'ownere and the City in --;,general~,"and he, forroae,_could aot make a,reco~endation to the County at this time. _.Furthermore,.if,the Orange County Planning Commission in their infinite wisdom could guide the~Ariaheim>Planning Commission in Ehis.matter, Y~e would like to talk with them about it. Mr..Thompson;noted that the reason the City was faeed with"Brookhurst Street north of Lincoln.Aveaue was`due, in part, Eo the County's.iafinite wisdom. Commissioner..Seymour noted that after-a thorough research of the report and the data ',presented at the hearing, if the Commisaion were able to determine,that this propertv~ ,.. was.zeady to,be developed and the danger of flood was.not there and then this went before the'County;and Stateilevel and:theq would<say."no", no matter what the Commission did or `any;position they took, they would be:'damned"in relationship to the`flood problem. Chairman Herbst inquired whekher 3 t would be posaible.Eo set up a joint work session F~ith ~;the.Orange CounCy,Planning Coawission on'this subject`and.bring §omeone from the Army 'Corps of Engineers to this meeting so`that both bodies could try to resolve this since • the a=ea under consideration covered a considerable amount of property with both the County and the.City`doing.;studies`on it„ and:it would ba much more efficient to get both bodies together to'eqaluate the Corps.of.Engineers' letter and get Eo the heart of the matter. Coa~isaioner'Seymour inquired'how much acreage,was involved in the problem area; whereupon Mr.•McDaniel stated that the flood area'was the.entire study area between Esperanza Road :'end`Saata Ana Canyon Road, according.to'the Corps of Engineers, not to mention any area not codered by the study area which would go a11 the way to Prado Dam. Coffinisaioner Herbst noted.that if the Commission were going to make some kind of decision, then they ehould geE to the heart of things and try to resolve this since both bodies might be going in.two separate directions, and he felt coordination between the two bodies was important and necessary. Coum~issioner Gauer felt that some solution should be made on thia problem at the Commission level prior to.thirty days, and the Commission should meet at a work session in approximate- ly fwo weeks to determine these thinga. Co~issioner Farano felt that if too many people_met, then there would be too many theories, aad the Anaheim Planning Commission should meet and plan their own strategy and areas of isiquiry of what should be covered and looked into. However, it was his feeling that the Commission should hear the statements„of the Corps ~f Engineers and the Orange County _. Planning`Cormnission but should not meet on.a disorganized basis but should have all facts aad data straight prior to meeting with them. i Commisaioner Rowland noted thaE there were several areas of information that were needed; namely,.that the City Engineer evaluate the Army Corps of.Engineers report as it pertained 'to.fZood conditions; a report froo the Division of Highways as to the basis for thef.r designir.g the overpasses or bridges and the_freeway in light of the possible £;ood conditions; and that-the`Orange County Flo~d'Control District also evaluate the same letter:in the same manner as the ~ity Engineer since the Commission could not evaluate.it. Commissioner Farano requested that this information be seC forth in layman's language since:he was-not at all familiar with engineering terminology and was not a very good mathematician - therefore,,a aimple language:xeport was more desirable. The Co~ission Secretary, in su~ing up the request of 1. That the:Anaheim City Engineer study and present an Engineers' leEter regarding the flood conditions. 2. That the:Orange County Flood Control District make of this Army Corps of Engineers' letter. the Commission, had the following: evaluation of the Army Corps of similar study and evaluation I I . ~. i ... ~ j;:: ;:: i ~. .. ~ i: ~ j. C', , 1","• i% ~ i 1>: ; :._ . - ~ k4~s4~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~/ ~ '~ ,.. : _. ._ -' - . R~~ ~y . . . . . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August ^+,`1970 ;' . ,, , . . ?`"C ~~; ,` 53Qb GENERAL PLAN , - ' . :: : 3 t ~';~ }y~ •• On wha basio were the freeway and the;overpasses of the Santa ti `~NDMENT NO 122 : Ana River decided and why were the smelle E ~ y, r r,an in the past? ~ (Continued) 4;That a:joint woric seasion be held;with the Orgn ' ,: ~ ge County Planning Commission'to review'the data presented to the Anaheim Pla iri m . , nn g Com ission;with later data as requeatefi by the Anaheim ~ , ~' Planning Coffiiission ~.u ,~~~ ~ 5 That a iepresentatiwe-of the•Corps~of Engineers be available at the.Work session to answer-:any questioas both Com i io m ', m ss ns igat hsve. 6;•That information fiom the County;Assessor a to w t s ; he her or not he would assess these p,roperties for-ithe'existiiig;uses if the bit and C rm z" . y ounty dete ined that the area remain for agricultural purposes only~because of the possibility of fl ! if thi d d m °c ~ oo a age s,=area developed and became -urbanize'd . . _ , . . , :; .. ' ~ . . ~ The Commission concurred that,these were'the iequirements; whereupon Co~issioner Farano seconded.the.motion,.noting that•the meeti e r>',~ ' ~ ng b continued to September 21, 1970; at a public hearing. MOTLQh;CARRIgD;'. ~ , `:; ` Commissioner Rowland left:'the Council Chamber;at_4:55 P.M: ~ *y r~s ~r: GENERAL PLAN _ , " READVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY.pLANNIpG ; AMENDMENT N0 120 COAM *r-~ zt~ ' . - ISSION,;204.EasE Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californis~ to ~ ' ~ , reco nsider any additional information re ardin the ap ropriateness _ ;_ of e: g P 8 g p , stablishin "mini arks" as a : S'~~x part of the General Plan texf. x~ts `Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter.reviewed the"past action of the Planning Commiss~on and the=reason f f ~'~ c or he rehearing,.noting that the Co~ission had reco~ended ~:by resolution;to the,City Council the adoption: _ f he a ~ E k .o .t ddition of the definition of ;"mini=parks" and the inclueion o£`mini-perks in the Parks Recreatio 'C ~, ~ c , n, and Open Space - o~unity Facilities Element of the Genera2 Plan - however, because of comments the news a ad er th i ` C ~ p p m , e n e . ommission had set another:`hearing to determine if all the_eVidence had been submitted~to th m: ., ~ e regarding the appropriateneas of including mini-parks as . of the: ~,enera2 Pl a t n ~~ ; p r a . c ' ~. `. ` . Co~nissioner Farano'noted that since he was the ! ~ ~ one who initiated the rehearing of General Plan Ainendment No: 120, he felt introductory remarks sho ld b e '1 C u e mad by him at this re- hearing, and;then proceeded to;sEate that at the public heering when the Plannin Commission~had c sidered <% ` g on ;the inclusion of mini-parks'and the definition of a mini-park ''into the text:~of the General ` ~ Plan, as well as the symbology being placed on the General Plan Map, the'Commission was'of the opinion that th G ne e e ral Plan should:include mini- ;:perks`in the;Co~unity Facilitiea Element text - however the symbolo y from th h ' , g s ould be eliminated e map:because it was so:minuscule that it would be only a dot and would not be readily identified; that s ~`~ aid t.~p.e of park would have to be part of the Flan in the event the City determined that-financing of suah parks was c s j~' . ne e sary through HUD - Iiowever, at no time was.HUD the,ruling or determining factor in the decisio - a made by the Commission since the Cou~ission's only jurisdicCion was to determine whether or not the inclusion of mini-parks was an o appr priate land use because the General Pl~n indicated only community and regional parka but made no'mention of mini-parks d th ~ ; an at the recommendation of the Planning Co~ission in no way suggested the means by which these parks should be finan Furthermore as a d es , ce . r ult of several newspaper articles in which derogatory remarks were mede.regarding the Planning Commission's a ti c on and the fact that said articles indicated the Commission had not been'fully informed as to the implicatio h _ ns t eir action had, it was felt by him, as a Commissioner, that another 'order that the ublic c ld r u r h 1 ~' ; p ou p esenC any additional evidence which~apparently the Commisaion had not received:because no one appeared at the ublic h ~ ? p earing in opposition, and no additional contrary evidence had been submitted at the original hearing. Therefore pubiic hearing was fo this lie ~ , r t purpose of,submission of additional evidence in order for the Planning Commission to determine if they were in vi ' ~. olation of their sphere of in£luence or whether the`more pertinent 3nformation alluded to by the ne '~f ~ wspaper articles was necessary or the Cammission.Eo rescind or reaffirm their ori i al o ~ g n acti n. .. - t Mra. Eleanore Howe, 609 North Janss Way, appeared before the Commission and expressed concem that the City of A h !` na eim or the Planning Co~ission should consider accepting funds from HUD unless the City had no b i o ~, ~•'. . t een n c ntace with representatives of other cities'who had obtained funds for publir housing, urban development ren the Offi l ewa , or from ce of Fducation, etc. - there was a very_excellent. article Which pinned down this point on AugusG 16, 1970 im th Sa , e nta Ana Register.written by Joe Hinman, who had been following the'social;engineering which, incidently, wa to b s e accomplished by 1984 - however, HUD revealed in Washington, D: C., that 250,000 t d l ` _ ax o lars would be given Play Art ~oundation,'and the,cartoonist Hank Ketchu , m.- creator of Dennis the Menace, P*eaident of the Eolorado Springs, based,,non ~rofit or~ani.zat,ion of landSoa ~ Wauld guide e a tea l ' F p a rc m ~iYgq ~ d ~s a ~: : , d ~ ~ , . . a ~ at~j;~.~%,.i , R~4logists, mnthers .; . ~ ~ ati~ ~~ ~ could be ' t ~ ~ ' h ; j N@@. ,~q ~..~~p~,n, w ich y~alF=e~Q4n41 :t ~t twa repo;t~ an ~,dg~~ P1aYSrouslda w~~e to b~ dal ~ver t a ~ , o . -:,,,, ;.t __..... , _... ~. .,. . „ .,, ,.. , ~~ ~ ~ ~1 '~id1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONa1ISSI0N,.August 24, 1970 5307 GENERAL PLAN - IiUD as pattems for U. S, playgrounds - therefore, she was beginning AMENDMENT ~TO. 120 to wonder now what the Planning Commisaion planned to do with these (Continued) mini=parks -',wliat were the desi - y gned for or what was the Ci.ty planning them for, neighborhood parks, educational parks, or whet; that Wilson Riles,'who would.be opposing Dr. Max Rafferty.for Superintendent of Public Inatruction of,the State of Califorui~ in his report to President Nixon's co~iasion to study-the urban problem.in education advocated.educaEion parka for integration - these were.achoola without walls; that her.''statementa"w~re'not a figment of her imagination - these were happening becauae xhis was a master`plan for education, and she omuld point out ~ to the Commieaion ae Planning Commiseioners.`and the City Council that they had better look into the field of.education becauae'the cities were being so designed, and the uae of land was also being so deeigned;;that she:could not help but feel that tHe people who_appeared nnder General Plan Amendment No. 122 were trying to get an answer as to whaC they ahould, couid, or can do, or what would,ultimately happen'witH their land 'since they had a feeling they had been delaynd, and ehe was also getting the'feeling because tHe more she read and the more documents that came through.from Health, Education and Welfare and the Office of Education, the citiee definitely were going to be planned and planned around a achool, and they will be planned communitiee. However, ahe did noE feel this was what the City of Anaheim wanted • juet recently ehe had a person come back from the UNESCO meeting in Sweden.- at this point Chairman Hnrbst interrupted Mra. Howe and stated th~t he felt she was'going afer from tha main sub~act, which Mre. Howe etated was basically what the hear- ing was all about. Chairman H~rb~t.th~n stat~d that the Commiaeion was nstabliahed to determine whether or not tha batic Iand us• Nas appropriata and whether or not mini-parks wera needed, and any,discu~~ion as ro th• manner of financing these parke.wae up to the City Council - tha Planning Commi~sion'• jurisdict~on ended in datermining the land uee only. Therefore, if the City,Councl4 wanted ho apply to HUD for financing, that was their prerogative, and they might deaire to finance these small parks themselves. However, he wished to assure Mrs. Howe t},at the only concern of the Commiss;on was to determine whether or not the .'City of Anahaim should have mini-parks, and thia was their only function, not the meana of hor,T they could be funded; that the Planning Commission had no connection with HUD as was mentioned in the newspaper articles, although during the discussion on the General Plan Amendment as to financing, some coa~ents might have been made regarding HUD - however,:in the Planning Commission's recosrmiendation to the City Council as to HUD funding, this never was forwarded, and the Planning Commission felt the recou~endation made and the particular sites mentioned were those which would be acceptable to the City Council and was their only recommendation. Mrs. Howe then requested that a description of mini-parks be made. Chairman Herbst noted that it was a small, one or two-lot park in a specific area in town, and then requested that staff read the definition of mini-parks as the Commission recom- mended to the City ~ouncil. • 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts then read the definition as contained in the Report to the Commission. However, after the definition was read, Mr. Roberts stated that a representative of the Parka and Recreation Department, Mr. Mulqueeney, might wish to make some co~ents. Mrs. Howe then inquired whether or not this would have anything to do with the Head Start Program for that area. Commissioner Seymour noted that this was only a consept of what a mini-park was. Mrs. Howe then stated thia was also in the Head Start material. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not Mrs. Howe was opposed to parks - whether or not she was opposed to small parks as compared to larger parks; whereupon Mrs. Howe replied in the negative and stated that she was for parka per se. Co~issioner Seymour then stated that this was the only thing the Commission could discuss since Che Planning Co~nission Chairman had indicated the Coa~ission had no authority or power in the financin~ of these parks. Mrs. Howe then noted that it was her underatanding that some suggestion or thought kas given to Federal fuading. The Commission advised Mrs. Howe that discussion was held and some of the Commissioners also had reservations as to Federal funding; however, this would be the prerogative of the City Council, and the Commission, therefore, made no =ecommendation of funding to the City Council. ---- ~ j ,_.,: - ~ c _ Y ~;:i.`i..~' ~a.~ ! _ ._ . .. . ~ r ~ .~ ~ . ~ ~yi Enr'?~ ~i +:..r , ~ , ~ ~ . . . ~ , t ~ +C ~2~ . . . . ~ ~ - . ~ .. MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING°COl~II+IISSION, August 24, 1970 : 5308 '; ~ ~, ~ GENERAL pLAN - Commisaioner Farano noted that the manner in which the diacussion `~ } AMENDMENT N0: 120 of',the funding came about was when reference was made to the small -+ (Continued)-. park at Elm:'and Clementine~Streets where children and parents got ` }r-*~ together and;removed several o.ld:,buildings'.from the premises with ' t i _:the.consent of.the property owner, cleaned up.the property and ~~' planted,grass for:a small, open green'area which che',children could use and which was h near~their homes,::and by declaring.mini-parks-as appropr.iate in.th'e General Plan then ' ~~• , if Ehe City-decided they,wanted.this site as" art of'the ark p p program, it could be "~ ; .purchased;end maintained,,'.whereas private property'developed as itwas now could not be ~~~ serviced by the City.. ~ - ~.~:. . ~ Mrs. Alice Elizab.e,th Anderson, repreaenting the^League of Women Voters,.appeared before } ~ w ~-~~ the Commission•and read a statement.from their,`organization, as follows: "The goal oE ' '~ '~ the League'of.Women Voters is to:promote political responsibility through informed and `i~ active participation of citizens in government. Members carry out this purpose by atudy- :.=~~ ing issuea in great detail and on a non=partis,an.basis. The League of Women Voters ". believes that there exists in Anaheim a need for additional arklands to P provide residents - '~' of the community.with visual, physical and emotional relief ftom the congestion of urban ' ~; surroundings and to help retain some open-space'areas. The acquisition and development of ~ Mini-Parks will help meef this need, will promote.:the health, safety and general welfare ` ~ of the citizenry, and is cone:istent with the goals o£.the Anaheim General Plan and the J: guidelines set forth by the 1968 Citizens' Capital Improvement Committee". ~ ~' - Mr. Jack Mulqueeney, representing the Parks and Recreation Department, appeared before the ~. ~ Commisaion and noted that the reason for initiating General Plan Amendment No. 120 was r~~; because of the fact that the staff realized there was a need for.special park sites such . ° ;,. as one or two-lot parks, and the Open Space Element permi~ted only co~unity and regional ' , .x,, ~:'~ parks-which could be no smaller than five acres, and no provision was made for parks less .: than five:acres - therefore, the General Plan Amendment would fill this need for s mall ,~ '"~<v . parks, as small as one city lot, but need:not be that small and could be similar to the t f` one at Clementine and E1m:Streets where the neighbors contacted the property owner for h~i',. permission to remove the small structures used by "winos" and drug addicts, and upon befng , giveci permission,:the mothers, fathers and children spent twelve weeks clearing these lats, i receiving assistance of"a number;of trucking companiea in.hauling away the debris. After- ` 'wards, they came to the Parks and-.Recreation Department asking for help to plant something ~ ~' on the land - however, because this was private land, the City could not give them much ' ~ ' vi sual help other than general guidarice and some grass seed and advise them how to plant it, These neighbors then got some amall play equipment which they put up themselves and , children from ages three through elevea use this play area, and the staff realized that at acsy ~ moment this land could be retrieved by the property owner, and since these people had ' spent so much of their time in clearing up the property, putting in a sprinkler system ~; and planting the grass, that this should be considered by the City as an integral part of the park §ystem because these children would have to cross two major arterials to get to Pearaon Park, the nearest public park for these children. Therefore, staff felt it would be desirable to obtain this land - however, because such small parks were not part of the General Plan, staff worked with the Development Services Department to set for public hearing a General Plan Amendment which included small parks of less than five acres; this ~ action occurred shortly after the bond issue was defeated at election time, and fur.ds in 4 this bond issue would have provided for the purchase of this park. Later the City ' ~ Manager s Office requested tt~at the Parks and Recreation Department inquire or consider the potential of land in mak~ng a request to HUD for a 50-50 funding, but HUD, at no time f , had approached the City res;arding any participation in Federal funds for park purchases ~ j ~ during all.these months oi discussion of providing a small park area for the Mexican- ~ American community, and'that he had looked into the statements made that there would be ~ a'~ strings attached to any Federal grant; but he was unable to discern anything. I ~ Coimaissioner Farano then noted that the Cammission was not interested in any negotiations that the Parks and Recreation Department had with.HUD since any final action would be by the City Council - therefore,,the only consideration before the Commission was whether or not mini-parks were good for the City of Anaheim. • ~ The Co~ission then inquired if these mini-parks were esCablished, would there be any ~ supervision or would there be part-time supervision during the su~er months and from , the standpoint of land use and zoning, how many of these parks were considered necessary. i Mr. Mulqueeney replied that none.of the parks in the City had supervision per se - they l had park maintenance people who maintained the grounds and who were instructed to observe ~ that no improper activities took place, and if any did, they were to advise the department i ,~ who, in turn, would request that the Po?ice Departmeat investigate the report. Secondly ~ !i , whether or not there would be a part-time recreation leader during r,he summer months at ~ ~ , this time the department had not made any determination on this, and thirdly, as to the b ~ num er and location of mini-parks, subsequent to the last public hearing on the General Plan Amendment, the Parks and Recreation staff, together with the Development Services y ~ Department, had agreed as to the criteria of a mini-park which became a part of the ,# _3 j ~ _ , e..: .. . ; . . ...'um . ~ q .: Fs ~fi -i~ ,~ ^ : . y'. . . ~ l, , s ~~ ~ , X C, ~ ~ t ~ i ~ ~ . ~ r ~. ~ -4. ~~~ 3 . . . . . . .. ' .1.," ` S MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISS,ION, August 24a:;1970 : - 5309 ' : ..~ i ..~ , ~ ~ . , ~ s , ; . . : .. . . : ., , ~,. . ~. . -. ..' , . . ~, . . ' . ~ . . ~ . GENERAL PLAN Planning Conwission~=esolution,::and;the location and number h~~;not .. > a~r,c: ~}. •K ;s . AMENDMENT: NO 120 : been;determined as; of ~this date. Tfie only concern at this .time was 4; ~ + (Coatinued) to have the`mini park included;in~the,General Plaa text. ` a s~'{;;r _ ~ :: : , , ' s,~w,~ The Commission theri inquired whether or.>not toilet facilities were`planned for these mini- ` °~-= 1 parks; whereupon Mr Mulqueeney'replied that since Ehese parks were oaly'about 10,000 . ~~r square feet; at this time no consideraEion had•been,gi~Yen to providing ;toilet facilities ' ~~ _ . ;: because the,;children would beconly a'short distance from Eheir homes. ;~~ ~THE ~iEARING WAS CLOSED ° . _ ~: - Commissioner'~Faraao noted'that.the rehearing of General Plan'Amendment No. 120 had'clarified a number of issues however, there did'not seem to.`•be any public opposition or additional ~ , infoxtnation-"as,fo mini-pa=ks'pre'sented;- if anything,.there was>aupport for the concept of 'r_~ small; parks -_ ~ , _ , , . ` , ~ ~ Co~nissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Coaunissioner Seymour and MQTION CARRIED ~r ~ ~~ , to advise.the"~City-Council that the prior reco~endation made in Resolution No. PC70-131 ~ ``~`'.~ to adopt~General-P1an Amendment;No. 320, esEablishing mini=parks 3n the Eext of.the:Parks `x , Recreation,:;;and Open,Spece -..Community:Facilitie's`Element, and to include the definition ' ~:s , of a mini-park.as well; be reaffirmed since no evidence was submitted that.would.indicate : , ' ~ ~ ; to the,Corinnis sion-thaE misii-parks were not acceptable;to the City of Anaheim at the ~ reheering. In fact, evidence was snbmitted .to. support of the concept of sma11 parks as z,,j a meens of providing additional open, Kreen areas'within the urban'surroundings ia the '. . ,. ~Y~A ~ City . , : , . _ . _ g _~;~: ' .. .... . . .. . . . . .I,F: . ' REPORTS:AND. = ITEM N0. 1 REC01~4IENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1138 (Speha~ property) - Request ~ for:approval of revised plans on a 347-space mobile home ~ park:loceted at.the southeast corner of Imperial Highway 3 x ~ and Esperanza Road. ~ ,,~, . ~ . r~ ; `Assistant Zoning Supervisor,Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property , ~ ~-~-` ~ ? and the request for:.approval.of revised plans„ noting that the original plana approved ~ ~ ~ .when Conditional Use Permit No. 1138 wa's considered'by,the`'Planning Commission indicated , -•~ , two recreational-leisure-areas having a;'total of approximately 100,000;square feet; that ` ' ' ry` the first revised plans;presented a.cluster-type arrangement with considera5le green e e ' ~ ~ b lt ar as,between the clustera ivin a moie o en effect and the . 8 S P , proposed development ~ now hed only one recreation area>of 50,000'square feet, incorporating a curvilinear street ` '` design rather than`the traditional grid pattern but reverted to a conventional lot design S from the cluster arrangement previously_considered; that a comparison of the new plans w with;the proposed Mobile Home Park and,Travel Trailer Park Ordinance indicated.that the l e i~+„~ p ans:substanfi lly conformed with the praposed ordinance except for landscaping, parking, t and recreational requirements wherein 104,000 square feet for the recreational area would be required; that the staff recommended a number of conditions that would be required of the'new ordinance - however, the primary concern at this time was the fact that the recreation area was greatly reduced; that it would be a long walk for many of the residents , ' in the outer areas to gain access to the single recreation area; and that the developer ~ may have the landacaping areas.included as part oF hi~ recreation area, but this could not be considered as part of the recreation area, nor could the area proposed for parking : of boats an.d camper storage areas wherein no spaces were indicated. Furthermore there ~ ~ , were.very few guest parking spaces interspersed throughout the area, with the primary i .. ~ spaces being Located around the secreation area - therefore, it was reco~aended that if ' il ~ revised plans.were required, the Coaaaission might wish to consider reco~ending that all ~ , lots be located within 300 feet of a-guest parking space. ` ..: <s Mr. Jess Davis, 2555 East.Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, appeared before the Conanission, noting he was asked by Mr: Philip-Walsh,who was direc~iy sesponsible for this project, to be present at the time the Coomiission considered the revised plans §ince ;ir. Walsh was unable to be present; however, he was not at all familiar with the project and, therefore, could not answer any questions which the Commission obviously might have £rom Iistening to the ~ ~` Repart to the,Commission. Chairman Herbst noted that there were several.very perEinent questions that the Commission ~ had which must be answered before any considerat':an could be given to approving or denying ~ the revised plans. 1 Mr. Davis then noted that since the staff had made very specific recommendations, these ~ could be considered conditions of approval, and he was unable to state whether or not -r i the petitioner.would agree to these conditions. , 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the reco~endations by the staff were intended ~ , , to.be additional conditions and were based upon the consideration given by [he Planning ! - . _ .L :~ .~.~ ~' . 1 a, r~ r ::. . _ .~.~~~ 4'~~h:~'Y~ '~'r'"a ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ - ?. : t ~ s. ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~ . 3 ~~~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ /~ ~: . : , . ' ? MINUTES CITY P` ANNI ~~ , i. NG COMMISSION, August 24~ <1970_ 5310 , ``~t~ '' ~ ' REPORTS AND'^ ~' .: ;, ~ .. ` ; ~s ~. , , ; ~ ~ RECO1QiEB~4T.I0NS ITEM:NO, 1 .(Continued) ~ ~ ~ ' -~...~.~-..rnrcn~~ '~~ ~ . :..: .. ._-. ':'.. ~ 8t~~'~ ~'~ ~~~'t'~~~n~:it with: the new ord3riance, and tk~re might. be additional conditiona'if '~y'' ~ t~!~ ~~~~~tpkd~~ $~g~;desirous of applying~the scenic,corridor.desires for'Santa~~Ana Canyon on ~~laE~t r ~~,~prcq; Th i u ~ , e efore,~..he wo ld recommend e:two-w,sek continuance in:order{to' ` a~%~` ~ ~' ~ 3 +~ s ~~ x~e to be; present and/or to p=esent reviaed plans incorporating? some of .. tk169 ~< _ .. ~i~ L~' 3 ~ ' t , . . : ,~ ra .~af the" staff:: %;: ' ,. _ , - . . ~ '-~ ., ' ' ~ . , . .; . . :.L . ~ . .. . Chairme~ H~iryat noted that_~he was paxticularly-•concerned that the ,developer had reduced ,. the.;ecreation area:by 50~`over the .originally submitted plans,~as we1L as all."the findiags .:'the~staff had,mentioned as`;to the`proposal~perEaining to the new Mobile om Park` ad H e a TraveT Traile= Park':Ordinance now being''drafted: , . : -, .. <, , : , , . Co~issioner;Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of ievised plana'for :~ ~'~'~ Conditional,,Use Peituit No :;1138:;to the:.Sep'tember 10,~, ~1970,-meeting,': scheduled after the ;afternoon public hearin ; and that the de ~:~a g, ; veloper consider submission of:revised plai~s to ~include two se arate e r a p recre tion a e s and some'of.the staff;;findings,in ttie proposed revised plans Co~issi~oner Gauer seconded the tion MOT ' `~ " mo . . ION CARRIED. ` , ' r - . . : , , ~ ;; :; " , . ITEM::NO. 2 ,~5 `=,VARIANCE N0;': 1975.(Anaheim Foreign Car Center) - property ~ '' '~` .located on:,the east side of::Anaheim Boulevard, approximately ~ ;~# 200 feet south of Water Street -"Requesting approval of a' building addition for an existing autocnobile sales and ' ` <<*~ ' . : ser~ •t'r agency. ` , ,, > , ... r_, ; , . Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughte i d h o `"~ r rev ewe t e l cation of subject:property and Che proposal for;approyal of,plana for construction of a new automobile service ;and'repair buildi u d -t ,. '~~`x~ ng n er he previously.approved variance grante~:in May, 1968, and the plans-;approved at that time did not indicate cons u o e ~ . tr cti n of .new automobile.repair ``facility =, however,..the plans now.before the Commission were proposi E n r q;; ng o co st uct an eight=bay aqto repair s6op, the;building proposed,slong the";south;propert}~_line wi'th the bays opening_to the north~iand,frum the;pl n s bmit e ~i f' ~ ~ a s u t d, after having.been anelyzed, i~ would appear:Ehe proposed structure could'be constructed alon the east g Prope=ty line ~' ^~ ~ ~behind~`the auto.display buildin g with bays opening to the west, and this" orientation~of 5 . the building.jwould'afford greater-protecEion.to.the nearby ;-iesidents. However,, the ,Planning,Co~iasion'would-have to determine whether the ro o d' '~``" '^" . se p p expansion could be 'approved without..the processing of a new`variance, end if Ehi's were so the Co~ission y~ ~ , migtit wish to consider the desirability'of requiring,the building to be constructed along the eaat property line or as~an l e t t~~ . , , a t rna ive, requiring an 8-foot masonry wall along the west side of the alley for buffering purposes:- r.~: ~ '' ' ~~ M~r. Slaughter further not~ed that the previous var~,ance approved the expansion of a non- conforming use - however, it was for a specific expanaion an3 did not include this build- ing addition now proposed.: Furthermore, the type of facility now operating there was a ! C-3 use in the Cr2 Zone; that complaints had been received in the past but not in the ' i recent past = however,.if eight additional bays were proposed iu~ediately adjacent to j' the R-l homes across the alley, this would entail considerable additional noise. ~ Commissioner Gauer left the Council Chamber at 5:30 P:M. _ _.. ~_,; . , After:discussion by tHe Cou~ission relative to the request and the evaluation of the staff that the use origir.ally approved was a speci£ic d l me ,^ ~ eve op nt plan in which a nonconforming use was permitted in the' G 2 Zone, Co~issioner,Seymour offered.a motion to advise the petitioner,that approval of the building addition could not be granted under the existing a -vari nce, and that a'new public.heering would have to be set, the expense to be bome by ttie petitioner, in order to`evaluate the proposal with the adjoining single-family home- s ' „ owner . Co~issioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 3 • City of Orange Zone Change No. 590 - Conditional Use Permit ' No. 482 and Variar.ce.No. 1164 - Property located south of the ~ Anaheim city limits:in the area south of Orangewood Avenue and ; 'east.of State College Boulevard; proposing reclassification ~ from the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE to the R-3, MUI,TIPLE-FAMILY j RESIDENTIAL`ZONE to establish a 263-unit mobile home park on ; _ approximately 33 acres of land. ` Assistant Zoning Supervisor.Malcolm Slaughter presented City of Orange Zone Change No . 590, Conditional Use Permit No.,482, and Variance No.`1164 to the Planning_Co~isaion n , oting the location of the-property; established uses in the City of Anaheim, and Ehe , . . .: - .. - -- - ~ _ ~ ~ MINpTES,.CITY PLANNING;COMMISSION, August 24, 19Z0 ~ 5311 ; . , : ,., _ , , ;,;. REPORTS AND . RECO1~QiENDATIONS , ,` : - ITEM N0. 3, (Continuedj ~ . proposal'to establish a 263-unit moliile home.park eitlier`by means of a zone change or by variance'to' permit, the use'in the M=1`2one;.:and.that the engineer of the'mobile home park project had submitted a.:Iettei to the City-;of~Anaheim asking;the City.to consider;'some means of:guaranteeing future public:road access~for,the°'proposed mobile home park and any more intense..uae~to,which the property might be put:to at e later daEe,`which-would extend from Anaheim!'s southern city limits -'which`was''also the northerly boundary of the mobile home:Park: Mr.: Slaugfiter further noted,that the Dunn Industrial Development complex had submitted buxlding.'plans for the~"property immediately.east of the.Viking Manufacturing Co. facilities several months ago, which prompted`a meefing between the representatives of the Cities of Orange and'Anaheim to discuss_circulation.needa; and that as a result of this meeting, it was determined',that a circulation link bEEween Orangewood Avenue and_State College Boulevard was;needed. Furthermore, as a result of the most recent requests by the City of -0rang~~and the engineer for the mobile home park complex, representatives.for both cities had met agairi, and the resulEs of said meeting were: 1) a north-south circulation link was needed between Orangewood.Avenue and State College Boulevard`to reliev~ the stadium traffic con- gestion,`since this.congestion was;expected to increase as the`vacant lands within this general erea were developed and 2).that persons developing properties sexved by or adjacent xo any.adopted alignment should build the street concurrent with their development. Mr.. Slaughter, 3n edaluating the proposed mobile home project, noted that the adjacent area within the City of Anaheim was designated on the.General Plan ~for industrial uses; that the portion.within the City of.Orange was also zoned ~for industrial uses and contained both cou~ercial;and industrial uses; that studies conducted by numerous mobile home park authori- ties indicated the demand for community services and traffic generated by mobile home residents was similar to that created by apartment dwellers; and that the Trailer Coach ~ Association had determined that comnercial and industrial areas were inappropriate for mobile_home'use. Mr. Slaughter, in conclusion, noted that the Traffic Engineer strongly suggested a need for a circulation link between Orangewood Avenae and SEate College Boulevard, regardless of the land use dev,eloped, as well as the adoption of a precise alignment by both municipalities for this street would serve as an appropriate guide for future developmeat. Furthezmore, the staff recommended that the City Council be urged to recormnend to the ` City of Orange denial of these petitions based on the fact that the established industrial and commercial uses were incompatible with the propoaed residential use. In addi.tion, the Development Ser~:ices staff recormnended that the Planning Commission initiate an area - development:plan and precise alignment study in cooperation with the City of Oraage to ,~ establish a futuse circulation link between Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevard. Discussion was held by the CouunLssion regarding the proposal; the uses already established in the general area; the incompatibility of the residential use with industrial uses; noise and lights from the stadium; the multi-screen outdoor theatre; and the circulation pattern proposed by the Traffic Engineer. Co~issioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano, and MOTION CARRIED, to reco~aend to the City Council that the City of Orange be urged to deny Petitions for Zone Change No. 590, Conditional Use Permit No. 482, and Variance No. 1164, for the estab- lishment of a 263-unit mobile home park on property iffinediately adjacent to the City of Anaheim city limits and adjecent to an industrial park now under development, on the basia that the residential use proposed is incompatible with industrial uses. Furthermore, that the Development Services Department, in cooperation with the City of Orange representatives, be directed to initiate an area development plan and preciae alignment study to eatablish a street circuZation link between Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevard as a guide for future development of this general azea; and that in the event the City of Orange should see fit to approve.the mobile home park, that the developers of the mob3le home park be required to provide said circulation link as a condition of development. ITEM N0. 4 VARIANCE N0. 2170 (Dr. Joseph P. Gleason - Rowe Development Company) - Property located on the east side of Magnolia StreeE, approximately 365 feet.south of the centerl ine of ~ La Palma Avenue - Staff request for clarification of Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. PC70-71. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property and previous zoning action by the Co~ission on a proposal to establish a three-story, 100- unit.apartment complex on the property; that Condition No. 9 of this variance required j .. . ,- kti .. p ~ 'r ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ .> MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 24, 1970 ' 5312 r ... , :. - , -. : REPORTS AND',:, p ~ ` RECOI~IItENDATIONS ; ITEM~;NO .4,',(Continued) that,22 incti, box-type specimen•'trees be planted on`20 foot<:centers either.along the south ` boundary of.;'subject,property or;'elong the north boundary~of;the adjacent:R-1 property..if = the adjoining property owners so'..desired Hoaiever, in.reviewing'the minutea of'the,,;meet-. r ing,~:it was,determined tfiat in:the-event the=R=1 property owners xequesfed screen laind- ~ acapirig, the trees~should~-be planted on the R"-'1 properties', which theri would•be:mairitained by the R l.residents, and,;'since.;Coudition~No.`:9 was'somewhat vague:and:remained unclear~~~ ~~•whetfier it was the';Commission's-;:intent'to..require the developer to,plant:trees, the sfaff ~ .: . . .. _ . !.was requesting fu;Eher.clarification. `. • " : - ~ = Discussion~was held by the:Commission relative to the xequest by.staff for clarification, : Chairman Herbat.noting"that he~was the.one'who had:made ttie`original motion, and it wss his intent that the:screen landsca in ~be.re uired alon the south"side'of the:8-foot. P 8,: . 9. 8 V''wall.in order_to block out the,undesirable appearance of a:large piece';of concrete - however, the;R-1 propertq'owuers;were`given the choice of having the landscapirig,planted on their property.', Therefore;:'.Condition No..9 should be amended..to read,;;'!That 22=inch, box-Eype specimen Erees,sha21 be plan.ed on.20-foot centers along the north boundary of -'the.adjacent;R-1 propertiea if the adjoining pioperty owciers"so desire,,,and.it shall be ''the responsibility of che.builder to determine which property owners desired said land- - scaping by submission of.written ietters from Ehose property owners:iedicat3ng;they did . ~.," not desire .tliis.: landacapingn. ' ` _ _ =.Commi§si'oner,Seymomr offez~ed.Resointion No. PC70-159'and moved.for.'its.passage'and adoption to amend Resolution No. PQ70-71;.Condition No:.9, to.Yead, "That:22-inch;'box-type specimen - trees,shall be planted,on 20-foot.ceaters along the.north boundary of Ehe adjacent R-1 properties-if the adjoining property owners so.desire, and it shall be the responsibility `of.the builder to~determine which,property owners desired,seid landscaping, and the sub- mission of written.agreements for thase property owners who were not.desiious of having ' the.landscaping°: `.(See:Resoiution Book) ` ~ , On roil call the foregoing resolution wes passed by the fo2lowing vote: AYES:.' COMMISSIONERS: 'Farano,,Ka}•saood, Seymour, Herbst., NJES : ; COTIlSISSIONERS : ~ None. ABSENTo .COhIliISSIONERSt Ailred; Gau~r, Rowland. :ITEM N0. 5 . CONL'ITIONAL.USE c~ERMIT N0, 'Li30 (Martin Luther Hospital) - Propeity located on'the south side of Romneya Drive, approximately.820 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street - Request for 40-month extension of time for completion of conditions approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1130. Assistant:Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property and the request for a 40-month extension of time and reasons for need of said time for the completion of conditions in the expansion of an existing medical and hospital center. However, the Zoning Ordinance provides for a maximum one-year extension of time be granted and, therefore, the Commission could grant only a one-year extension in the event of approval.of:said request: Furthermore, in the evant the proper[y to the wesc developed prior [o dedication of Romneya Drive, that propetty could not take access to the street, thus presenting probable circulation problems, and in order to preclude this possibility, staff was of the opinion that the exteasion should be granCed subject to conditional dedication of Romneya Drive as provided in Coiidition No. i.- Commissioner,-.F$rano offered a motion to grant a one-year extension of time to expire August 21, 19Z1, subject to conditional dedication of Romneya Drive within sixty days. Commissioner Kaywood Seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT. - There being na further business to discuss, Commissioner Seymour offered a mution to adjourn the meeting. Coaimissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:47 P.M. Respectfully submitted, "1/i2~}' Z.' ~ ~ ~: ~.._ .. ~.'f ~ J ', - ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Couaaission ,, _ _ : ., _ ; . ,. . , ; ,. ,., r . : . ± ~:, ' ' - i ; -- , = .;:~ ~- . . ~ ~ / ~ . ~ ~~ ~. ~, . ;. ~ r~ ~ , _ _ ~~:~: ~ ' i r.. / r . : . ' 1 r r, y r}:i,~a~~ ~•-t 1 4~ ~~~. t hy r°M,i .' ~ ~ .ti ~r `` ~ ..~ _ ... . ~r 1 r` ~~ t i r l~ ! ~._ *~' J L~~."4 .~t" f ?~~~^~ri..n~ 3 ~F.'q '~ f " .f x.' . J ~ :Y ' C ,,..,,,j'4' ~r- r ~ 1 Y . e 4 -~t h . zi '~ k ~h% ~ T~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~~}'~,4~ ~~~~ ~ ~ r ~ ~~ ~ i ~ ~' ~~,..: ~ s' i rf. . . ! r+a . i .. y 4 j f~,~r qu~.{t'~' '~~, J..r', ` 1. 1 .~. ~ .. ~ ~:. ~.t ~~' 4 Y 1.~. s a-,a t pY"~ . ~V `1 1 jrc ~ L .L; ~L,E .. ~ y~ ~ ~ Y j f r~ ~ 1 ~ ~-*r~ ~ ~ ` .~x.3~7 ~~~~ ~~N.ul~ ~ f S ~ AR/ , ` , .1 : ~ -F . +, , ' 'S r!, J~'i~+~'+ . ~~ ~ ~~~ ` ~ ~ 3 1 7 ~ ~~ q~ ~~~i }` y 7 f ~ . ~S Y ~ 9 t . ~ ~ i3~ 'a„~y~~3~^i.f~^~...• ~ 1 S l : . ; ~ 'r v ti ~ ~ ~ ~s ~ , ~* h ~ ~wa~ ~~(~ `~ r ar~' . ~. l - t ~ ~ +1 ~ ~ ~ E r ~. 4 s t a .r ~ . 'V 'a'1 ,x . ~,1 • i .~.. . S t ~; 7 ~ .., ~ tt ~s:s 7~ti ~`ry,w r+ a 'r'~' ~ p~T ~ c 4~ ~' 3 ~~r , s ~. F t ,y SGy 4 4 ~ ~ . ~ r t ~ . J ~ ~ F~.S. y, y i~j.k ,~~.- '~a Z~`~N~' ti~v -t .~ ~'. ~"" ~, .t '~ ~ /t 1 1 ~ ~' I ..~ ~1 ~+.it Y 1~ A4 1~J „C'~ Li (4~ t l.~ 3,^'k" r. . . .1 ~~ S ~ » : s~L - . ~kr r ~ n ~ ~~ t,J k~ G~a~. ;~~ . ~-.~' `. .~ r, i. , n r ° , .~ r ~ ,'~ ~ ra ~i -T c .~ { ~ ~ s ~^'~ _~ .w e ti ~. , ~ \ ~~ ~ r1 ~ f "r ~ ~t ~l ~ a4 a. .~42F•`Yi ~,t . I. r ~ u t.~c > r, +{~ i tY ~, r °~' 1 i s~,, ~' S 3 x~ ~ ~ K~ ~,~r'~-„~ ~S;r~. ~. -n ~~. - ~i ~ -\ ~ :: ? ,~'. ,~ ,~; a ~ . ~ ~y ,.~, ~5 z 3r ~ y J> .~,~~Fn Ft f~~'.~S ~ y,~~u'SfR Y ti d' ~Y d • ' ~ i- ~ I ~. r;4 tw `f+ i et ~X~ 1j t yk 3~} ~_,~ a"1 .r-~~ 1y, ~ Y s~~~k q~ 'tl.ij-F ~,t~?~~p~~` Sy ~ ., i n~- 4 r s~.a i t ~ .,; . o- t L~ L, y,~,.~~~,' 4 e ~ ~ ki~a l,~'~ K~ y ~,~'l ,`~''~ • ~, I C . ~i w~ L .~~ s ~ idu ~~ 5p~S F t, ~+ ' c'1 t 7 ~ t~..~ ~ ~ f'`~' ~'y~,,~ "~'a ~` r~'a~~°:, f ~ 4` r ~~ y 1 :. t .(~ 2' .h~ .. i '7 ~. ) 1CN 7 i~ FI f~ 5., i~ 4~ y`& h~~ n~ ~ Y! ~, 'h~,d...~lE' T~Y ~~+.n ~ ~.~'~~'~ ~~'4 / ~ ! ~ ( t M ~ A'1~ J-., 1 ~ ( ~ I ~ t~M ~ ~ Z 2~1.v, ~ ! ~ L9 ~ L ~i ,* . . ' r 1~ ~ s a~ < <+ d ~v5~ t.: a."~ f~ a i c ~ v, i W y r T'~ t„try~t v'~ T . X~ Y t ~~ r s h'~ > ~~'~, p 3n. 'L~~~,,, : ~~, 3 r ~,i ~~._r~ 7 . ~ F; .. ~ v~'7 fi'~~.. ~y+' ~„L4o-y,r d~¢t~.C ,y~.~l.~ rt+F,t~r ~ ^e.~'Y~.+e L 8~y~?•i~s'~1N'.{ .p... ~ ~'ai7ck't, ~' r~ ~ f "'1 ! ~ 'Y ~;~' ~.} , '~~ s{. I C rx t 5 d+ w t^~yi ' S vYr 4- . ~ a Af' ~ 3 ,} ,~h ,F~~fi~~.u,~ ~~ . t~ ~ ~ r( ,~q+'~,}.,~ s3:~S~1Sy 4ha . P~ ~rt 4 l ?i~~ ~'S"s~4 ,w,~.. ~S r l ~`~cyF~` 7x.: ,. ~ t ~iy~s .'~'~~t/~ ~~~"~ 'w~{1~~,~`"`~!"~`~~~r '~'i '1i~' - ~ y -e . 3~ a I~ xe n F S rF z. ~~4..' no-% `~. ,Y ~' i L7 .~ '~i -~`J,~~y ~, 3.~j +N 4 y'.. f~,. ~,....d .f'-~ ~,• ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ i q.{' .; ! t !` S~} :,~.,r ~,., , ~~ N ..~y„~..~,~' 1,{a ~ j xz ~1~. "v~ `4 ~~'iNtL'~'F+..N ~ y~S4j.~~~~.~k`~ '14'G~~~~ t~` 1 i 'p~ . ,"' ~' 7 4~ a ~ r r~ ~g•nt 1. k ~ i , ~ s ~l S'~ s J'iy,!'^t.~ %It !~' '~` ~`+6`~j~~'j~ Y .~tiao~iFe4i .~ C~tf~a't 't~~ ~'q F' ~ a~ ~~ : ,.';~ r a ~ a~ r ,~ ~7~ ~, a ,~'+ ~*t .~.~. ~,~..~ ' ~. a ~; , e : ~ y ~r ~ t ~. ~ x ..~ s 'f' ~: r4'~~ '' . r ~ * ~ '' ~-r'~ ~ N- ,N~'x. ~ S .)~ '~r4 r~~~~.~ ~'~ ~ ~y~r~~ ,~' v4Ft~`{^~~C~ ~ ..'~i'' ~r~~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ t i ~ 7^ . -i: ~ rc 7 1 Y N L i C};~ 4~N' ~ 1 '~+" t.r't"~' y i°',,}~. ,~N `'y'( J't'~ t~ a y' ,^~~.r~~ ~s.~ A ~~^, ~v ..., } ~ P' R ,~'~. ~ ~ ~1 t~• '`..~+~: ls~~ar ~, t ty~?^*~.`~ ~,~;~1 1~~.~~,, r`.yiyv.,t(~~ ,,~ ~~~» ~ Y'v. ~~yy~. ~e/,~ `~ n+..;3}s . .~ ~ " . ~.~" ~~, < ~ r t- k~ X. .fN.r^t a' , ~` +1~.+ H .3y Y J F~ r P ..' ~" ~ ~ „~~ ti^~, ~C; -- ~y~ N~k' d - ' ' ~, 9aiX 5 ( :;x~ Zk? ~ ~ r +.h,~ 'sv}~ti H-i~-r 7 x'k` ~"ii'i~~~~ ,y7.L1'~~ e ~l : -~:!` ~L ~i5 ~rt~4 ~~1 ~~ i~ ~~'~ ~'`Y, r~ir~ ~~, 7~. rv iu. ~. ~' ' } ~ ~ ~ '. . ~;5'c,~'~~ ?~. a'h,"T~`~y~*j~t}.n~~ ~a~e.'ye'^~q 1,~ejN/F+',i~ aK7~` +~'it~~~,~g ~~ . ~~~Qyj!~'.~hy~A .~ ~ ~~r. ' ~~~. ~•`` t`w~ ° lann}L4S.'? ~S t$ ~r ±~.1'-Iv. ~ viC~.9'F~iVW At` .~ ~~~Y d''"kY~R.~ -+j 'k _ ; ~". -~ T"~,. ~`~~~ P s ~ .z'~~ s'v'~L °' ~. ~t iy u~".~..??y,'~,~-~r~ rr' ~ ,~~, "~sT^,~.~i~~~;~~~~,~~ie~ #'v" ,t~P,y a~ +s ~~"1 r?t.. fjtt' ~ F'~fi~"iYln~~,~,.~NRM'v'Y ~~'b~t~ T T ,1,~.a~ ~ ~ ~~" .4~T ~k ~~ _;r ~ . qr'~i+"~ p~~45 c"hi J'7 t~"~+ a~u'a~~~w.~`"ti:'-'~ r'C~`.~~'t. t'.~~'A~~~~ .' .y ~ j~ a~ r o k.. i, .n;rMY'~ ~~~f ~~~~~i~i;,~ i.. ~ lkr,-.1j. f,., '~ ~ 3~S .Y'y'~,y ~ ',,F~ ~~~ (ri d e ~~t~; ,+z.h y.~'3 ,~t i_ {~.-~ ? ,~r.~'t~y U ""~a+,~~ y. ~ a'~ 1 ` "`~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ~, i,: r `A S,~ 3 ~T"~' 'ro ~'M~r,u ~ i+., ~~u 3~'~:'o `~}„ ,~~„ r .,~.~. ~ ~~~' ~ ~ , , . ~ r~ . r;". ~;fti`~~.P~~ ~'C, r> '~ ~ ~M`r ~ ~ ~ I~ ^rys'~~ w~ ~ ¢~~g~~.Fti.y~~r~~~.~% t Sd~,~ F'g ~ 5. i~ r q a~ , C~' t l,; t~'a~ j r-~ r~. ~: ~~~~4 ~ ~~A~~. ,, 1~ ~ ~~5~'~ j~TMd~~ ,~"`'~- e~''L { - d ~ ~" J ~ 1 T~ i. ~ ~ 'A~.- . . ~ ~,`i' N ' ~~~.~ ~~~ ~ ~~~> ~„~ ,~-{ ~" ,~ ~ I,' e~~f~,~`'+ ~ X~Zg o~, Y;r,~ ,~ Fr ~,, r'~ G~ . v` ~}~ . A~ ~ 4: f~`~ a ~~ E ~'ttt~+ ~J~G~ ~d!-+¢' .~ ~'e..a.G~.rS4~ ~'4~~.N r .. .~ ^' ':~' ~ `~ a"h}4 y8~ .~?~. _ : I~ -~n.Cr'1Y - d Y~Y'A .G7y ~ y~ , '~ .. ^,~ ,y .. , ~~r 4~ '^ ~ .. ~ r •~`~ --, '~ ~, 6~+t(` ~, s~a ~ .r,+.~ ~ ! +y tia~i ' t" 1 ~ ~ ~, ~ I , I: ~'lJ.?{~ ~ ~ t~~1~, ti "'X ~~ ~`~ ~'Vl~ti ~~~~~4~~~ ~ A P ~ ~y,y~ ~. . W` ~O c~g~ ~+,~y M 1 K.-:t +1, 4: ~~ ~i ~ r ~a'+~~rk-+`'~~~', ~.c`. ~ a'•1'~'.7L.y~?'~~t,#T.p '! 1G `wa~c~}r5e y~s~^~*'t~.'Sa~~o„" aw ~, ~ n ~ I~~, ~ ~ s ~~~'.,~r"~~~."~s~ r°~y,+,. ry~''~}',~" ~`~~.w~~~~.t.~~'~t~~~~~'~~ij{P.~ v ~. ~' ~~ - '~ '~"~ ? ~ ~ 3u'` ic~" f Z . ~£r~t7r~~ , ~ ~T~c~ 1, r' ~ ga~i S r~i 'tt~ ~ ~~ 't-~A ~~ 'S o+F ""F ~6 .+ .~x. u. '. ~ ~ , . ~i ~~'~tik,.~ ~' ~ 1~ k ~.~~~;~~u"c ~+~'~~ ~,.~ ~ ~~~ y~i.~ ~ ~`~e~ ~ ~ ` s ~~ ~ . n~,z",.. ~ ~Ju' ,~ x ~~ ~ a ` ~s, ~ ~~ ti..x~s • z ~" ~~ ~~~ ~~~.rw~~ ~c' ai~ ~~`~S..w~`~,~u s'~'4~ ~"~',~~fFaf,.~4~t3,~~~~ .~ m'~ ! `w~^~~ ,~~9''(,cioJ,t~ +~~ r ~., ~ ,~ 3 6 3 ~ U Y.u. ~.i ~ "E, ~'' ~4r M uFj~'~'s+, . . ,2' „ } .. , ' ~~~~~~y~ ~~~4~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~_l~`F~%'fy~t~ f`.:y s,~ . . .. . ~t1y~. ~ ~R a~ ~;Z {r~ w ,~'' i '~' ~ 1r~ ~ '~ t^~ f -,~,~ ~,~.~`'fn. '~ , ;~~ ~a~ f~4"'~ r s~s 1 t{~ Er+~"',~~.r y~~.~"~ ~~, a.:. ~~'n .,,a k~ '?~'yr,~' ;"~~,~ R „'~ Ks. K~ .~rt~'~~,.r ~,,'fJ. ~''1 ia; -c v$p r c X~fi~ Js'~ ~ i~ s ~ ~"+i n- ~'~[n F~. ^-t '~u ci t~Eh ~,-~h i'n ! c,x-R ~'c'i~-r ".5~ J •n~ . ,S tl~} .b" '~, ' . ~t~ v~~rf~ ii y'" o ^3 ~ S ~7`.z ~', ~ti`+''~J s' ~T''°ri'~IY a ~t ,~," • • `~ ~e;~''~''~'„~~i~~,~' ~~~~hx~~~r'd'TS~Q `~I~'+~~~.~r*r?tr~"k`ud t~. ~ '~~ . 't„~ ~ ~~x~Y' ,~ . ~• ' .r.,,, '~ y ,I~s~ . r -Yd" a L"~z} ~; 5: h +.y nP"1 f z' ~'"~ r~ t ^~` ~'!~~ a ~ b b . e~ '-~r f li5 ~ h+- ~ ~~h.w.~ +~ ~ ;-'~e~~:~~~h~.~~,i~~~,,w'~'~r.~~~`~k~~r~~r'~7~ ~~P }a . ~ . e.~ ~+ ~~`,.,1~ k ~y~,e. >sq~. ,. ~ ~yr. ,~,~fd ~1i F.F'~-l~~i ?s'~"h.: ~•~~~~cy ~~t~~. ~ a" ~ N. 'i:x~ ~~~~i ~<~ > A:~ ~~f ~ Ylbcr j~. 3~i'~'~ ~^-.~y..~~~ # ~~'Lst ~.,{' }~ ~~ ~,7~ , ~.. 5 ' ~~l ~~ .~~~ ~ #~'''~~ r '„~ {~'`f'..~f~"~' ~ ;;,"~i ~o- s~ ~~~ ~iw. ` ~ _ .~" .~ '' . 4 `s ~. ~. ~~~~~'~^„~rT'~~y ~,~~~~H,. "~,in~~~~~e i~r,~ ~ b ..~~~,,y~ ~ '~'~.t -. ~. t ~i'~ r„4 ~" ~.yxa s3 ~~ ~v"a.. ~'W''~,f.~1W Af~~~ 'x(~~,~y~ ~ 7 ~~~ ~; . ~.t 1 ' ~~ti~ ~. ^'v ~~t`~-~,~~ `'~'~',~ ~, ,;,,tk ~ 5 . - ,q r ~y ~ ~ ~J,y,,(.,T ~~S , ~ ~ ~ v ~ C . a y ~ ~ ~ ~~~~,,~~ ~ j .,.~ 8~~~ ~{3~~-~Lr~ ~~``k~ ~1~ ~1.~.} y,~}, , ~ ~ . ~ i -'.4 n ~~~ ~~~~'C~~ ,v.ys f~~ iF+~}~~~~ ~ N~~~~~~~~ - . ; „. ` .~ . ~ ~~ ~{ ~a:~ik~~~ r~ ~ }~' ~ ~'~ a,4?`,,"~~ ~,~iy,,~+"`2.~~~7~~ ~ a: r~ x SM ~,~"~'~~.~.2~'3.~ ~ x ~.vc~,~ . e °..~ y " rr , } ~ ~ . j ~_c^~~~ f}1. ~ :" y7~y`ca'~1~~ "~ ~~'.^ E~y~ q+vq~7,>'r£~' ~ ~~,,';St ~,~+~ fi ~;~A ~h ~ •~;:irr ,. 5, ; .J' ' .T .:y~~' ~fk c Z~m. ;'k~~. 3V~ . 'h. ~f. . ~ __'_. ' '__ - ..._. ' -__. ' ___. _'.' "_ . '._ " ,-" . '__"`"___..._ . ' ,z ,~''^aLi~ . ~: " ".' --_ .._-._"__ . . . .. : ' '.' . _.___.__ ___.." ' _ -~:rt`-~-T~:-:.~.~. _-_ ~-.