Minutes-PC 1976/11/22~
~+~..~.
~
City Hall
llnahelm~ Ca1lPornta
Novemb~r ?.2, 1976
REGUI.AR MEET I NG 0 F TNE ~~NAHE I M C i TY PI.ANN I NG COM1M I SS I ON
REGtJLAR - A regular meQtinq of che Anaheim Ctty Planntng Ccxnnlsslon was cal+•:d
MEETING to ordor by Chafrmen Pro Tempore Tolar at 1:30 p,m,~ on Novembar 22~
1976, (n the Cauncll Chamber~ a quarum being present.
PRESENT - COMMIS5tONERS: Barnes~ Farano~ Herbst~ Kiny~ Morlcy~ Tolar
ABSENT - COMMISSlONER~: Johnson
ALSO PRESENT- Nonnan F'rteat
aonald Thompsan
Frank Lowry
Annika Saiitalahtl
Malcolm Slaughter
Paul Singer
Jay 71tus
Joel Ftck
Patricia Scanlan
Executive Dtrector-~ommunity Development
Planntng Director
Assistant City Atkorney
Assistant Planning Dtrector-Z~ning
Deputy Clty Attorney
Trafflc F.ngineer
Office Enginecr
Assistant Planner
Plannin5 Comnission Sncretary
PLEDGE QF - Comnissioner Farano led in the Pledge of Allegiencc to thr. Flag
ALLEGIANCE of the United Stt~tes of ~mPrlca.
RECLASSIFICATION - GONTINUED PUBLIC NEARING. CHAftLE5 C. LUCAS~ 1301 West North Strer.C,
N0. 7b-77-i9 Anaheim~ Ca. 92801 (Owner); i.YNN E. THOMSEN~ 710 North EuGlld Street~
Anaheim~ Ca, q?.SO1 (Agent). P~operty des~ribed as a rectangulerly-
VARIANCE N0. 2858 shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately one acre having a
frontage of approximately 110 feet on the north side of North Street,
having a maximum depth of approximately 395 fett~ being located
approxirnately li5 feet west of ths centerline of Redondo Drive, and further• described
as 1301 West Narth Street. PTaperty presently classified RS-10,000 (RESIDENTIAL~
SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION; RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMIIY) ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIYER OF (A~ MIN!l1UM BUILDING SITE WIDTH AND (B) MINIMUM DISTANCE
BETWEEN BUILDINGS, TO CONSTRUCT FOIIR DUPIEXES.
It was nated that the sub,Ject petiti~ns were continued from the Planning Camnisston
meeting of October 27, 1976, for revised plans, at the request of xhP petttloner.
Approximately 12 persons indicate~i their presence in opposltion to the subJect petittons
and forthwtth waive~i the full reading of the Staff Report to the Planning Commisslon dat~d
November 2~~ 1976. Although said Staff Report was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Lynn Thomsen~ the agent far t~ie petltloner, appeared before the Pianning Commission
and stated they h~d met with the homeowners in the area to revtew *~ie revlsed plans which
were acceptable at the ttme of the meeting, however, since that ti ~~ the peopi~ had some
additional thoughts; that th~ Staff Report did n~t indicate whethe, ~he City would be
responslble for a share of the construction of tlie Lid~ Place cul-de-sac and he understood
that the costs would be shared; that they anticipeted eliminating the ~ld house on the
property and hav(ng one RS-1U~OOQ lot facing on North Street; and that sevan duplcx units
were proposed on the north portion of subJect property.
Mrs. M. H~merick, 1306 West North Street, Anaheim~ appeared beforc t.he Planntng Comnisston
and stated that~ altleough she fully agreed with the revised plans. she felt the petitloner
was creating a hardship by building tl~e multiple-famlly po~tlon and spinning o`f the
single-family portto~e of the proprrty; that her home was her ca~tle and she should be
~rotected; a~d that she disagreed that the property owners along North Street deserved to
76-584
n
~~
MINIITES~ CtTY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 2?.~ 1976 J6-585 ~
RECLIISSIFICATION N0. 76-~7-19 AND V~R;ANCE N0. 2858 (Contlnurd)
have an outhouse built on the Nortti Str~aAt portlon o~ the prap~rCy~ as threatened by the
petitloner.
Mr. Forris Lamare~ux~ 13Q~i l.ido Placa~ Anehelm~ ~ppeored before the Planninc~ Cortmtsslon In
oppositlon and stat~ci that~ in chec.king the plans~ the square foot~ge for the stt'aet
dedlcatlan and driveways~ etc,, was included in the gross square fnoCage of the pnrcel;
that hc oppos~d the 25-foat drlvew~y proposnd to provlae access to the four duplexes (n
che resr of the parcel on the basis that tt was a saFety hazard f~r the children; however~
he was in favar af dovelopm~~r, of the pruperty.
in rebuttal, Mr•, Thamsen stet; that,, at the last Planning Comniss~lon meeting~ Mr.
Lamoreaux had Also obJected to the garages facing on Lldo Place; and that the usa af the
subJect property was more restricted than the adJacent properties.
Mr. Lamoreaux conttn~aed by stating that t~~e plans were ~at revised Just to chonge the
pl~cement of the garayes~ but also to elimtnate the old house which was obJectlon~bie to
others,
THE PUDI.IC H~ARING WAS CLOSED.
In response to questioning by Chalrman Pro Tempore Tolar~ Mr. 7homsen stated th~~t the
proposed single-family lot would be ~llsposed of as an undeveloped lot, however~ he would
improve the property along the street and probabiy bulld out the duplex proJecl on the
north port(an of the property.
Commissloner Farano noted that the revised plans w~:re more ~cceptable ihan those
prevlously proposed; however~ he could foresee some problems ln the development of the RS-
10,000 lot sEnce the purchaser may war~t to develop it with a multiple-family use. Mr.
Thomsen stated that if multiFle-family would be considered in the future for the stngle-
famlly lot~ then he~ too~ should he entitled to such consideration. Commissioner Farano
then noted that with the multlplc-family use un the north and west stdes of the single-
family lot~ it would be typica) for someone to try to develop said lot as multiple-famlly;
that he was glad to see that the uld house was betng removed a;,u was not criticizing the
prop~sed devel~pment~ however~ the undeveloped RS-l0~OG0 lot bn~nere~i hlm considerably.
Mr. Thomsen then stated he did n~t prefer to build a single-family home on North Street
but wanted tu sell that portlun of the property undeveloped; and he questlaned whether the
City could requlre a developer to develop a contiguous parcel, Thereupon~ Chatrman Pi-o
Tempore Tola~ noted that the Planning Commission could disapprove the entlre development
but coul~ not requlre the cfevelopar to build on both parcels~ etc.; that the adJacent
singie-family homeowners were Justly concerned~ in his opinion, about what uvould be
develaped next door to them; and that it was pr~bable that a multiple-famfly development
rx~uld be pr~posed on t•he single-family lot.
Comroissioner King n~ted that he favored the pro,ject on the basis thzt the pexition~er had
follawed through on all of the suggestions of the Planning Commiss,ion.
Mr. Thomsen stated that there would be problems with the ~:pth of the proposed s(r,gle-
family lot (f a mult pie-family development were plann~d on tt.
Chalrman Pro Tempore Tolar noted that it ap~eared that all of the residents in the area
were pretty much in agreement wfth the revised plans but could visualize problc~ms since
all of the property was not being developed at one time; that he would also 11ke to see
all of the property developed at one time and was taktng the position that the revised
plans were an improvement over those in(tially proposed.
In response to questioning by Commisstoner Farano~ Asslstant City Attorney Frank Lowry
Advised that the request to rezone only a portion of the subJect property ~uld be
posstble without readvertising the request.
Conmissioner King affered a rt!otlonr secondGd Ey Cortenissio:;er Herbst and MQTION CARRIED
(Commissioner Johnson b~eing absent)~ tha: the Anaheim City Planning Lortmtsston does hereby
recomnend to the City Counctl of the ~tty of Anaheim that a negatlve declaration from the
requirement to prepare an envtro~mentel impact report he approved far the subJect proJect~
pursuant to the provisiorss of the Californla E~vtronmental Quality Act.
~
~...-~.
~'
MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Navembor 22, 1y76
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76 ~-1~ AND VARIANCE N0. 28Sa (Contlnuad)
76~585
Conmis~loner King offer~d Resolutlon N~. PC76-239 rncl movod for ita passaga and adoptlon,
that the Anahelm Clty Planning Comnisston does hereby rocommond to the City Council of the
City of Anah~im approval of Petition for Reclessiflcaclon No. 76-77-~19, in part~ for the
northcrly approximately 0.68 acres af the subJect property, bainy approxiinately 305 fect
dnep and 110 f~et wlde and abutting r,he proposed e,xtenslon of l.ldo Pfece~ and le~vtng the
southerly epproxin+eCcly one-third of the subJer.t pr•oaerty abuttl~g North Streer. as RS-
10~0~0; that the Planning Commission does hereby clartfy that the requlr~:d street
improvbmen¢s a~d strccr l~ghting fac:llltlos shell apply to that portton of Ltdo Place
lying south of the cen~erllne of sald street and t•hac portlon of N~rth Street lying north
of the center, ne of sald strect end, furthcrmore~ that the Ctty shall improve the
norrherly one-half of the extenston of Lid~ Plaee,; subJeut to the Interdepartmcntai
Committee recommendatlons. (See Resolutlon Book)
~n r~li call~ the foregoi~r~ resolutton was passr.d by the followl~~g vote:
AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: DARNES, ~ARANO~ HERBST, KING~ MORIEY. TOLRft
NQ~S; COMHIS510NFRS: NONE
ABSENTt COMMIS510NER5: JONNSON
Commissioner Ktng ~ffered Resolution Nu. PC76-240 and moved far tts passage and adoptlon~
that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commtsston do~.~s hereby grant~ i~ part~ Petltion for
Varlance No. 2$53~ on tha basis that ths req~ested watver of the minimum buildtng site
wldth is no longer necrssary since tl~e petitioner submltted r~vised plans in conPprmance
with said Code section; grantiny the requested waiver of the mtnimum dlstance between
bulldings on the basis thAt (f the buildings wera attached~ deleting the necesslty for the
watver~ the proJect would not be as aesthettcally pleasing to the Gomnunlty and~
furthermure~ the Planning Comnisxion has prevtously granted similar walvers; and subJect
to the interdepartmental C~mmittee recorrcme:ndations. (See Resolution Book)
On rnll call, the foregoin~g resolution w~s passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMlSSIONERS: BARNE5, tfERBSTs KtNG~ MORLEY, TOLAR
NOES; COMPIISSIONERS; FARANO
ABSENT; COMMISSION[RS: JONNSOf~
ENVIRONMEN7AL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. ESTATE 0~ ADOLPN J. SCHUTTE, c/o Alan Talt,
REPORT N0. 178 615 South Flvwer Street~ Suite 806, Los Angeles. Ca. ~0017~ and
XETA VANCE EATON AND ELIZABETH JEaN CONLIN, BE.P. 990~ Papeete~
RECLASSIFICATION Tahtti (Ow~+ers); ROBERT P. WARMlNGTON COMPANY~ i7880 Skypark
N0. 76-77-2 Circle, Suite 205. Irvine~ Ca. 92714 (Ager~t). Property described
as an irreyularly-shaped parcel of land conslsting of approxi-
TENTATiVE MAP OF inately 1'J acres located at the southeast corner of Ball Ro~d and
7RACT N0. 9425 _ Sunkist Street~ havtng approxtmate frontages ~f 170 feet on the
south st~le of Ball Road and 1215 feet on ;he east stde of Sunkist
Street~ and having a maximum depth of approximately 1;12.5 feet.
Property presently ciassified RS-A-~3~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRlCULTI;RAL)
ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION; RS-5000 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
7ENTA7IVE TRACT REQUcST: ENGINEER: KAUPP, LAI~ILER 6 ASSOClATES~ 3001 Redhtll~ Butlding 5~
Suite 1d2~ CosCa Mesa, Ca. g2626. SubJer.i property is proposed
far subdivtsion into 106~ RS-S000 lots.
It was notsd that the s~~bJect items ware readvertised following continuences from the
Planntng Commission meetings at July 19 and August 16~ 197b~ fcr the City Counctl's
considereLlon of G~nera) Plan Amendment No. 14G, and from the me~tings of July 7. August
30, Septerr~er ?7~ and October 27~ 1976~ at the request oP the petitioner.
Comm(ssloner flerbst noted that he may have a confilct of interest as defined by Anaheim
City Planning Comnisston Resolutlon No. PC76-ly7 adopting a Conflict of Interest Codc for
the Planntn~ Cnmmission and Governmpnt Code S~ctton 362y, et seq.~ in that he may be
involved wlth the sound wall on the p~operty; that~ pursuant to the provisions of the
referenced ~,des~ he was hereby declaring to the Chalrman Pro Tempore that he was
wtthdr~wing from the hearing in connection with Environmen!at impact Report No. 178,
•
MIN~TES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 22, 1976
76-587
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 178~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-77-2 AND TENTATIVE MAN OF
TMCT N~. 9425 (CanCinued)
..____-._._....._
Rec~as~ification No. 76-7~-2 and 7encativn Map Af Tract No. 9425 (Item No. 2 on the
agenda) and would nat take part In elther the discussfon or tl~e voting the~eon; and that
he had nut dtscussed thls m~atter wlth any membor of the Plannl~,y Commisslon. THEREUPON~
GOMMIS5I~NER HERdST LFFT TNE COUNCIL CNAMBER AT 1sy0 P.N.
No one Indicated thelr presence in appoEitlon to the sub)~ci itr,m,
Although the Steff Report to tl~e Planning Commlasion drted Novcmber 22~ 19J6~ was nut road
at the public hearin~~ s~aid Staff Re,part is referred tu and made a part of the mtnutes.
Mr. Jim Christonsen~ the agent for the petltioner~ appoared beforQ the Planntng Commisston
and stated they were requesting RS-50Q0 aoning rathar than the oriyinally-planned
multt~le-famlly; that the petitioners realized the problams being created by the parcel
which was an the corner of Ball Road and Sunkist Street being ~eft out of the proJect~ the
problems being that no access ~vas avallabl~ for seid parcel from Ball Road and the
property owner wa~ refusing tu sell it as part of the subJect development; that the corner
parcei tn question was cwrned by the subJect property a~ners also; and that the devolc,pers
were wllling to provide a 20-f'oot wtde easement for access tc+ the corner parcel slnce some
ktnd of access would be needed in the future. Mr. Chrtstensen suggestad that Since they
had trled to purchase the corner parcel and w~re unsucGessful, the Planning Commisslon
should init{ate a zonin~ act(on on said parcql sa that the zoning wo~~ld c~rrespond wtth
the subJact p;cposed develapment.
Mr. Christensen continued by stattng th~t they nad been working wil~i Dr. Hilliard on a
noise abatement study whtch Chey felt would be requtred slnce the propcrty was located
adJacent to ttie Orange Freeway; and that the study~ signed by Dr. Hilltard, Indicated that
a berm constructed on the subJect property would meet the db CNEL standard. Thereupon~
Mr. Chrlstensen presented the noise study for the Planning Cortmtssion's revie~-, etc. He
further explalned that they had antlcipated that the noise study would ba required prtor
to appr~val of the flnal tract map for the proJect.
Mr. ChrisCensen took ~xceptlon to the r~conwnended condltion of approval pertalning to
drainage for the tract (Co~dition No. 9) and stated that~ although they ~greed r.liat a
dralnage structure was necessary~ the mubilehome prnject to the south which covered far
more acreage should be required to instal) the draln; that the proposed proJect would have
a mtntmal arn~unt of dratnaga campared to the mohilehome park and, therefore~ he fatie.: to
see why the subJect tract should install the dra(nage ta Cerritos and that it wac an
unfair requirement; that 25$ of the drainaye costs mtght be a fait share but not all of
it~ espectally since the mobllehome park would be constructed fi~st with a much I~Pavier
density; and that the proJect met ail of the requ~rements of th~e zoning being req uested
and they~ therefore~ we~e urging ihe Planning Comniss(on to approve it.
TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chatrman Pro TPmpore Tolar noted that he was not in favor of delaying the sub,ject proJect,
however, he also was not in favor of leaving out the corner parcel of land; that the uwner
of the property would have to give up the corner parcel in order ta develop the la~ger
one; that he would not vote for an casement fram the proposed subdtviston to the carner
percel~ creatiing hardships for the development af said parcel at 3 ~ater date; and that
the ~orner parcel should be included wtth the subJect developm~ent.
In response to quest(oning by the Planning Commission~ Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry
advls~d that the Planning C~mmission could nat approve the proJect In such a way as to
create a landlocked parcel.
Mr. Christensen stated that they had negotiated with the property owners for a lo~g period
of time and~ tn his optnto.i~ initiation of a zone change on the corner parcel by the
Planning Cortnnission~ allowing a 20-foot easem~nt for access~ would get thc attentton of
the property owners wtthout hindering the developer of the proposed proJect. He clarl~ted
thai he was asking the Pianning Conmission to approvc the subJcct proposal with a 2~-foot
easdnent to the corner parcel and, subsequently, initlating a zontng change on the corner
parcel wh(ch would no longer be a landlocked parcel and could be developed in ~ccordance
with the RS-5000 Zone,
Chairman Pru Tempore Tolar indicated that he would not like to give the impre~sinn that
the Citiy was rezoning property at ra~dom.
~
w••.
~
MINUTES~ C17Y PLANNtNG COMMISSION, November 22~ 1976
76-,~0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0, 178, REGLASSIFICA710N NQ. 76-77-2 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT N0. g425 s Contlnued) . ~
Mr. Christonsan then stated that the devaloper, haci al-eady Indlcn~.~d to the property
owners that they expected that the City would r~:.•~ne t-ie corner par~el to correspand with
tha adJacent property and the reply was that "if it happe~ed~ it happened"; and that the
Planning Commtsston cou?d accomplfsh what they wanted without halding up the subJect
development. Commtssioner Farano (ndicat~d that it would be awkward to procend In the
mt~nnar suggested by Mr. Christensen and~ furthormc~re~ development ~F the corner parcel
would probably requlre many ~~alvers in that eve.nt.
In response ko que~tlonlny by Commissioner Barnes~ Mr. Chrlstensen stated that the corner
pareel~ being a sm~ll lot~ would be a nice slta for a beautlfui slgn to ldentify the
subJect pro,jecC; that the sAle or money from the corner parcel was ~ot the pararaunt
concern to the property owners who mfght decide to scrap the proposed development to be
able to h~ld onr~ tfie corner parcel; and that~ if the Planning C~mm(ssion proceeded to act
on the proposed ~+~~velopment~ as sugr~ested~ the property owner would have to do something
about the corne~~.
Discussion fallow~d conc~rnin~ the corner parcel~ dur•Ing which Mr. Cfirlstensen stated rhe;
the fact that it w~s omlttecl frem tF-e development plans wes disc:losed at the ttme of
filing v~ith the Planniny Dr.partment; however~ said parcel was nok advertised For
congideratlon for rexoning ancl it was now a blg issue tn tho conslderatlon uf the proposed
development~ to his dlsmay.
Mr. Lowry advised that the prucedure set forth by Mr. Christensen concerning the
inttf~tia~ of zoning on the contiguous parcel by the Planntng Commissio~ could be
accomplished legally if the Cammisston should desire on its own to initlate said zon~ng
action; that the State of Galifc-nia controlled Che access rights to Balt Raad and the
Clty controlled the access rights to Sunkist Street; and that bec~ause of the praperty's
~r~x(mlty to tFie intersection, the City might not look favorably on access from Ba12 Raad~
etc.
hr. Dick K.aupp~ the engineer tor The Warminqton Company, appeared before the Plannin~
Comnisslon and suggested that a better access could be given from the subJect development
to the corner parcel ln questton, and that said ac..ess would not be an easement as such
but would give frontage on a public street. Thereupon~ Mr. Christer,sen stated that if the
lot had frontage it would be a legal parcel, and Assistant Planner Jozl Fick advised that
the property~ for that matter~ had frontage on Bal! Roa~ and Sunkist Street and that was
not the criteria.
In response to questioning hy Commission~r Ktng~ Office Eiigineer Jay Tttus advised that
drainage for the mobilehome park to the south was to be to the sattsfactton of Clic City
Engfneer and included a storm drain to take care of the problems, with any water being
generated from said property to be carrled to that northerly property line, etc.; that~ if
the mobileh7me park was daveloped first~ the drain would be in and the sub,ject proposed
develapment would merely tie tnto it; however~ if by chance the subJect prupQSed
development was constructed prior to the mobilehome park development, The Wsrmtngton
Corr~any would have to construct tnc ~*_~rm draln all the way to Cerr(tos and a
reimbur~ement agreement wr~uld be available from ths mobilehome park ~~reloper for thelr
portion or the drain.
Chairman Pro Tempure Toia~ noted that the subJect property was substanrially below the
gradr o` thc ~dJacent freeway ~nd he inquirPd how the proJect would achleve the 65 dba
standards. Thereupon~ Nr, Christensen stated that they intendeu to c~r~zy :~rtth the
requ0rements by constructi~g the 6-faot berm and 6-foot wall combinatton~ however~ at one
point the barrier would be 14 feet high; and that they wanted to comply with the
requirements from the begi~ning and not waste ttme with the State on that type of matter.
Mr. Christensen stated that a map wgs av~ilable tn accompany the noise study and that a
copy wou~d be pr~vided for the records.
Chairman Prfl Tempore 7olar nat.ed that lengthy reports coming to the Planning Comnisslon on
the day of pubtic hearings did not enhance the consiusratton of pro,jects; that he liked to
know what he would be considering prior to coming to the meettngs; and that in the future
when written matertals were late g~tting to *_he Planning Cortmission~ the pubiic hearings
concerned may be c:ontinued ~n that basis.
In rebuttal, Mr. Christensen stated that the noi~e study had bcen prepared an thetr own
with the thought in mind that the Pianntng Comnissio~ wculd make it a requPrement of the
finai tract map.
~
MINUTES~ C.I7Y PLANNIV~ COMMISSION~ N~vember 22~ 1~76
7b•ti89
F.NVIRONMEN71ll. IMPACT REPORT N0, 178~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-77-2 AND TENTATIVE MAP QF
TRA~CT N0~42a (Contlnucd) ~
Commissloner Farano offered a moflon to reopen tho publlc hearlr.~ end continue
consideration af Envlronmental Impact Report No. 17$~ Reclasslf~catton iu. 76-77-z, and
Tantative M~p of Tract No. 9425 to the Planning Commisslon meeting of Doc~mber 6~ 1976~ ln
order xh~t tha contlguous parccl af l~nd, befng approxlmalely 1~0 feet by 150 feet 1~ size
and loceted at khe southeast corner of Ball Road anc; Sunktst Street~ cen be advertised for
a publl~ t~earing to consider a rec~assiflcatlon of zonl~~g to RS-5U00.
At the suggestion oP Commtssluncr Hsrnes~ Comnissioner Farano amenJcd hls motlon to
tnclude the ftndiny that it was tl~e unanimous attitude of the Plannin7 Cartmtss(un that the
c:onttguous perco) of land shall be znned to correspc+nd with the zontng on the ad)acAnt
land to the south and east~
Mr. Lowry a~vtsed that the subject property and thC cont(gu~us parcel ln questlan were
presently subJect to annexation ta ±I~e City of Anahelm from the County of Orange.
Commissloner M~rley sesandad the foreyoing moCion~ and MOTION CARRIEO (Commtssloners
Nerbst and Johnson bcing absent).
In rzsFonse ta qucstlontng by Traffic Englneer Paul Singer~ Mr. Chrlstensen stipulated to
deletiny the proposed bicycle easement in Sunklst Street and to impr~ving sald str~et to
its ultimate wtdth.
COMMISSIONER H[RBST RETURNED TO THE CO~NCIL CHAMHER AT 2:35 ~.M.
RECI.ASSIFICATIOW - PUBLIC HEARING. JAC K N. AND DOROTHY U. NALI., GaERGE D. AND CLARA JEAN
N0. 76-77-23 SHAMBECK, and HUGN H. ANQ DOREEN R. FO'rZEMAN, P. 0. 8ox 11667~ 5anta
Ana~ Ca. 92711 (Owne.s); JACK N. NALL~ P. 0. Box 11G5', Santa Ana~ Ca.
VARIANCE tJQ. 2~71 92711 (Agent). Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 3.% r~rPS iocated at the southwest
TENTATIVE MAP OF corner of Riverdale ~nd ~akeview Avenues, having a frontage of approxi-
TRACT N0. 9~~82 mately 294 feet un the south side of Rlverdale Aveni.~e a~d a maxtmurn
depth of approximately 666 feet. Property presently classified
RS-A-43,OOU(SC) (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTUkAL - SCENlC CORR4DOR OVERI.AY) ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFiCATIOPI: RM-2400(SCj (RESIDENTIAL~ MUL7IPI.E-Fl1MILY-SCENIC CORRIDOR
OVERLAY) IONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: aAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, (B) MINIMUM
STRtJCTURAL SETBACK, NND (C) PFRMITTED ENCROACHMENTS IWTO REQUIRfD
YARDS. '
TCNTATIVE TRAC1' REQUEST: DE4ELOPER: TRANS COLUM4IA INJGSTMEIJT5, 253~ North Grand Avenue~
Santa Ana, Ca. 92711. ~NGINEER: HALL AND FOREMAN~ IIJC.,
ZS30 horth Grand Avenue, Santa Ana~ Ca. 92111. SubJect prop~~ty
is proposed for subd(vision into 14~ RM-2400(SC) lots.
Mr. William 5. Nhelps, the agen± fo~ the petittoner~ ap~+eare~ before the Planntng
Commisston and stated thet'e was a misunderstanding pertaining to the waivers in that a
wall was not proposed to encroach into the reguired yard area; that, regarding the walver
of Che minlmum structural sethack~ they would stipalate to complying with the ly-foc~t
setback with ar~ a~;a;a-y~ ~f 20 feet and~ therefore, that waiver would no longer be
necessary. Regarding the pa~ktng watver~ Mr. Phelp~ stated that they we~e proposing to
have two cc~ered spaces as opposed Co khe minimum requlrement fo~- 1 covered and ] open
space for a totn~ of 2.25 per unit; that the provision of open parking wouid create a
paved effect in the front of the proJect; and that the walver a~uld be overcame buC it
wou'd c~eate an unsightly and unnecessary condit(on.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf~ 131 La Paz~ Anaheim, President of the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement
Association, Inc.~ appeared before the Pl~nning Cortmission In opposition ~ i stated her
obJectians, being that tf~e area was deslgnated on the Anaheim Gener~l Plan for low-density
residential land use; that there were three schc,ols in close proximity to the site and the
proposed development wauld increa~e *.he traffic: in the area and bc more of a hazard to the
school chtldren; that Lakeview Avenue was heavily traveled and every consideraYton should
be given to providtng adequate access at all times for the emergency equipme:nt going to
and from the hospttal across the street; that numerous complainta had te::n r~csived
~
MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNINf. CdMMISSION, No~~ember 22, 1976
7b~S9~
RkCLASSIFI~l1T1UN N0, 76~77•~~VARIA~CE N0, 2~1~ AND TENTATIV(: MAP 01~ TftACT N0. 948z (Cont.)
regarding cars and trucks parked on Rtvcrdnle and tho r,t~ture of the proposnl wouid
Increaaa that problem; nnd thet, u^ Ic~s a aevere hardshlp coulcl be demonsCrated by thG
potltloner~ the araa restdents ~++ould llke to see the Scenic Corridor ordlnence enfo~ced.
Sha concluded by statiny that ~levelopmentcomp~tible with the envtronment ~nd Gonforming
to good land use ancl comm~~nity planning could be an ass~c:t t~ tlie communlty.
Mr. Ho.-bert Christensan~ ,51~8 Eest Crescent Orivo, Anehe~m, appcared before the Plenning
Commtssion in opposltlon and agre~d wlth the comnent3 m++de by Mrs. Dtnndorf,
Mr. NAnk Rtvera, ~+~1 Country IIi l l Road, Anehelm, Prosident of the Santa Ant Cany~n
Propcrty Owners As~ociation~ appea red bePore ~hc Planning Commtsslon tn o~posttlon to the
proposal and also agr•eed wlth the cumnent~ made by Mrs. Dinndorf. In acJdltlor~, he stated
that the area resldents wlYhed to have all of the rtqulremants of thQ Scentc Corridor
Overlay Zone upheld.
Mrs. lanice flall~ 545 Tumble:weeci Road~ Anaheim~ PrestJent of the Westrldge Hamoowners
4sseclAtlon~ appeared before the P innning Comnlsston nnd suggested that the subJect
property conform with the Clty pol icy dlscoureging driveway and other vehicular access
lacations wtthin 33~ feet of an ar terlall'ghway (lakevlew!~ since tr~ffic was alrsa~y
Impactecl r~t the intersection; and tl~at Inevery apartment complex someona always parked on
a corner.
In rebuttal~ Mr. Phelps stated the y could meet all of the developmrnt standards If that
wns the only obJection of the thre e maJor homeowners assoc~atlons; however~ che sub~ect
property was situated tn a multipl ~~famlly master-planned area, baing low-modium denstty;
th~t~ i~ the developer's opinion~ the ho~pltA1 conditlons across Che slreet were not
cunducive to singie-famtly developrnent; that lf a 2000-square foot house was constructed
an a 5000-squar~ foot lot~ the de n sity wcwld be htgher tl~an that being pr~posed at thls
ttma; that rr~ost af the standards werP being met wi th the propasa! and they could meet the
addltlonat .2S parkiriy spaces~ if su deslre :. hc~,vever, a two-cor garage was atl that was
rsquired for a three to five•he~.lroom heuse; and that to meet the Scenic Corrtdor Ov~rlxy
Zone reaulrements~ they wo~ld i~ave tu c~issl~ate the area dividing the structures and
increase the front asnh~lt pavir~g from 40 t~ 50 f~et.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLpSED.
Assistant Planner .lucl Fick advis e d that low-density residentiel land use as des(gnated or~
the Generai Plan, was intended for 0 to 7unlts pcr acre: and an RS-5000 devclopm~nt wouid
appra~rtately conform to said land use pattern. Ne further advised that there ~,ra~, a
resolutfon of intent ro RS-7200 zo nlnq on the subJect property,
Conmissioner Farann noted tliat one: of the showings necessary ta Justify a reclassfftcatlen
of zonlrg was that changes fia;' t~ k en placc in the area that in some way wo~~'~d deprive the
property owner of something ~f it was notgtanted; r_hat the requested RM-2400 Zone was a
signlfica~t chan<i~ and there was no justiflc~ition shown for it; and that he could nct
support the proposed change uf zo n e,
Mr. Jack Hall, civil engint~r and one of the property owners, appeared before the i~lanning
Commission and strted tfiat thc t owable density was 1 to 8 dwelling unit~ per acre on the
subJect property~ as 'ndicated uy City staff; tha: the property was not RS-7200 becausq of
'ts location being se, close to ttie traff'c in the area; that :igniftcan~ changes had taicen
place in the area due to the cnns truc:tlon of th~ Canyon Genera' Hospital that the subJect
aroperty could also be a ccx*~mercial sika since the in~~rsectton had a^tynlflcant
indicatlon for commerciat~ bCing a key piece of property; that an.~ttier ~~~e a~ the property
could be a rest home; and tha~ th e proposal was probFbly one of the lesser uses thmt could
be placed on the property.
~mm~issioner Farano tuok excPptio r+ t~ Mr, Ha11's comments -egarding comnerrtal zoning on
che subJect property~ un the basts that ha would vlcw such ~oning as strtp commercia~;
that he would want ~usCiftcati~n for any change (n the u~e designatlon o:~ the uen~ral Plan
stnce the p-operty was adJacent t o RS-72~0 develapment on Che west; and that the hospital~
ln h!s optnion~ had na ef`ect for increasing the density on the property and~ if a~yt.wing~
I; should go the other w~ay becaus~ of cha traff tc.
Mr. Holl FurthPr stated that if '~ey were gotng to provtdn h~using~ it was their
responstbtlity t~ prnvide what th ~ people who woi ed in the ~icintty woul~ use; that the
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CQMMISSIQN~ November 22~ 197~ 7U-591
RECLAS$1~"' ~TION N0. 76-77-23, VARIANCE N0. 2871~AND TEN7ATIVE MAP OF 7RACT N0. 94~2 (~ant.)
prapoaal w~~ e very reasonahle use wlth ~i~nsity ranging from 7 to 11.7 unlt~ per acra; and
thet the adJecent Intersection w~s not really conducive to good RS-7200 developmcnt.
Chnlrman Pro Tempore Tolar took ex c eptlon t~ the proposed garage design, noting that there
was not ~oom to park on the pads in fron t of ald garages and~ theretore~ the cars would
b~ p+~rked i~ the street~ crr.ating p roblems; that evnn if he w~re to agree wtth the RM-2400
zonlnq requa~t~ he could not vtsua lizo going along with the garage end parking sltuatlon;
that tho petltloncr was requesting to put too much "he+ property and~ as a stngle-1'amlly
homaowner~ he would r~ther see a nice duF!cx boh~r ~Is pr~~perty Chan a lwo-story ;-ome.
Ne rnitere~tad that there was a defi nite problem with the proposad p~rking.
~Ir. Phelps stated ;hat perhaps he was in urror to spllt a lot to achinvr: a!arger resr
yard, increostng Che 15-fcx~t condi tion; an~' that by moving the units brci:, there wo~~ld be
em~l~e room ~or the parking in the front; however~ AI1 of the persons Involved in drew~ng
up the plans felt thot larher rear yArds would be best for the proJect.
Chnirmen Pro Temaore Tol~r lnquire d why the petltloner had nnt met th~ r~qulremerits In the
beginning; and he notcd that the P lanning Comnlssloners were not cng :rs.
Cummi s!~ loner Barnes noted that she coul d not vote for any <ievelopment on the st te whi ch
would Increase the density designa ted on the Goneral Plan, since there was a particularl~
bad traffic sltuati ~~ on Riverdale and Lakevlew; and that she did not underatand why a
nice :tS-%20~ deveiopn~ent could not take place on the property.
Mr, Phalps stated th~r~t the placeme~t of the hospltal across the street changed the density
prospects ef the area consider~bly ; whe reupon~ Commissloner FarAnti noted that Mr. Phelps
had drawn an incorrect canclusion.
Mr, Hall adcled that the proposal had made sense on the basis of the price of tha land at
$56,0~)(1 ~er acre; that the proper t y was not in escrow but they owned it outright; that he
was tuned lnto property developmen t and knaw that the property was not RS-7Z00; and that
the Gene~a) ~lan aiso indicated th ere was comnerclal potentlal ~n the proparty,
In respnnse~ Commtssion~r Herbst not~:d that the 3pneral Plan (~~dtcated there could be some
comnerclal use in the area but no t on th~ subJect property; and that the General Plan was
"generai" and that tie did not `eel that City staff would hav~ lndlcate~i 1 to 8~~nits for
low-medium density develoR~ent.
Cor.~nissioner Earnes noted that, in her optnton~ the lnforma[ton partair.ing to density~ as
~ derstood by the petitioner~ was a inisapprehenslon.
Mr~, Catherine Waterbury~ 4621 Cu! de Sac Avenue~ Anehe!m~ appeared before the Planning
Comnlssian ii~ oppesitic,n and stat~d she lived in the adJacent single-family t~act; that
she ilked the way the netyhborhood presently was and wauld not ltke to see multiple-famliy
development come tnto th~s crucia' arLa; that she was a communi;y health nurse and
vlsualized some great safety haza ~ ds tn the event the proposed development was
constructed~ especlally with re5pe ct to thP proposed driveways since the scha,) chlldren
In Lhe area ~+~uld have to pass the property at least twice a day; and that she dld not
Ifke the ldea of garages or walls behtnJ which children could b~: ent(ced. Mrs. Waterbury
tl~en staCed she would like to see slnyle-family develcpment on the subJ~ct property; that,
:although the property was expensive, she d1d not sec why sing3e-family development wou!d
not be ap~-roprlate; and that she feit~ absolutely, that the empioyees ~f the adJacent
hospTtal ~uld ~onsidcr homes on that property; and that it was an assumption on the part
of the de~eloper~ that peopie would nnt want to own a hame that close to the trafflc.
Gommisslo:~er Herbs~ c.larified ~hat, ordinarlly~ 5 parking spaces Nere required including
on and off-sttr fer single-f~miiy hanes and ~hE proposed units vc.u~J actv~lly neeci aE~~t
that amount of parkina whici~ was not being made avatieble; and :nat the ~roject ti:hulc•
probab)y be short on parking.
Asststant P~anning Director Annika Santalahti advtsed that approximately 140 parking
spaces w~:i1~1 bs required for 28 single-family dwe111ngs~ wtth probably 2 or 3 spaces per
unit being in the sr.reet~ ecc.
In r~sponsc to questioning bv Commtssioner Fareno, Offtce Enginepr Jay Titus advised that
an addttlonal 15 feei of riaht-of-way wa~ ~equlred for Rivcrdale; and th::t satd rtght-of~
way would not al ign the street v+i tti the r'~ght-of-way to the west,
~
..,~.~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSICN~ Novamber 22~ 1976
76-59z
RECI.ASSIFICATIUN N0. 76-77-23. VARIANCE N0. 28y1, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRAC T N0,.~94A2 (Cont.)
Commis~l~ner Farano o1'fered e motinn, seconded by Commisstonar Morlay and M OTIOPJ CARKIED
(Comnisstaner Jehnsnn be' ~a flbsent) ~ that the /lnahelm City Planninq Commiss ton doos lieraby
recorn~„ar~d to the Cl ~y ~~unci l of tho ~Ity of Anaheim that a negative dec{a~ation fr~~, the
requlremant to prepare an ~nvlronmental impact rnport be approved for the s ubJect pro;ect~
pursuent to thd provision4 of the Caltforr~la Environmencal Quallty Act.
Com,iiss~onar Ferar~c oFfer~d ite~clution No. P(;76-241 arid moved fo~ its pasxage ond
adoptlon, thrt the ~nal~cim Clty Pl~nntng Commiss'on does hereby recomnend t o tha Clcy
Councll af the City of A:~aheim tl,at Petitlon For Reclassiflcatlon No. 76°77 -23 be
dlsapproved on the besls tl~at the Anaheln ~enersl Plsn deslgnates the subJe ct propc~rty for
Ic~-dens(ty r~sidentlel tand uies; ttiae Insufficlent showings were madn by the pot ~_loner
to Justlfy the proposeci Inc.rease in Jenslty over the present land use destq ~ation; that
approval of Lhe proposed development wo~~ld be detrlmental to the p~~rticula r area and t~
the peaco~ hoaltl~~ safaty and general walfare ofi the cltizrns of the City o f Anehelm, etc.
(See Resolution l3ook)
On roll call~ tlic foregoing resolutlon was passed by l•hA followir.g v~te:
A~'~S: COMMISSIONERS; QARNES, FARANO, HERBST~ KING. 'IORLEY, TOLAR
NQES: COHMISSIONERS; NANE
ARSENT: COMMISSIONEaS: JQH~lSON
f,oirr.iissioner Farano ofPered Resaluelon N4. PC76-242 and movcd for its pass a ge and
adopt(on~ that the Anahelm City Planning Gomnisslon does he~eby deny Petition fnr Vartance
No. Za7~ on the basi~ that tti~ ''~rrmisston is recormNSnding disapproval of the requested
zoning. (S~e Resolution Boc
On roll call~ the forc~oing resolutton was passed b~ t~ie following vate:
AYES: CONNISSIONEaS: BARNES, FARAN~~ HERBST~ KI;IG~ MORLEY~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: t!ONE
ABSElJT; COMMI SS IOP~ERS: JOHNSON
Commiss(oner Farano offered a motton, seconded by Comnissto~er Morley and MOTibN CARRIEO
(Commissio, er Johnson being absent)~ tl~at the a+iaheim Clty Planning Camnl .sior, does hereby
find that the propos~d tentative rt~ap of Tract IJo, 9482 is noc consistent wi -:fi the City of
Anaheim Genera) Plan, pursuanC to Governrnent Code Sectton 6fiA73.5; and the ~ efors~ d~es
disapprove said rt~op.
RECLA5S I F I CAT 10'~ - PUBI I C HEAP.; tJG. MI LDREG BAETGE ~ RUTH STORtJETTA ~ AND ESTER DYKFS,
N0~ 76-77-25 735 South Eucl i~i Street ~ Anaheim~ Ca. .°~28~Z (Ownars) ; G~OUP REALTY
S~RVICES~ 'NC,~ 720 South £uclfd Street, An~hetm~ Ca, 9 2~02 (Agent).
VARIAt~CE N0. 2~76 Property descrihed as a rec,-ngularly-shaped parcel of land consistiny
of approximately 0.9 acre having a froiitage of approximately 160 feet
on the west s~de of Euclid Street~ haviny a maximun dep th of approxi-
mately 7~~1 feec~ being lacated apNroximately 142 feet north of the centeri ine of Cror~e
Avenue~ and further described as 733-735 South Euclid Street. Property p resently classified
RS-A-43,000 (RESIUENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
REQUESTCD CLASSIFICATION; R~-7z00 (RESIDENTIAL~ 5lNGLE-FAMII.Y) ZOWE,
REQUESTED ~~ARIANCE: WAIVER OF (P,) R~QUIREMEtIT 1'FIAT ALL LOTS ABU7 A PUBLIC STREE7 AND
~ D) REQU 1 REFt[tIT TNAT S INGLE~FAMI LY R~S I DEt~CES REAR-ON AN ARTER Il1L
HIGHWAY, ~0 ESTADLISIi A FOUR-LOT~ RS•7200 SUBDIVISIO N.
No one indicated thelr pr•esence i~ oppo,itlon to the suhJect petitions.
Although the Staff Report to tF~e Planning Comn(ssion dated Novemher 22~ 19 76~ was not read
at the public hearirty~ said Staff Report is referred to and r-u~de a part, of the minutc .
Mr. Richa~d Lutz~ the agenc for the petikioner~ appeared before the Planni~g Comm(ssion
ai:d described the propcsal~ stating that the proposed prlva~e drive would be paved a~d
that a 6-fcsot high masunry wall would ba construct~d along Euciid Street. tle r~quested
clariftcatlon pertaining to the requiremeit for undarground ut~lttles and Assistant City
MINUTES, CITY I",aNNiNG COMM{SSIOIJ~ November 22, 1976 7~-593
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-2y AND VARIANCE N0. 2(~7G (Gontinu~<i)
At torncy E rank l.c~w ry nav 1 sed tha t s a I d requ ( rement pn r ta I ned t~ any new hames anci not
tli~se exlsting,
Til~ PUDLIC IIC~RING wAS CLOSED,
Discuss(on pursuad renarding thc propose~ private drive ond thn turntng radlus for
sanitutton ancl em~rqancy vehicles. Mr. Lutz stated Chat the ~resent -•~sidents ~n the
properCy piit th~ t r trosh out on Euc 1 I d S troet and ~ s i nce the two new homes woul d al so bo
close to E~~cl id ~ he had hoped cl~at w~ul d not be a prob l em, CQmmi ss lone~ He,rbs t noted tha t
the resldents would have to corry their t~es!i some 400 fer,t co Eucl id Street for plck-up
gnd he fcll therc would be problorns In the futu~•cs unless tlie santtarion vehlcles wero able
to get Inta the pr i votc street, Ghal rmen Pro Tempore Tolar questtonod Nhether th~
sanitbtlon trucks woulci -~~o thc privato street even tF It w~s widened for thelr use,
Cc~rr~rniesloner Nerbst then sug~ested that a hammerh~ad d~lve he constructed~ and Offlce
Engtneer Jay TI tus adv! seci thnt tlie hammerhe~~d would be requl red to be 80 feot long. Mr.
L~~tz Indicated that by c.onatructing the h~mmerhead they may have some prnb'.ems In
achieving the 1800 to 1~nn-squr~e foot liouses and~ therefore. th~y preferred t~ leave the
dr(ve as proposed. Chai r~~,in Pro Tempore TolAr noted that hP ~Jid n~t favor the drlve the
way it was propose~~, ar~i Comnissfoner Herbst not-~d that lh~ hammerhead would give better
use o~,' tf~: property an~~ -~stablish thc separatlon for the homes, and the ~iatter should be
revtewed and apprc+vAd by the Sanit~+tion and Engtnee~;ng Divtsions.
Comnissloner Herbst offered a mntlon, sec~nded by Cumnissionc:r King and MQTION CARRIED
{Commiss(oner Johnson being absent)~ that ~he Anahe(m C(ty P~anntng Comniss~on does hereb~~
recommend to the C i ty Counci) of tha Ci ty of Anaheim ~hat a negative d~claration f-om the
requtrement to prepare an environmental Ir,~ac~ report be appraved for the sub,ject ~;roJect,
pursuant to the prflvlsions oP the Callfornla Env(ronmental Quality Act.
Commtssloner HerbsL. uFfP~ed Aesoluti~n No. PC76-243 and moved for its pass~ge and
adoption, tht:: the Anaheim Clty Planning Commissiun ao~s hereby recommend to the City
C~unc;l of the Ctty of Anahein that Petttton for ReclaSSificatlon No. 76-77-''S be
approved, subJeGt to the condltion that the pr~posed private street shal l provtde adequatr_~
turning area for sanikAtlon and emergency vehicles and tl~at plans for said street
construction shal ~ be submltted to th~ Sanitatton and Enginee~ing Divtsions for rev(ew and
approval prlor tn th~ ~ssuance of a bullding perml t; and subJect t~ thr. Interdepartment~l
Commit~ee rec~mmendai ~,ns, (See Resolutlon 9ook)
On roll call the foregotng resolur.ion was passed by the folloNing vote:
AYES: C~MPIISSIONERS: BARN[S~ FARANO, HERBST~ KING, MORl.EY, TOLAR
y0E5: COMMISSIONERS: NOPIE
ABS[NT: CQI4M1 SS I ON[RS : JOHNSON
Commissioner Her' nffered Resolution Na. ?C76-244 ancl ~~ov~~d for lts passage and
adoption, that tne Anahetm City ?lanning Cortm(ssion does he.~eby grant Petit(or far
Uarlance No, 2~7f~. granting the requested waivers on the besis that similar walvers ha
been granted previousiy by tha Flanning Commtssion and that similar re5idenrial lots exi~t
!n the area; a~id~ furthermore, the p~~ ' ttoner demonstrated ;hat a hardship wcwld be
created lf said walvers .+ere not grar~~ed; subJect to the Inte~departmental Committee
rec~mnendatlons and that the propo4ed privatE street shall p~ovlde an adequ: `e turn(ng
ar-ea for sanitation and em~rgency vehicles and plans for said street construction shall be
~ubntiCted to the Sanltatton and Enc~ineering Dlvisia~s for re~iew and approva) prtor to the
issuance af a bui lding permlt, (Sese Resolution eook)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the fol lowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONcRS: BAftNES~ FARANO~ NERBST~ KINC. MORLFY~ TOLAi~
NOES : COMMI SS 1 OPJE4S : NONE
ABSENT: COMMI SS 1 ONERS : J~I't~SON
MINU7ES, CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, November 22~ 1~76
76-~;9~a
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC -i~/1RING. IN171I1TED BY THE ANAI~EIM CITY PI.ANNIN6 COMHISSION~
H0.^76~~7;?.6 204Eaa2 Llncoln A•~eniae~ Ar~ahelm~ Ga, 92805; proposing the reclassl-
flcetton of property descrlbe~ as sn Irregul~rly-shaped perce) of
lai~d cor+sistlisg of approxlmately 65 acres locateci at the s~utlieast
corner of Cres cent Avenue ancl Gllbert Street~ having apRroxtmatr frontaget of 2035 Peet
on tl~e sauth side of Crescent Avenue and 1290 feet on !he east si~lc oP Gi~bert Streat
(Anaheim Muntcipal Golf Course) from the RS-A-t;~~00Q ~RE~IDEI~TIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONF to
the PR (PUSLIC RECKEATION) 20N~.
No one Indica t ed their prASance I~ oppositlon to subJect pPtitlan.
Asslstant City Attorney Frflnk I.awry reviewed the Staff Report to the Plt~nning Cammiss(on
dated I~ureirber 22~ 1976~ and satd Staff Report is referred to and made a pt~rt of the
minutes.
TIIE PUBLIC HEARING 1J4S CL.OSED.
Commissloner M orley offered a motlon~ seconded by Cortmissioner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED
(Commtssloner Johnson baing absent)~ that !he Anaheim Clty Planning Cummtssion does hereby
recommend to the City Council of the Clty of Anahelm that g negative declaration from the
requlremer~t to preparP an envi;onmental impact report be approved for the subJect proJect~
pur3uant t~ the provislons of the ~alifornla Envlronrt~ rital Quality Act..
Commissloncr Morlry offered Rosolution No. Pr,76-245 dnd moved for its passagc <1
adopt I on, tha t tl~e Anahe 1 m C( ty P 1 ann i ng Comn i ss ton does hereby recommend to ~~e C i ty
Council ~f th e City oP Anbheim that Petition for Reclaasification No. 76--7-26 be
approved. (5 e b R~soiutlon Book)
On -•ol) csll~ the foregotr~ resolutlon was passed by the folloaring vote:
AYES; COMMtSSIONERS: BARNES, FARANO~ HERBST~ KING, MORI.EY, TOLAR
NOES : CQMM t SS I ONE(tS ; NONE
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS; JOHNSON
RECESS - At 3: 30 p.m, ~ Chai rn,.~., fro Tempore Tolar declared a recess,
RECONVE~!~ - At 3~~+0 p.m., ~hairman Pro T'empore Tolrr reconv :d the meeting
with Commissioner Johnson being a~sent,
VARIANCE ~10. 2 877 - PUBLIC H[ARING. G~NE AND FAT LUSH, ~725 Htilcrest, Orange~ Ca. 92667
(Owners); HEWI~fT PINNEY, 1729 Concerto Drive, Anaheim, Ca. q2801
(Agent); req~esttng WAIVER OF MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNRELATED RESIDENTS
IN A SINGLE-FAMiLY HOME~ TO PERMIT NINE UNKELATED RESIDENTS on propcrty dcscribed as a
rectangularly-shaped p~rc.el of land consisting of approximately 72J0 square feet haviny
a f,-antage of appruxtmat~:ly 60 feet on the west slde of Concerto Or(ve~ havxng a maximum
c' ~th of approxlmately 120 feet~ b~ing located approximately 445 feet norti~ cf the center-
iine of Orangethorpe Avenue, and further des.ribed as 1729 Concerto Drive. Property
presently cla sstfied RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
Assistant City Attorney Frank Low ry noted that he had a confldct of inte~est as defined by
the Anehaim City Planning Commisslon Res~l~tlon No. PC75-157 adopting a Conflict ~f
Interest Code for thc Planntng Cortmissio~i and Go~ernment Code Sectton 3625~ et sr.q.~ in
that he c~vned real proporty which could be ~ffected Gy Variance No. 287''; tha~t pursuent to
the provision s of ttie referenced codes~ he was hereby declertng to the ~hatrman Pr
Tempore ihat he was withdrawing frort~ the hearing in connection with Varlanco No. 2$77
(Itam No. 6 on the agenda) and would not take part in cither thc dlscussion o~ the voting
thereon; and that he had not dt~cussed this matter with an; member oF the Pla~ining
Commtssiun. THERE~~aON~ MR. LbWRY LEfT THE COUNCiL CHAhSBER AT 3:40 P.M.
Approximately 11 persons tndicatsd their presen~ce in oppnsit(on to the subjec~ petit',on
and forthwith waiv~d the full re~ding of the Staff Report to the P18nning Commisston dated
Novcmber 22~ 1y76. Altihough the Staff Repo~t was not read at the public hearing. it ls
referred to a nd made a part of the iinutes.
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMFtI5SIQN~ Novcmber 22~ 1976
vAR1ANCE N0, 287' (Contlnued)
76-595
Mr. ilawitt Plnney~ thc agent f~r the pctltloner~ appnarcd before the Planning Commisston
and st~ted that he a~d the othcr gentlamen living on the subJect prope~ty wlth thAlr
famtlles were both unemployed and the subJ~ct nel~hborhood was a hetter place for them to
lfve and ralse their children than ~he Broadw~y Village apartments where they ware ltvtng
prevlously; that they Just wanted to llve in peace with the nelghbors and~ although thore
ware some ~laims about not;e and cars on the prope~ty~ they had n~t been asked by the
nAlghbors to shut down thc nofse but the Pullce Department had comc out once an4 taken
carc oF tho problem; and that thcy only had two cars whlle others ln thc nelghb~rlio~d
gendrally had from two to six cara.
Mr. Thomas Mnadows~ 17~-6 Prelude Orive~ llnahelm~ appearCd before the Planning ~ommtssfo~
in opposi[ton and declared that ntne people constituttd very hlgh dNn5lty on a single-
femily lut; that :he Poll~e Departmenx had been to the subJecl property and thet was the
r~ason for the public hearing th(s dAte~ 4lllrp the pollce coul~ not resolve the mrttcsr;
and that the noise from loud music was 4here and ~;~ ~~uld he~er It '~rom his propLrty which
backe:f to ':onc~rto Drlve about three••fourths of 3 block away.
Mr. "ad Neese~ 1737 Conc;erto Drive~ Anahelm~ appet~red before the Planntng ~ommisslon in
appUsitl~,i and str~ted he lived two housas ta the north of the subJcct p;operty; that ~~
petitlon had been submitted cont~tning signatures of all oF the proper•ty awnefs on
Concerto Drlve in opposition and that (f other petitions In ~p~ositlon had nat been
rece(ved i was beca:ise of the shortness of xtme following rzcetpt of the ~ublic hear ~g
notice; that ~he pro5lems or conditions wore stf~l extsting and the area resldents we a
unbble to s~olve them wtthout comtng to thc Planning Commisgi~n; that thare were not t„o
marsy cars ~n khe property; that Che peoplr in the aresa had fought against high-denslty
development ard especlally agatnst the condaminiums to the east; that the proponent~ had
demonstrated to th~ ne(ghbors durtng the past threc mon:hs that thntr llving conditions
we~e not what tne neighborhood was accustomed to and said condittons were caustng great
concern Por tl~e many small children in the s~etqhborh~o~l; and that everyone on Concerto
Drive was oppoR~d to the propasal and respect~ully urged the Planning Corcmission to deny
it.
Mr. Rlcha~d McCarthy~ Yorbs Linda, anpeared before the Plan~iing Cammtsslon in opposition
and stated he owned the adJacent property to thr north which was occupled by his
grandchildren.
Mr. E. Mason, 1772 Concerto Orive~ Anaheim, appeared befc,re th~ Plr.nning Commission in
opposittr,n and stated that it was important to r~ote that the sub)ect property was part of
a housing area with an~roxlmatel~ ?00 homes end he was conce~ned about the impact of
granting the proposai since othe, may want to do the same thtng; and that the
neighborhood wanted [f~e area t., stay s~ngle-famtly.
M~. Gene Lush~ the subJect property owner, appcared before rhe Plannt~g Conn~isslon and
sta~ed that~ In hfs Judgmcnt, the property was being well taken care of 5y the two
famtlies; and that he had been to the property about 12 times durtng the past three months
and had never abserved an~- noise or excessive parking of cars on the property,
Mr. Joe Griffin, one of the residents of the subJnct property~ appeared 6efore tlie
Planning Commission in bahalf of the p;•oposa) and stated *.hat all it woula have taken wa~
a knock on their door if the neighbarhood was disturbed by them tn ~ny way; that the
police had been to the property on one uccasion and the situatlon w~as taken care of; r'at
their chtldren Just went autside like everyone else's cF~ildren and were doing f'ne in
schaol; and tnat he wcuid not like to risk his life for someonC whom he dfd Rot want to
live araund~ however~ he had helped put out two fires for the neighbors by climbi~sg up on
top of roof:~ eCc.
THE PUBLIC HEAR1,'G WAS CLOSEO.
Gomrnl~sioner KOng i~dicated that he concurred ~rlth t~e opposition that if the subJect
prooosal were ap~rov~d it would set a precedent. Comnissioner Morley t~dicated that
approval would affect ~every if5-7200 zoned area in the City of Anrheim.
Chairmen Rra Tempore Tolar noted that there were probebly ;housands of pcaple who would
llke to undertake thts ~yp~ living in times of economic stress; that thera wer~ probably
other homes that would acGOmmodate the two familles even better than the one tn q~nstion~
hawever~ from a~ standpolnt of zontng, upp~oval would create a tremendous p~oblem far the.
~
M I N~~'~ES ~ C I TY PIANN I NG COMM I SS ( ON ~ Novembe~ 22 ~ I,'-6
VARIANCE N0. 2877 (Ccntlnued)
76-Sq6
City~ dlsrog~rdtng ~eny ef th~ complalnts~ and khera would be a deluqe o} requests to heve
stngle-famlly homes for multiple-family us+~gc.
Mr. Griffln furth~:r staLed that thelr soclal wnrker !.ad prelsed them for seeking better
Ilving cnndlttons for their far^(lles.
Mr. Plnne~y addod th~t he was sure that the Planning Commisaton wds aware that they were
~ot the only ones Ilv(ng under thi~ type clrcumstencn; and chpt he Pelt the maln reason
thny were before the P~anning Comml~.;s1Gn w~s becauae of thelr appearance, hc~wever~ Chelr
llvlnq stsndards were very decent.
Commlssloner Morley essured Messrs. Plnn~y end Grtffln that thcir c~se was the nnly one
tha Pl~nning Comnission was awarc af in tF~e ~ity~ lcgally.
Comml~ston~r 6~rnes noted that the Planntny Commis3ton wes considering the mettcr of
zoning onl~ and not personalltles or ecanomics; Lhet the Cortmis~ion received criticlsm
From thousands of citizens in the City when tih~i ordinanc~s were not upheld an~! the reas~ns
were for the protecklon of property valuss anc~ cummunltles; and that the peopie obJecting
to t'he subJe~t proposal wcrc probably purchasing their homes and had r,housan~-y uF dalla~rs
Invested (n thr.?r property.
Mr. Plnney Inqulred whethe tt would make any dlfference lf they owned the prope~~~; ~ not
t~ have two familtes liv~ng in thc home, esid Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar answered tn thc
negatlve~ that this was a:aingle~family z~~ne and the Commission did not want to see a
breakdown in the cades; and tha` the deciston wo~~ld hAVC nothing to d4 wtth the restdents
p~rsonally.
Commissi~ner Farano noted that~ due to the present use of th~ subJect property~ thrre were
apparently areas ~f dtsagreement (n the nnighburhood~ although he was not awara oF the
spe~iflc examples. Chalrman Pro Tempnrt ;~~lar furtha~ noted that it was not important to
knc~~r , ~~ther the ncighbors agreed or not.
Thereup~n~ hlr. Plnney inqutred w~iy they were allowed to make application for thls use of
the property if it was not gotn~g to h~~ ~ccepted, since `~ey spent S125 for the var(ance
which could have been spent on their families.
In response~ Chairman Pru 7ernpore Tolar advised that this was a~emucratic proccss end no
citizen could be ~ienied tf~e right to apply for a vartance.
Mr. Griffln then stated that laws were de~,igned for ptopl~ and It appeared that 2he
Planning Commission was decidtng whether ~its cl'ld~~n would ga to a decent schoal on the
basis that they could n~~t afford to buy ~ hom~.
Commisstoner Barnes reviewed the action for the Planning Commission 1~ conne~tton w(th a
~ecent proposal to fia~~s a sorority house in a single-f~mily nelghbcrhood, where all of the
r~aidents would be stralghx "A" sruden~s, and the Cflrnnission had denied it on the basis of
the underly(ng zon!r,y; i:hat there were other ~lternatives availablf to Lhe applicants
since multiple-~amily llving w~os permitted in apa~tments or duplexes~ etc,; and that she
realized how hard tt was to make e~ds me:et in tfi~s day and time and that she also
understoad the point of view of the applicant~ hawever~ it was the Pianntng Comnissian's
Job tc upholc+ the la~s of the Clty for the protection of lts citizens.
it was flJC!'"~ that petitions sl~ned by approximately 64 area residents and property owners
were raceived in op~+osition to tl~r. proposal.
(t was notec' that the Dtrect~r of the Planninr_, Department had determined that the p~•oposed
a:.ttvlty fell within the definitie^ of Scctien 3.~1, Class 1~ of the City of Anaheim
Gu(dellr~e' to the Requirements t'c~r an Envtronmentia) Impact Report and was, the~efore,
categorically exempt from the reqeitremsnt to prspare an EIR.
Com~~issioner Moriey offcred Resulutton No. PC76-246 and moved for lts passage and
adoptlon~ that the Anaheim Gity Pia~~ning Commtsston d~~s hereby deny Petit'on for Var(anGe
No. 287) on the basis that approvrl would establish an undesirable precedent for future
timllar waivers throughout th~ City ~~f Anaheim in single-famtly zones anci r,tiat thert would
be e breakdown of fihe integrity o~• sa~id zdnes int~nd~d f~-; single-family occ~pancy of
detached ciwellings; that the praposal constitutes a multiple-famlly use of a single-family
~
MINUTES~ CITY PI.AWNING COMMISSION~ N~vember 22, 1q76
VARIANC~ N0. 287~ (Contlnucd)
76-597
dwblling In a Yingte-f~mily zonn; end th~t ~ppoaltlon to the proposal was expres~ed by thes
maJorlty of the aree residents encl property owners. (Sae Resalutlon Book)
On roll call~ the foregcing rnsoiutlcn was passed bv the 1'ollowfng voCo:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARN~S~ f'AMNO~ NERBS7~ KING~ MORI.EY~ 'fOI.AR
NOfS: GOMMISSIONERS; NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONEItS: JOI~NSOIv
~.,~.~AhCE N0. 2~78 - FUHI.IC NEARING, A'1'CHISON~ TOPEKA AND SANi'A FE RAILV~AY COMPANY, 121
Easi bth Streeto Suttc 629~ Las Angeles~ Cd, y0Q14 and SANTA FE I.AND
IMPR.OVEMENT COMPArJY~ 121 East 6th Streetr Suite 225~ Lc;s Angeles~
Ca. 9b014 (Owner~); SAN1~A FE I.AND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY~ 121 East Ckh Street, Suite 225,
Los ~ngeles, Ca. 90014 (A,qer.t); requesting WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT TIiA7 ALL I.OTS ABUT A
PUDI.IC STREET~ TO ESTABLISN A 27~LOT~ ML(SC; SUBDIVISION on property described as a
rectangularly-sha~ed parce! ~f land t~nsi~t'I~g of approximately 112 aeres located at the
northwest corner of Kellogg ~rtve and l.o Palma Avenue~ having a oximate frontages of
1915 feet on the west side of Kellogg Drf~,e and 2034 fea* on thc north side of La Palma
Avenue. PropertY presently class(fied RS-A-43~000(SC) (RESIOENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL-SCENIC
CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE (with a r~esolution of Intent to ML(SC)}.
Twa parsons Indicated their presence in opposition to the subject petitian and forthNlth
walved the ful) rGading of the Staff Report to the Plnnning Commisston dated November 22~
t97b. Although the Staff Report was not re~~d at tf~e publlc heartng~ it is referred to and
made s part of the minute~.
Mr. Crelghton Ca~ver~ representtng the A.T. 8~,F. Railw.~v Company. appeared before the
Planning Gommissio~ and reviewed the praposal, stating tha~ they agreec' ~ntirely wtth the
recommendad condltions of apprava) as outlined in the Staff i~epor~, Ne further stated
that laRd was netded by the operating railroad company and whe~~ rhe industrial deve.lopment
got underway and the land was sold, if thF northerly parcels were not included~ another
~arcel map mlght be requtred at that time; that tht need far the requested variance was
based on the devaluation of parcels that would not be usecl in an indu,tri~~l sense; arod
that the full scope of the propused development was to maximize the land use withlr the
requi rements of th~ C) ty.
In response to questioning by Commissioner Herbst~ Assistant Planning Dlrector-Zoni~g
Annika Santalahxi advised thaC lhe 3ubJeit proparty was two perce~s of land under two
separake oaners and the parcels could net be combined for the purposes of creatlny the
prc.~osed subdivision without the requested variance.
Mr. Carver stated that the {ard ~ npany could not require the railroa~d company to sell the
land, however~ the subdivision would have to be created tn a legal manner, He then
questloned why a Joint parcel map couid not be signed by the two prnper~y owners invoi~ed.
In res~,onse~ Miss Santalahti advised that only a variar~ce could handle the "zero" frontage
problEm.
M;. Rod Dwy4;, 1815 La Palrna Ave.iue~ Anaheim~ appeared before the Planntng Cummisst~n in
oppositton anc stated that when l.a Palma Avenue was constructed~ a wedge-shaped piece nf
land was creat~d on the north side of La Palma Avenue~ abutttng the southwest corner o~
the subJect prtoerty; that he wa~ not actually opposed t~ the proposed prole~t but to wyat
would happen to thc wed~e c` land that presently haJ no great value to anyone; that there
were many cours~~s of action whicl~ could be tal:en to avotd problems with the wedge of land;
tfqat he was gena ral manager of the company th~t own~d the wedge; end that the propos~~d
proJect shouid eihance the area.
Comm(ssioner Morley ~~•~uired if Mr. Dwyer wo~~id be interested in selling thz wedge-shaped
parcel~ and Mr. !~wyer indicatPd that they were ~r~ure interested (n purchmsing mor~ land to
go with it.
Mr. td Kinney, representing Thoroughbred Raci~~g Plates on La Pe~ma AvenuCy op~ared before
the Planntng Cornmission and stated he had misunderstooc: the ~oning dcatgnatlon on the
propertv and thought It was restdential; and that he dld not oppose industrlal devel:.pment
on ti~e subJect Rroperty since that is what it was intended for seve~~ or elght years ago.
.
~^...n
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISS;ON~ November 22~ 197b
VARIANC[ N0. 2878 (Contlnued)
THf ~iJBLIC H~ARING WAS CI.OSED.
7G-598
Miss Sant:+lahtf advis~u thAt~ if approved~ the Planning Commisslon should conslder the
additlon of n condl*.f~n of ~pproval~ "That none of the lots wikhout public street fror,tagc
shell be develop~d unlass and u~til sald lots are combined wlth edJacent lots whlr,h do
have I"rontage on a ~ubtic street."
ir. Carv~,r at~ted that with khe Improvement of Hs~coc~, Place, th~ wedge~shapad parcel In
ques~lo~~ would have Incroased value. He suggested ~h .t Mr. f)wyer contact the i.arad
Uevalopment Company [o lnquir~ about the acqulsltion o~ conttyuous property.
Commiss~oner Farano rev(ewed the proposa) and Indicatod khat thls was a most uriusual
ctrcumstancn to tAkc property ~tith good symmetry and subd(vi it inta Illayical lots
renging ir~ stze from .3 acre to 15,4 acres and~ therefore~ he Felt the~e ~night be
somethtng else plannod for the property whfch was not being dlsclosed al thls tfine.
In r~sponse to que~tioning by Commisstoner Farana, Nr. Carver stated that the reason for
Lot 16 betng a narrow atrlF~ of land all ~hs way to La Pal~-a Av~nue was thet they needed
the rallroed to seil satd land to the lar~d company and thts could only be done by parcel
map~ accarding to the Subdivision Map Act; and thgt the/ were going to use the unusual
parcel of land as ratlroad spurs in the future.
Discussio~ ~ursued regArding the unusual lots that wore betn~g created~ and Cha(rman Pro
Tempor~ ~lar nnted tha~ it appeared the proposal vrfluld allav the purch~sers of the lot ta
have a• ~ss to thc railro~d spurs.
In sponse to questioning by Commisston~r lierbst~ O~fice Engineer Jay Titus advised th~at
th Anaheim Redevalopment Agency was purchasing rlght-~f-way for Hancock Ptace and would
f constructfng said roadway along the easterly side uf the sub)ect property.
~n response to fu~th~er questioning by Commissioner Farano, Mr. Carver stated that the
railroad company would not r~tatn title :o Lot Nos. 21~ Z? and 25 but woui~' purchase it
anC :hen give it back. ta the railroad company since the railroad company ~r:~id need sald
property for the rail, ~i operations.
In response to ques,tdoning by Commisslon~:r King~ Mr. Carver ~tated th~at they had discussed
the U-shaped street with the Traffic ~ngineer and were at odds about the necessity
therefor; and that thetr own vlew was that there was no need for the street to go through
stnce it would not go anywh~re anyway; an~ that rgilroads crossing st~eets were an cxtreme
hazard.
Trafftc Eng(neer Paul Sinyer advised that hts rec~xrmendatlan was that there be mor~e than
ane arterta) street, slnc~ presPntly about one-half of the development in the area was
dependent upon La Palma Avenue alone and the obJective was to serv~ce the industr(al area
through an addlttonal arterlal; and thet a spur line would not have substantial ra1l~oAd
traffic.
In response eo questtoning by C~mmissioner Herbst~ Mr. ~arver stated that the spur lines
wouid cross only two streets in the development. Commisslo~er Flerbst then noted tl~at
there would be quite a few spur "offshoots" to the (ndividual buildings.
In response to questioning by Commissioner Fareno~ Miss Santaiaht! advised thaC the tree
remov~l adJasent to the approved street improvanents for Hancock Place was considered and
approved in connection with the street proposa) and was not s consideration at this timre.
Corc,misstoner Herbst indicated that It aapeared all ot` the trrfftc on the proposed
development would go to La Patma Avenua, and ~omnissioner Barnes tnaicated that the
ctrculatlon would be both frcKn Keliogg Drive a~:d Hancoek Place to La Palma Avenue. Hr.
Carver then stated that the traffic from the dr:velopment wo~ld all end up on La Palma
~lvenue, rtgardless, and that they needed e street t~ be created gotng east-west through
the sub;ect development,
~ommissloner Herbst suygested that. if approved, all of the p~oposed lots~ excap*. for the
r~ilraad spurs (Lots 21, 23 and 25) must, at some poinr in time and prior to their
devclopment, touch a pubit~ street. Thereupon, Mr. Ca~,er so srtpulaten.
~
MINUTES~ GtTY PLANNING CUMMIS510N~ Novnmber 2Z~ 197G
VARIANC~ N0. 2878 (Continued)
1b-599
Commissioner BFlrnes n4ted tN,at~ i~, her oplnfon~ Kellogg Drtv~ and Han~oek Place shou1d not
bc connected, Commtssioncr farano noYed that the addltional enst-wese st~aec would ruln
th~ davelopn~ent~ as proposeci~ liowever~ ff the property could nat be developed In a mannor
requl~in~ large chunks c~f i.~nd, he expected that an east-west thoroughfere through the
propErt n~lght he rnquested In thc fvtur~.
It wes noted t5al the Directar of the Planning Depar~n,ent had deCermtned tl.~t the proposed
activity fell within the deflnitton of Section 3.01, Gl,~;s 5~ of the Ctty of ,:nahelm
GuldNllnes to r.he Requlrrments for an Envirr,nmental Impact Reporr end was~ therefore~
cate~„rically exempt from tne requlrement to prepara an EIR.
Cc~mmis~ioner Farano offered Resolution ~Jo. PC76-24J and moved for (ts passage a~7~
aJoptian, that the Anahelm Gity Pldnning Commtsslon does hercby grant PPtition for
VarlAnccs No. 2iti78 on the basls that tl~e petlttoner t:~pul~ted t.~at nonc uf the lots
without publir: street frontage shall be develap~ed :~~~less and unell seid lo;s ar~ combined
with adJacant lots wh(ch do have frontage on a public street, e~:cepCing "rollroad ~~,ur"
i~~ts. and that prior t~ the lssuanc~ of a butlc;ing permlt for development of ~afd locs
wltl~cut publ': ,~reet frontage~ a parcel map shal) be submitr:J to and approved by the
City of Anahe(m and then be recorded in the OffiGe of che 0 arge County Recorder; and
subJect ko the Inter:lepartmentel Committee recomner~dations. (See Resolutlun Dook)
On roll cnll, the foregofny resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMiSSIONEaS: BARNES~ FARANO~ HERBST, KING~ NORLEY~ 701.AR
NOES: COMMiS510NERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMiSSIONERS: JOHNSON
CONDlTI0N11L USE - PUOLIC HEARING. JAMES P. ANU PHYLLIS J. CRAWfORD~ 14~1 Fagt l.a Palma
PERMIt N0. 1666 Avenue~ Anaheim, Ca, 92805 (Uwners); DONALD B. BROWN. Va~attonland~
Ltd.~ 270 North Gan~n Drive~ Beverly Hilis, Ca. 9~'lu (Agent); requsst-
tng permission to EXF.^."~D AN EXISTING R[CRFl1'IONAL .'~ICLE PARK WITH
WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT THkT ALL LOTS ABUT A PUBL{C STREET on ,>perty describad as a
rectangularly~shaped parcel of l~nd consistinq of approximately 3•S acres IoGated approxi-
mately 39~ fcet eesterly of the centerline of 4lalnut Stre~ ~ having a maximum depth of
approxlmately 228 feet, and betng located apprQxlmately 66U feet south of the centeri(nc
of Ball Road, Property presently classified C-R (COMMERCIAL-RECREATION) ZONE.
No one tnntcated their ~~resence in opposition to the subJect petition.
Atthough the Staff Report ta the plann!ng Canmisslon dated Nover~er 22, 1976~ we; not read
at the public hearing~ satd Siaff Raport ts referr~^d to and made a part oF the mtnutes.
Mr. Dor~ald B. Brtiwn~ the agent for the petittoner~ appear~d befare the ~lanning Commission
and stathd that they had been In operation for stx and o~~e-half years in the s4SJect area
~nd, because of the marketing demands in the vtctn(ty ot Disneyland~ th~~ felt it ~~~s timc
Lo expand; that the proposed expansicn would be consisie~t with thei~- existing opcratton
on the adJacent property to the east and wouid be a first-ctass facility; that, to his
knowledge~ they enJoyed the higfiPSt occupancy rate for tF~is type facility in tre City; and
that~ inadvertently~ muci~. ~° the i~nc;scaping was le~t off the plans~ how::v~r~ twc~ trees
per vehicle space were proposEd and crash storage areas would be in accord~nnce with the
City requirements.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WA& CLOSED.
Conrnissinner Tolar suggested that~ if the proJect were approved, ;t should 'ue for a time
limit to coincide with ~ondittonai Use Permit No. 1116 on the adJacent parcel ~hich had
frontage on a public st~-eet~ satd ttme limit ta expire on July 15, 1984. Thereupon, Mr.
Bfown so ~~ipulated.
Commiss(oner King offc;red a motlon~ seconded by ~missioner Moriey and MOT!ON CARRIE~
(Commission~r JoP~nson being absent)~ that the An~.~~im City Planning Commission dces hereby
rer.ommend ta the City Cauncil oP the City of Anaheim that a negattve dectmrrtton from the
requJrement to pre~are an environmantal impact report be approved for the subJect pra,ject,
pursu~nt t~ rhe provtst~ns of the Californta Environmental Qualtty /1ct.
~ ~
MINUTES~ L'17Y PLANNING CONMISSION~ Novamber 22~ 1976 76-G00
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1666 (Cantlnued)
Conmlzsloner I'.tng offered Resalutlon No, PC76-24R and move+d for Its passage and adoptian~
th~t thc Anahaim City Planning Commtsslon daes ~iereby grait Petttton for~ Conditlonei U:a
Permtk No. ~6G6 on tha baais thaC the pro~osal wlll b~ develapcd 1n cunJunctton w(th the
existtng recrc,ntlonal vehi~~.lc park to thr e~sc which has frontage on a dodlcated street;
granting the candtllonal us~ for a pcri~J of Clme to rx.p~rE on July 15~ 1984~ subJect to
con~lderetlon for an additlonai ext~n~ion of tln~e In ton)unctlon wltn Condttlonai Use
Permit No. 1116~ upon request by th~~ petttioncr; subJect to the ~tlpulattons af the
petl4tane:r; an~ sub]ect to the I~~ter~lepartn~en~al (:nr+xnittce recommendet(ans. (Sce
Resolutlon Book)
On roll call, the foregoing resolutfun was passed by th~ following vot~:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARN[S~ FARAMO, HERBST~ KING~ MORI.EY~ TOI,aR
NOES; COMMISSIONER5: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIGNERS: JOIINSON
CONDI'f10NAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CROCKF.R NATIONAL BANK~ 1675 Caltfornia Street~ San
PERMI'T N0. 1667 Frbnclsco, Ca. 94109 (Owner); rcqutsting permtsslon to ESTA[1LISH A
CHURCH MEEI'l~JG HAI.L WITH WAI~'ER OF MINIMIIM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
on property descrlbed .~s a rectnngularly-shaped percel of land
consisting of approximately 0,32 acre haytng a fror~tage of approximately 100 feet ori
the ~,outh stde of Ltncoln Avenue~ having a maximum depth of approxima*.ely 140 feet~
be(ng located approxim~tely 131 feet easr, o~ the centerline of tlelena Street~ and Curther
described as 328 we~st Llncoln Avenue. Property pre~~ently classtfied CG (COMMERCIAL,
GENERAL) ZONE,
No one indicoted their presence in opposition to the subJect petitton; however, It was
noted that one letter had been recelved in opposition.
Although the S:aff Report to the Pl:~nni~~g Commission dated Novernber 22~ i97H, was not read
at the public hearing~ satd Staff R~,ort is referred to and made a part of khs minuYes.
The ietter in oppr~sition was reod into the record, as Follows~
"hfrs. Victor Hentges
20k S, Helena
- What is the namP of the organtzation.
- What are 'customarily rel~ted sacial and fund raising activlties.'
- What hou~-s Gf ineetings - how often as ro day and night.
- Will cars stay on public parking lots over allotted time without
any fines or p~~id ~arking permit tags.
- Wili cars overflow onCo surrounding strcets a~nd take park'ng spACes
in Front af neighborina homes as di~ the previc~s church who leas:.~d
the same vacant building and who disturbed Lhe qulet of neiyF,oorins
homes.
There Are at the present tlme two otiier churches wh~ ars meeting ;vithln
600 feet and using same public ~acilities."
Mr. Frank Winston, the a,,;nt for the Netitioner and an executive officer for the proQosed
churct:~ appeared before the Planning Commission s.~d stated that the hours :~f the ptoposed
church serviGes wuuld not cont`lict with ti~e heavy trafftc fl~x~ (n the area concerned~
since tney w~~ld generally hold ~o activi~~es thsi would take place from 5:00 p.m. on;
Chat >.he church services, per ~e~ wo~ld be hel~ between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8t00
~.m.; en~ that they had no ob)ections t~ thP interdepartmental Committee recommenda*.ions
and wo~la edhere to a~y of the req~,iremei~ts mentionea.
THE 'rUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS " .
In respor~se to question{r ~ the Planning Conmiss(on, Exec~~tlve Director for Commun(ty
Development Norman Priest advised that the subJect propertN was locatec+ in the ~e~t~r af a
redevelopment pro).-t area nnd acquisitlon procaedings wou'.d b~ underway in the nc too
dl~tant future by tte Redevelopment Agency for the subJect property; tt~at the bank
buildin~~ on the praperty would be utilized as a ~elocatton resource in the redevelopment
:~ffort; and that no commttrnents had bee~~ mac~e by the Redevelopment Agency cancerning the
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOr~~ November 22. 1y76
CONDITIONhL USE PERMIT N0. 166~ (Continued)
76-601
property~ hc~wever~ it was nntlcipate;d tfiat negotiations would be undcrway wl ~r-In the ~
stx to elgf~t montl~s.
In respor.sc. co a reque~t by Commissloner Mo~loy far c'~rlficatlon, M~. Wlnstoi7 stated Chet
generally they h~ld their church serv(ces oii Mo~day mor~ing and had one meeting r week,
Mr. Winston fur•thar atated ehat he wes thc Prlme Minlster of the "Templt of Inspired
Living"; that they would perindically hold uan~es as thelr soclal activity and would plan
ot;ier social events In the future and, for fund raising~ they were planntng to i~dv~ bingo;
that there were no other c~ngregations oP his church tn Orange Caunty but the church was
approxirtfltely te~i v~ars old and was located in Los Angeles; and that t;~e prevlous chu~ch
at th~ pro~:o ed I~cati~n w~~s not aFftllated w th the Temple of insp'.rr,d Llvfng.
Disrussi~n pursued regarding the prevtous,chuwch which ~c-upted the subJect property~
dui~ing which It was nointed out th.at s~td church w~+s appr~~ved for a sho~l pe~~od of tlme
white c~nstr,,ction ~f permanent facll(ties wa, b~ing c.umpleked, Satd t(me perlod befng
est~blished ,t the request of ti~e Planning Gommission; snd that the prevlous petttlon~rs
h~d stipulate<I to requesting their congregation not to par~ on the adJacent resPdential
streets, etc.
Chalrman Pro 7empore ~('olar noted that several cdmplalnts had baen Fflecl regarding the
p.,.~t~g problems thet existed during the ttme that the prev(ous church occupicd the
subJect property; that there were only 1~~ perktng spaces available on the subJect property
And a watvcr was being requested (n licu of providing the 138 spaccs roqulred; gnd that ho
coutd nor. Justify a hardslilp for grantiny Che request~,,~ '• ~nd the cholce of laGation
for the church was pra'bably not one of tha best tha ~v~ bpen made.
Mr, Win~ton stated that th~y h3d :.~lected the sub_~ect ~~ •cion for the church because it
had prevlousiy been used far church facllities under a condltional use permlt with a
waivcr of the parking requtrement•;, the same as was presenrly being proposed; Chat~ i
Cheir rev~ew of the previous use c~f ~he property~ they nad no (dea that they would be
confrontea wi:h an entlrety different situation; and thAr if they were to be deprtved of
ustng the properCy or~ the basis that tlie Redevelopment Agency was antictpating its
acquisition~ etc.~ he dtd not feel that would be a proper rPaaon ~o deny thcm the lawful
right to usP the praperty.
Commissloner Herbst made an observation that it appeared the petitloners were attempting
to "hFng thetr h^ts" on xhe previous use variance; ho~ver~ the same set of ctr~umstances
did not currently exist; and~ addition~lly~ he did nat want the propas~d use oP the
subJect property to hinder the redevelopment ~regram which was now underway.
Mr. Winston then stated that shortly after they had invested considerable mor~ey ln the~~
lease and optton to purchase the subJrct property~ they had been told hy some~ne d~::irinq
to use the p~operty ln connectlon witl the reoevelopment program that they would pay a sum
of money to ths church if they would nx,~e a~~t of the property; and that the church had
every rtght to use the suhJect property in accordance with the Code~ as a church
commercial use, a church affice, or for a church reading room.
Cc~mmissione~ Flerbst inqutred if the chur~h had gone 3nto the subJect property with the
expectation of being paid to vacate tt. 6n response~ Mr. Wlnston stated that City
offi~ials had appro~ched them to get out of the property; that they had been offered a sum
of mo~~ey by a prlvate contractor who was contracting te bulld a new City Nall; and that
the church was the le~see of the pronerty~ with an optton to purchase tt.
Comm" sioner Bar~i~s nuted that the Pla~ning Ccxhmisston's decision on the sub)ect petttlon
would not conslder any factors pertnintn~ to redevelopment, but would ~e based ~~pon the
praposa) itself; and that the oppositior and complaints concerning the prevtous chu~ch use
of the prouerty w~re suffictent, in her opir,ion, to deny the: new proposal.
It was n~tc~ that thc Dlrector of the• Plannirg Department had determined that the proposed
activity fell withtn the definitton of Section 3,A1, Class 1, of :he Clty of Antheim
Ruldeiines to the Requ(remcnts for an Environn~ntal Impact Report and was, therefore,
~Ar~gQ*ir_.a~lly exempt from thc requirement to t~le an EIR.
Commissi4ner Barnes offered R~solution No. PC76-249 and mnved for its passage ar~d
adoption~ that the Anahe(m City Planning C~mmiss?on daes hereby deny Petitton for
Condittonal Use PermiL No, 1657 on the basts that~ alrhough the subJect property ~yas
previously occupted for a church facility~ said use was on a temporary basis only; that,
~
MINUTES~ CI'fY PLANNING f~MM15SI0N~ November 22~ 197~
CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1667 (Continued)
76-602
additionally~ Che previous churcli use of the property created criclcal parking and traffic
problems and ather detrtmeiital condittons In the nearby ~esidenttal neighborhood; a~d~
therefo~e, further use of the prnperty for church activtttes Is deemed I~.°~pproprlate.
(Sec Res~lutton Book)
On roll call~ tl~e forego(nq resc,lution was passed by the foilowi~g vute:
AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, FA~tANO~ HERBST~ kING~ MORLEY~ TOI.AR
MOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE
AaSENT: Car1MISSIONERS: JONNSON
CONDITIONAL USE - pUOLIC NEARING. JOSEPH AND GRACE ROMO~ 1631 riorth Raymond~ Fullerton,,
P~RMIT N0. 1668 Ce. 92631 (Owners); ARTHUP. L. EVANS~ 1717 S~uth 'tace College Bouleva~J~
N26~~ Anahetm, Ca. 92806 (Agent); requeseiny pcrmiss(on to EXPAND AN
EXI51'ING CIiILD NURSERY on ;~roperiy descrlbed as a rectangularly-shaped
percel of lancl conslsttng of approximat~ly 0.2 acre hAVing a frontage of npproxlma~eiy
110 feet on the sauth sidr of l.a Paima Ave~ue~ haviny a ~neximum depth of appraxlmately
90 fer,t~ being loca:eJ ~pproxim~=ely 265 feet west ~f the centerilne of Nerrt~osa Drive~
and further described as 134n West La Palma Avenue. Property present~y cla~sifled RS-7200
(RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FRMILY~ ZONF,
~ne persan indtcated her presenc~ in opu~sttion to the subJect petitlon and forthwi+th
waived the Full reading of the S~aff Report to the Planning Commisslon dated November ~2~
1976. Although the Staff Report was not read at the public hearing~ satd report 1~
referred to and made a part ~f the mir.utes.
Mr. Arthur L. Eva~s, the agert for the pettttoner~ appeared befare the Planning Commission
to ans~rer questtons rpyarding Che proposal.
Mrs. Julie I.aBrecque, 1414 West La Palma Avenue, appeared beforf: the Planntng Commission
and stated that~ although she was not apposed to the use per se~ she was concerne~' ~~bout
whether additional cfilldren would be approved for the faciltty and whether bette~ par'.tng
would be avAilable; and that r.t;e parents picking up and del;vering thelr children vla the
all~y~ creating a row of cars alongside the property. was quit~e dangerous bscause some
children played in the alley.
i~ fPh~~rrAl; Mr, Fvans ,z~~eci that the proposal was nct r.o enlarge the facilities for more
chi;lren~ and that the present average of S6 chtldreri wauld be maintalned~ although they
were liGensed for o0 children and had gone as high as a total -:° 7~ children, averaging 56
on-site at any o~~e time; that the nursery had been In exist~nce stnce 1962 and there he.:
never been a traffic ac~ident due to the arrival ar depart~:re of the c~ildren~ and that
they had adequate parking in driveways; that there would not oe an incre~~e in trafPic
from thc expansion; that~ during the past three years, he had not observed any of the
parents using ~:i~e alley to pick up or drop afF the children; and that the nursery childrtn
were fenced ~n and could not play in the alley.
Mrs. Lak+recque t~ok exGepClon to the comments regardinq parking {n the aliey and stated
that at times r;~~re were three ~r four cars abreast p~iked to pick up or drop off children
aC the nurser~. 7hereupon~ Mr. Evans stated he had not observed the pa~king situati~~n
outlined by Mrs. LaBrecque and had received no complaints from the adJacent proQerty
owr~ers or residents.
In response to quastiorsing by Commtssionsr Herbse. Mr. Evans statad thax the number of
children was controlled by ttie State and~ thereforP~ the pr~sent enrollment could not be
Pnlarged! and that there were other conside~ations beside t~he addttion of square feet of
space in order ta Justtfy ~end/or accommodate additi~nal children at the nursery.
In resp~nse to questioning by Cammissioner King~ Mr. tvans stipuleted that A maximum of 60
ehildren would be cere~ for on the premises at any one time.
Chairman Pro Tempare 7olar ~uggcst.ed tha+: the petitioner request~ iR +writt~g~ that the
Fersons picktng up and deliv~ring the nursery chi'.dren to the subJect stre do so :~ithout
using the alley abutting the west property ilne, etc.
~
MII~UTCS~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Novemb~r 22~ 1976
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1668 (~ontlnuad)
76-60 3
Gommissloner Kirg ofPered a motlon~ seconded by Comnissloner Morl~•y and MQTION GARRI[U
(Commissloner Johnson bring absent)~ that the Anaheim Clty Planning Cammfa~lon doa:s hnroby
recc-rrnn~nd to the f,lty Councll af the Clty af Anahoini that a negattve derlarntlon from :he
requlrema~it t~ propa~e an e~ivironrtx+ntal lmpact report be approved for the subJe~t proJnct~
pursuant to thc provtslons .~f the Callf~srr,la Environmental Quallty Act,
.,mmissloner King offered !tosclutlon Na. PC76-2S0 and mov~d for lts passac~e and Ad~~ci~,,~
that the Anahelm C~ty Plannl~~q Cortb~~lsslo~~ doas hereby grant Petitton for Cnr~ditlan~l l-se
Parmit No. 1668, subJect to che ,tipul~ttnr, of the petttloner that e maxlm~,~n o~ GO
child~en shail be cA~9d for c•m the premisas at any one tlmt; and that the Planning
Cummisslon doe~ he y decm it epproprl~te that the pettttor~er rayue~t~ In wr(ting, that
those persons picking un ai~., dellvering the nursery chlldren do so without ustng the alley
ebutting thc west property line and that a cupy o~f sald requesr be placed on file wlth Che
°lanning Departmsnt; and subJect to the Intcrciepartmental Corm+ittee racanmendstions. (See
Resolutlon Book)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutton was passed by the followirrg vate;
A,YES: ^OMMlSSIONtZS; BARNES~ FAR<.NO, NERBST~ KING~ MORLEY~ TOLAR
NOES : C~MMI SS I ONEft~ : NON[
A4SENT; ~:1MISSIv :RS; JQHNSON
ENVIROHMENTAL IMPACT R~PtJRT N0. 'jl -
AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN N0. 117
AMENDMENTS TO TITI.E 18 (ZONING)
AMENDMENTS TO COUNCIL POLICY
NOS. 20b~ 206A1 2Q7 AND 2~/A
To conside~ circulatlon and acccss fo~ a~~ approxi-
mately 140-acre ar~a generally bounded on the nUrth-
west by Ssr,ta Ana Canyon Road and the Rlverside
Freeway. o~ tha east by proposed Monte Vista Road
and on the southwest by Mol~ler Drlve~ and to c~nsider
amendment of Codes and Palicies to prcvide ~+ntfot•mfty
ofi terminQlogy and standards for private road,, private
lanes and accessways in ~~w-denstt~ hillside areas.
I t was noted th;:t rsary peop~ . wer~ p; ;.:.~:i: frem the Ni l l and Canyon orea to speak
concerndny the area de+:~^lop~. nt plan proposai.
Commissioner N~rbsx reque~ced that the subJect p~bltc hearing not be opened at ti~is time
an~ indicated that~ inasm ch as he felt the proposed and exhibited area development plan
was premaiuir ir~ te~ms ef revtew and dtscuasion with th~ property owners and residents of
tl~e concerned area, the n ~tter should be cantinued ur~ti I the Canyon llrea Generai ~iai~ilii~j
'Task ~orce~ homeowners, and some of the large developers in the area could have a
roundtable-~type meeting or work ce~:ion about it; that he felt consideration nf ohly a
portlon of the area which extended to the edge ~f the sphere of influence of the City in
the Fiill and Cam/on area was ~lece,~al; that since the Task Force lnr.luded two members of
the ~:ity Co~mcll and hvc~ members of the Planning Commisslon~ discussion couid be t td at
the work szssicn to arriv~ at some alternative sotutlons to the proGlems; that hoid(~y a
public. hearing at this tOme would not get the Job done as the circulatton and access pians
neF~ded to consider the potential impacts fror~ surrounding undeveloped ~rF.as; and that the
Caanty of Orange should also be represented ~t the work session. Chairman Pro 1'empore
Toi a.~ cor.curred.
Commiss~oner Barn~~ nuted that whlle she tended to agree that the subJect pr~posals would
require a lot of discussion between the hcxneowners~ develop~rs and the City~ etc.~ ther~
were also many things that the City was not aware of dea:iiig with the County whic'ri could
be the prlmary probiems and~ addittonally, there were many Reople wtio had becn stCting
through thls maeting waiting for the public hcaring and shs was questioning whether the
public hearing should be opened to provlde an opportunity for some of the people to c-ake
lnput ahead of the work session ~-ayueated by Commisstoner Herbst.
Commtssioner Farano agreed that sume ot the pe~ple ~resent at tht~ me~ting snould be
permlt:ed to make lnput f~r cansideration~ stncc they had revtewed the Staff Report and
exhiblts.
Pursuant ta f~irther discussion as to whethar or not the publiz hearing shou~d be opensd,
Comm{~sioner Herbst offered a rration~ sc:conded by Commisstoner Mnrley~ that the publlc
Nearing and consideratlon of khe subject Items bc continueci to the Planiing Commisslon
meeting of January 17~ 1976r and that in the ~neantime ~ work session be scheduled wlth
membPrs uf the publtc, homeawners ln the area~ Che Canyon Aree~ GenerAl Plan~~ng 7ask
FA1'I'.e+_ f~P_VP~f1AP1'S. Fllld r~oresentat(ves fran the Countv of Orat+~e.
~ ~
MINU7F:s~ CITY PlANP11NG COMMISSION~ N~vrmber 22~ 197~ 76~~~~
CNViRQNMENTAL IPIPACT REI'ORT N0, 191, AREA DEVELOPME~JT PLAM N0. 117~ AMCNQMENI'S TO TITL[ 18
zUNlNG~~ nND AMENDMENTS TU GOUNCIL POLICY NOS. 206, 2U6A~ 'l0~ ANO 20~A _S Continued) ,~
Chalrman P~o 7amhores Talar offered the floor to anyona from the audle~cc who wished to
discuss the furegoing motlon.
Mr. CI~Arles Johr~son~ 93~+E~ Samolina Avenue~ Downay~ eppGared befor4 thc Plonning Cr~nm(~sston
and indlc~~~d he wss a general partner for the pr~perty affccted by the area of
dtscussion; that he had recnlved notice ab.,ut four days ago Indicating he could c.~:~-e to
the City anci revlew the Steff Rnport matarl.^.1; however~ he was su,yge~tl~g tt~at fou~ deys
was not enough time to read and understand sald mate+rtal an~ on that basfs wbs in favor of
the continuonce rtwtlon.
Mrs. MI tzy Ozakl 34e) Timken P.cnd~ Anahelm, appeared before thr. Plt~nning Commission an~'
}~cated she dtffered wlth the opinlon that County coord(nat(un wes needed in consld~ring
!he praposals; that the problems were not with the developcrs but with the Clty's plans
;`or the area, whlch wAS an :.lre~dy ostabllshed residential communlty; that tiie GOty was
trying to (mposc: new legis!attun on how the area would I~e. kopt; that the ares property
awners wtre reguesting Lo be hear•d because the f,ity had made pramises thAt the t-rea would
be kept rural and to suddenly have changes was very unJust; that Mohler prl~~e was never
intended to he a c~llectar street~ but a residential street, and t~ u~e It• as part of the
tot~~1 clrculation patr.ern was "tnsane." Mrs, Ozakl fu~ther stated that she was noi
reFe~rring to polittcal commlkments~ but ~o wo•(tten pollctes; that the areo under
dts~:ussion was an ex:.remely locallz~•~ arca and did ~ot Include the entire Canyon area,
an~i~ thorefore~ it wa~ not necessary t~ Include the County or ti~~ 1'ask ~orce in any of the
dlscusslon, in hcr opinion.
Commissioner ear~ies noted that it 4~~ad cem~e to her attentlan that the County ofi Orange was
very much involved bc:cause of a11 the la~dlockPd property In the area; and ~hat th~r* were
problems with the County and t{ie TasK Force tn re::~ionship to access on Santa Ana Canyon
Road and it was extremely crucia) ~^ be able Lo get t~ people in emergency situatlons,
Mrs. Ozaki then stated that, as a general principle~ this was an internal prc~blem~ not to
be addressed b~ the 'Task ~'orce,
Cc~mmtsstoner Nerbst noted thac he disagre~d ~~Sa: :he pntire Cany~n area did not nePd io be
tied togecher as far as the ~naster plan of circuletion, slnce a good plan tnr circulatio~~
was needed; and that he disaq~eed that the Mol~ler Dr1ve area was a total autonomy.
Mr. .-oel Parker, 12431 Daniger Road, Santa Ana~ appeared before the Pl~nning Commisslon
and SLeCed n~E Wa3 ift escrvw Eu NUi C~ia~c a i.~.`aC~ ~~YrV4~ Of ~8.^.~~ in t}~~ (;o~.inty/Anaheim:
that. (n his opinior~, it was true that the Coun:y and the C~nyon area needed an ever all
master plan for circulaCion; ancl that for most of tt~e people iiving in the basin there was
a presssing and immedtate problem and more homework needed to be done; and that he was
~ referring to a landlocked property with not many possibilitles for ingress and eg~ess and
the impossibility to tying inlo the Canyon area farther east.
Comni~sior~er Farano noted that altt~ough it m~ght be approprlate for the subJect matter• to
he discussed by the Rlanning Commission~ it rnight not bc appropriate to turn it ~ver to
the Task Force~ especially in the beglnning.
Chair~nan Pro 7empore Tolar noted that he could ~~ot see an;~ tiarm in discus~ing the matter
at ~ask Force ~eve~, as well as with tF~e Mohler Drive propert~ owners, since the Planning
Commtssin~i wo~ild need as much (nput as they cou'.d get.
Commissioner 'ra~•ano then noted that the 1'ask Force and the hS~hler Drive property owners
would have substantially ~iffcrent lnput; however~ Mi~atever was done with Mohle.r Drive
would noC have that much effect on the ent(re Canyon area and~ thercfore~ the Flanning
Commission 3hould llsten to the inp~t from the Mohlcr Drive people first.
Mr. Gordon Ptvonka~ 104Z Tropicana~ La Habra~ representtng Gordort Builders~ Inc:., appeared
bPfore the Pla~ning Commission and state~i he was very mucli affected by the proposed
ctr=ulati~n olan; since he had parcel maps which t~ad been pe~ding with the Ctt~~ from Ju1y~
1~76; thax ha was ~lad to knav that the P1a~n~ng Com-iiss1~z :-:~u!d ~ot be takin!~ a~ actton
on the subJect itc:::~s this date oecause it appeared that his two azres would be taken for
r;ght-oP-wey; that the moratorium on parcel maps tn the subJect area was costtrig hlm S600
~ per month interest while r.he matter of circulation v~r.s betna ~tudied; and that the area
davelopment plan was a well-kept sc;.ret by the City and had he knr,wn about It~ he woul~
no~ be in [he spot he was tn at the present time.
^~
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNINf CGMMISSION~ November 22~ 1476 76-605
ENVIRONr1EN?'AL IMPAC'T REPORI' NQ. 191 ~ AREP, DEVEI.OPNENT PLAN N0. 11)~ AMENOMENTS TO T'ITLE 18
ZON ( NG ~ AND AMENDMENTS TO CQllNG 1 L POL 1 CY NOS . 206,_. 206A ~ 20]_~and ?.07P, Con r. I nund ,
Cummissiorer Fara~o notAd that there had boen dlscusslons on th~ s~ibJect matter bticween
the Cwnmisslon and developer~ ln the eree for some time; th at a lc~t of work wa3 Involved
in sludying a ctrculokian plan such as thls; and that thcrz would probably ba e
clrculation element dovnlo~cd for thc Anahelm Htlla erea~ a s a result. nf the study.
Mr, Pivonka inqulred why hls en~,~ina~rs wnre not inPormecf about thn study. ~n response~
Commissloncr Farano stated that when people started tal;cin g nnd divulging Informatlon~ the
dovelopment ~ ocess was Infiuencod; and that the ouccome of lhe study might Bf~CCC a gtven
property citiier positlvely or negativniy, but no ono would knaw whlcn i.~ntil completlun of
the study.
Commfsslnner Rarnes then s~y~,7asted that If developera were being I~eld up~ thc work
seesions and publ ic hearing siioulci b~s gotten ~~nderway as soon as posslble.
Mr, Hank Rivera, Presidenc of tna Santa Ana Canyon Property Owners Assocf+~tfon~ appeared
befarc the Pl~nning Commission and st~ted he was offendcd by Commissloner -lerbst's
comrnents to Mrs. Ozaki's ~tatements; and that hN would suggest that the work sess~on~ to
be bcneficla) and appropriate~ be held close to Che area i ~ question~ f.e.~ the Aneheim
Hllls Country Club.
C~mmissloner Farano noted that the facll(ttes at the Anahe im H(ils Country Club were not
very comfortable for a large group oF pe~nle~ whereupon, M rs, Ozakt volunteered to locaee
a betler ~lace in the ~+rca for the wa;k scssion.
Mr, Larry Voyer~ 6882 Eucalyptus Drive~ sppcared beFore th e Planning Canmt~sion and
qucstioned if the time fr•ame for resolving the subJect it~~rns would be two or three year~,
slnce ihere were developers waiting. He also questioned wt~at pcrtlon of tt~e ctrculat(an
plan vrould be adopted, and st~ted that~ in his apinton, T.h e only way to fight the prouosal
'~ dtd n~t llke the
was to aray out ~:f the Ci ty l imi ts; that the pcople E.° ha~ talked wi t~
proposed routeo notwithstanding Monte Vista which was a to pic all by itself; lhat he did
not know where the 4Q-fc~ot easement would be located; and t:hat he wanted to stay In County
terrltory unttl the cirr,ulation plan was resulv~ed.
Mr, Owen C~rroll ~ T615 East Pleasar~t Place~ Anaheim~ appeared before the Planning
Commission and stated fie tiad moved to the Mohler Drlve area because of the rura)
atmosphere; that he lived at the inters~ctlon of Willdan and Pleasant Place; that one oF
the exhibits indicated Willdan as a street rathe^ than a private road; and that he f~vored
malntaining the exlsting rurai atmasphrre i~i ~ ~e "~~1c~ ^~1':~ ~rp~.
Mrs. Marg~ret Ueterding~ 211fi2 Santa Ana Canyon Roed. An a heim~ appeared before the
Planning Cortmission and sta!ed her property had an entra n ce on Santa Ana Canyon Road which
was glven r.o her by the ~~tr~te of California and she dld iot ~ntend to give up her access;
and that the sub)ect are.a was beautiful if the Ctxy would leave It alone,
Commissi~ner Her•bst suygestec~ that tl~e homeowners get tog ether and form collectlve Input
for the wark srsslon, if possible.
At the suag~estlon of Comr~issioner Barnes, Comnissioner Herbsl consented tn arnPnd the
motion ~nd continue the sub~ect i[ems to the Plan~~ing Corrxnission meeting of December 20~
i~76~ and to set a work session un December 13~ 1976, at 7:Q~ p.m,~ at a place to be
determined by Mrs. Ozaki~ i.e~ the E1 Rancho Jr. High Sc hool Little Theatre. Thereupon~
Cortrmissiuner Marley confirmed hts second to the amended mation~ and MOTIOH CARItIED
(Cc-mmi ss i oner Johnson be i ng absent) .
ADJ~OU_ RNMEhT - There being no further business to discus s, Carim(ssloner Norley offered a
motlon, seconded by Commissloner Farano a n d MOTION CARRIEU (Commissioner
Johnson ~eing absent)~ that the meeting be ~dJourned.
7he meeting adJourned at 6:20 p.m.
Respectsully submitted~
~~ ~~~~
Patricia B. Scan 1 an ~ Secretary
Anahelm City Pla nning CommissiUn
PBS:hm
0 R C 0 MICRUFILMING SERVICE, IMC.