Loading...
Minutes-PC 1963/02/25_....~......._._~....~~,_....~.._~..._.~~._._____ _.._-___.._...~..-- ._..__..____..._------..._ --------~----_ __._._ . ~ <A' ~ ~ ~~ t~1s..'~ ~~ ADJOURNEO REGULAR MEETING - ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 1963, 7:00 P.M. pRESENT: CHAIRMAN: GAUER COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ CAMP~ CHAVOS~ MARCOUX~ MUNOALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD PRESENT: PLANNING DIRECTORc RicHnRO A. REESE PLANNING COORDINATOR: ALLAN M. SHOFF PLANNING~COMMISSRONYSECRETARY: ANNMKREBSBERTS INVOCATION; DR. R. E. HOOK, PASTOR~ GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH~ GAVE THE INVOCATION. PLEDGE OF 01LEGIANGE: COMMISSIONER CAMP LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAa. CHAIRMAN GAUER OPENED THE SECOND HEARIN6 OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN BY AGAIN READINO FROM TITLE 7 OF THE STATE PLANNING LAW 60VERNING THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE PREPARATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND REITERATED THAT THE PLAN WAS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS A ZONING MHE~MEETINGSOVERBTOAPLAN4EN6~DIRECTORCRMCHARDYAPLREESEG~ CHAIRMAN GAUER THEN TURNED PLANNINti DIRECTOR RICHARD REESE AGAIN GAVE A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE TEXT CON- TAINEO ON THE PRINTED GENERAL PLAN~ REVIEWINO TME OBJECTIVES AND POLICIE5 OF THE PLAN AND IL~USTRATING THE REVIEW WITH VARIOUS EXHIBITS. MR. REESE ALSO INTRODUCED FORNTHEGCOMP~ETNONOOFAALLNPHASESOOF THE~PREPARATRONROFSTHE PROPOSEDN~ENERALEPLANSIBLE (PLEASF. REFER TU THE MINUTES OF THE .I'ANUARY 28~ 1963 MEETIN6~ SINCE MR. REESE REVIEWED FOR THE INTERESTED PERSONS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER ALMOST VERBATIM HIS PREVIOUS STATEMENTS.~ UPON THE COMPLETION OF MR. REESE~S COMPREHENSIVE REVIEM~ CHAIRMAN GAUER THEN GAVE OF54~SQUARETMRLES~ THATaTHE'~PRESENTABOUNDARIESIOF ANAHEIM W9TH THEHMOSTWRECENTPRISED ANNEXATIONS IS COMPRISEO OF 34 SQUARE MILES. CHAIRMAN GAUER THEN ASKED IF ANY INTERESTED PERSONS WISHED TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS FOR OR AGAINST YHE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN~ THAT THEIR STATEMENTS SHOULD BE MADE BEFORE THE MICROPHONE AT THE PODIUM. MR. WILLIAM J. WINN~ 812 SOUTH WESTCHESTER DRIVEo APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ AND ASKED MR. REESE TO EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWINO: 1~ COMM~ISSEON4~~MANYTAREASFNESTYOFEBEACHTBOULEVARD NEREAINDECATEDNON THETHE pRDPTHEDCOMME551 NLHAVESIN~DETERMININ6LMHEREEAPARTMENTSASHOULDTBE ~iMULA LOCATEDI THE COMMISSION REQUESTED MR. REESE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS THEY WERE PAES£NTED. MR. REESE STATED THAT THERE WERE I~~EE MAIN CRITERIA WHICH FORMED THE COMMISSION~S BASIC APPROACH TO DESIQNATINa AREAS FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY USE: 1ST: THE RECOONITION OF EXISTING TRENDS OF DEVELOPMENT WHICH WERE EXTENDED 70 LOGICAL TERMINATION POINTS. 2ND: THE RECOfiNITION OF DEEP LOT AREAS WHERE SERIES OF NARROW~ DEEP LOTS GIADE IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP FOR SINaLE FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS WITHOUT A LAND ASSEMBLY PROGRAM. 3RD: .WHECHEMERE'MORE DESSRABLE FORNMULTIPLEHFAM~ILYLDEVELOPMENTRTHANAFORfEHTHEk SIN6LE FAMILY OR STRIP OOMMERCIAL. - 1421-A - -- _--_...-- ---_ ~_ _ . : . . ..._._...~,.xr.m.r.r~:~weier~va~.mv~ww...~;...-..r.:.,,..,..~-.,.,.~...~,.~.~.__..~~.._..._'_"._~._,.......~-..____.._ . ~ . . .... .. , . . .. . ... ..__.._._'_'..'_._... _..._._,..-..... :3" ~ • \~ ADSOURNED REGULAk MEETING~ FEBRUARV 25, 1963, PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN~ CONTINUED: 1421-8 (SECOND HEARING) I t 2. MR. WINN THEN ASKED WHY SOME OF THE MULTIPLE FAMIIY DEVELOPMENTS NERE BEING APPROVED FOR TWO-STORY CONSTRUCTION. MR. REESE REPLIED THAT ANY MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WAS LIMITED TO ONE-STORY NITIIIN 150 FEET OF ANY SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION~ AND THAT WAIVER OF THE SINGIE STORY HAD ONLY BEEN GRANTED WHERE PROPERT.Y ABUTTED AGRICULTURAL AREAS~ WHICH MIGHT BE LATER DEVELOPED FOR OTHER THAN SINGLE FAFIILY USE. I 3. MR. NINN ASKED IF THE CITY COUNCIL COULD.OVERRULE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNIN6 COMMISSION ON MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS. MR. REESE EXPLAINED THAT ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAS SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE CITY COUNCIL SINCE THE COMMISSION WAS BASICA~LY A RECOMMENDINfi BODY. 4. MR. WINN ASKED IF THE PLANNING COMMI.SSION AND THE PLANNINQ DEPARTMENT HAVE ANY SCHEDULE FOR THE DEVELOPMEN7 OF PRECISE PlANS? MR. REESE REPLIED THAT ;HE ONLY SCHEDULE THE DEPARTMENT HAD FOR PRECISE PLANNING WOULD BE AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE ~ENERAL PLANS FOR THE CITY AND THE HILL AND CANYON AREAS AND THAT AN ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WAS A PREREQUISITE FOR THE ADOPTION OF PRECISE PLANS. 5. MR. WINN'S LAST QUESTION WASI MAS.IT POSSIBLE FOR A fiROUP OF PEOPLE TO REQUEST REZONING TO THE COMMISSION4 MR. REESE EXPLAINED THAT ANY PROPERTY OWNER HAD THE RIGHT OF APPLICATION~ OR THAT GROUPS OF PROPERTY OWNERS COULD COMBINE THEIR REQUESTS INTO A SINCaLE APPI.ICATION. MR. WILLIAM SILVERMAN~ 507 WESTGATE DRIVE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ AND STATE~ THAT IT WAS WITH.A fiREAT DEAL OF REWCTANCE AND FEGRET THAT HE NAS ADDRESSINa THE COMMI551'ON~ THAT THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN HAD BEEN VIEWED BY THE DELEGATES OF THE RIO Y:STA HOME ONNERS ASSOCIATION A NUMBER OF TIMES AND SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WERE HELD~ THAT A IETTER FIAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO TNE PLANNING DEPARTMENT UPON THE FIRST PRESENTnT10N TO VARIOUS HOME OWNERS GROUPS~ IN HHiCH THE GROUP HE REPRESENTED HAD GIVEN THEIR SUPPORT TO THE PRELIMINARY GENERAL PLA~ AS IT WAS PRESENTED f0 THEM~ BUT THAT AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER GROUPS IN THE CITY~ THE COMMISSION HAD MADE A NUMBER QF CHANGES AND~ THEREUPON~ HE HAO THEN SENT A LETTER WITHDRAMING THE RIO VIS'I'A HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION~S SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN BEINfi PRESENTED~ BECAUSE THE GROUP HE REPRESENTED FELT THAT OTHER SPECIAL INTEREST 6ROUPS SEEMED TO HAVE RECEIVED MORE CONSIDERATION. MR. SILVERMAN FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSOCIATION FELT THAT THE PLAN AS PRESENTED~ WAS 50 QENERAL THAT IT HAD NO VAIUE~ THAT THE PLAN IN NO WAY PROTECTED THE INDIVIDUAL HOME OWNER~ THAT THE OENERAL NATURE OF THE PLAN WOULO STILL PERMIT THE ENCROACHMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND MULTIPLE FAMIIY DEVELOPMENT INTO PREDOMINATELY I.OW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS; THAT A PLAN MUST BE MORE FIRM AND PRECISE IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS~ i„ANUFACTURING CONCERNS~ AND OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANAHEIM~ THAY THEIR INTERESTS WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS THEY PER~ TAINED TO THE CITY AS A WNOLE~ AND THAT THE PRESENT PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN JUST DID NOY GIYE THIS ASSURANCE. CHAIRMAN GAUER EXPLAINED TO MR. SILVERMAN THAT THE COMMISSION HAD BEEN USINO TH~ PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FOR MOST OF THE PAST YEAR AS A GUIDE IN NEM PETITIONS PRE- SENTED FOR ZONING USES~ AND THAT THE PLAN~ IF ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL~ WOULD PROVIDE A FIRM POLICY GUIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT. TNE NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL AREA ANALYSIS ANU 5UBSEQUENT ADOPTION OF INDUSTRIAL AREA POLICIES AND ORDINANCES WAS NOTED AS BEING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE (iENERAL PLANNING FUNCTION. MR. SILVERMAN THEN STATED THAT THE INDUSTRIAL AREA AS PROJECTEO~ SHOULD BE GIVEN FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND IN ~REATER DETAIL. MR. REESE NOTED THAT MR. SILVERMAN MAS REFEKRIN(i TO THE FUNCS'ION OF THE PRECISE PLAN RATHER TIiAN THE GENERAL P~AN. MR. REESE EMPHASIZED THAT THE PR~MARY PURPOSE OF THE GENERAL PLAN IS TO FORMALIZE POLICIES AND DRAW THEM TO~ETHER INTO A SINGLE COMPREHENSIVE DOCUMENT. HE EkPIAINED THAT THE GENERAL PLAN IS BUT ONE OF THE MANY TOOLS UTILI2ED BY THE PLANNING'DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION IN PROVIDINO A SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC. IT WAS NOTED THAT PERSONS SEEKINQ INFORMATION ON ANY PARCEL OF PROPERTY WOULD NOT ONLY HAVE THE GENERA~ PLAN REVIEWED~ FOR DEVELOPMENT POLICY AS IT PERTAINS TO THE OVERALL AREAo BUT WOULD AL50 HAVE REVIEMED LAND USE MAPS~ ZONIN~ MAPS~ AERIAL PHOTOORAPHS~ PRECISE PLANNINa STUDIES REI.AT~Na TO THE SPECIFIC AREA AND SPECIFIC ~NFORMATION FROM PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS FOR 20NIN~ ACTION ON PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. HE EMPHASI2ED THAT THE GENERAI. PLAN IS MOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE DETAItED INFORMAYION AND THAT SPECIFIC INFORMATION MUST READ OUT OF THESE OTHER DOCUMENTS. MR. SILVERF~AN THEN INQUIRED WHAT WAS CONSIDERED AS THE BOUNDAR~ES OF THE RESIDENTIAI. AND INDIlSTRIAL AREAS IN EAST ANAHEIM. '~ TNE COMMISSION REPLIED'TNAT THE AREA EAST OF EAST STREE'~~ WEST OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER~ NORTN OF BALL ROAD~ AND SOUTH OF THE RI4ERSIDE FREEWAY WAS PROPOSED FOR `' ~ CONSIDERATION AS PREDOMINATELY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL~ EXCEPT FOR THOSEAREAS DESI~NATED FOR NEIOHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY SHOPPINCi CENTERS. THE NOR7HEAST AND i _ - ~ __ _,___________._____.____.__,______________. ~ .. , .. . __ ~ , :. ~.a~______, _ . .~., ---. . . ~ ~ ~ .. ADJOURiVEQ REGULAR MEETING~ FEBRUARY 25p 1963, PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN, CONTINUED: (SECOND HEARINO) 1421-C SOUTHEA57 INDUSTRIAL AR~AS WERE PROPOSED NORTH OF THE RIVERSIDF FREEWAY AND SOUTH OF BALL ROAD. MR. SILVERMAN THEN ASKED WHETHER IT WOULDN'T BE MORE EFFECTIVE IF SPECIF~C OR PRECISE PLANS WERE AOOPTED~ THAT THIS WOULD LESSEN THE POSSIBILITY OF A ~ilANOE TO THE PRESENT PROPOSALS AS THEY NOW STAND ON THE GENERAL PLAN. THE COMMISSION EXPLAINED THAT NO PLAN~ GEWERAL OR PRECISE~ OR EVEN 20NING WHICH WAS ACTUALLY AN ORDINANCE WAS EVER 50 FIRM OR INFLEifIBLE THAT ANY PROPERTY OWNER WOULD LOSE HIS RIGHT TO APPLY FOR ANY OTHER USE. THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS FREEZING LAND USE. THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARIN~S WAS TO REVIEW THESE APPLICA- TIONS AND DETERMINE IF LAND USE REQUESTS SHOULC BE APPROVED. MR. SILVERMAN CONTINUED BY STATINO THAT THE RIO VISTA HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION WAS NOT ONLY INTERESTED IN THE EAST ANAHEIM AREA~ 0UT IT WAS CONCERNED WITH ALL OF QNAHEIM. CHAIRMAN GAUER AGAIN REFERRED TO THE STATE PLANNING ACT REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF A GENERAL OR MASTEJt Pl.AN~ THAT PRECISE PLANS AS MR. SILVERMAN DESIRED MIGHT BE PRE- PARED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNIN~ COMMISSION FOR ANY OIVEN AREA AFTER THE GENERAL PLA1: HAD BEEN a.DOPTED BY THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL~ THAT THE PLANNIN6 COMFt,IS510N HAD °INf,ERELY TRIED TO USE THE PRELIMINARY GENERAL PLAN AS A QUIDE~ THAT UP04 THE ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL~ THE CITY WOULO MORE OR LE55 ABIDE BY THE GENERAL PLAN~ BUT THAT ANYONE OWNING PROPERTY HAD THE INHERENT RIGHT TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE. MR. SILVERMAN AGAIN REITERATED THAT THE PROPOSED ~ENERAL ~LAN WAS T00 OENERAL~ THAT THE ~EN[RAL PLAN HAD NOT QONE AS FAR AS IT SHOULD~ THAT IF THERE WERE A SPECIFIC PIAN~ IT WOULD THEN OFFER PROTECTION TO THE HOME OWNERS. MR. SIIVERMAN REFERRED TO THE BALL ROAD AND STATE COLLEGE BOU~EVARD RECLASSIFICATION~ WHICH PROPOSED NEICaHBORH00D COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND APARTMENTS~ EVEN THOUGH THE 1E51DENT:.' IN THE NEARBY SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS DID NOT WANT IT. IT WAS HIS OPINION TY.AT THE ONLY USE OR VA~UE THE GENERAL PLAN OFFERED WAS TO DECORATE THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. MR. REESE A6AIk STATED THAT ACCORDINQ TO THE STATE LAW TNE CITY COULD NOT PRESENT PRECISE PLAkS AS A PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN UNTIL THE ~LAN HAD BEEN OFFICIALLY ADOPTED. MR. DENNIS HAUPT~ 1124 TORY PLACE~ STATED THAT THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF LAND UN- DEVELOPED IN THE EAST ANAHEIM AREA WHICH WAS CREATING SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH DEVELOPERS PROJECTIN6 TNO-~STORY APARTMENTS FOR AN AREA PROJECTED FOR LOW-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT~ THAT TNE CORNERS OF RIO VISTA AND LINCOLN AVENUE r1ERE PURPOSELY LEPT VACANT~ AND NON THREE SERVICE STATIONS WERE CONSTRUCTED FOR THE CORNERS~ EVEN THOUGH SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT HAD TAKEN PLACE PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SERVICE STAT'IUNS. CHAIRMA~I GAUER STATED THAT IF THE GENERAL PI.AN AS PROPOSED HAD BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL~ THIS WOULD HAVE ACTED AS A GUIDE IN PROTECTfNG PROPERTY OWNERS FROM UNDESIRABLE IAND DEVELOPMENT. MR. HRJPT STA7ED THAT THERE WERE FIVE ACRES AT SUNKIST AND SOUTH STREETS LEFT VACANT~ AND THAT THIS PARCEL MIOHT BE DEVELOPED FOR OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY Sl1B~ DIVISION~ UNlE55 THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL DID ESTABLISH A FIRM POLICY FOR ITS DEVEIOPMENT ALONG WITH THE GENERAL P~AN. N~t. HAUPT THEN STATED THA7 THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN WAS FINE FOR A START~ BUT THAT IS ONLY REPRESENTED A POIICY'OF THE P~ANNlN6 C~MM15510N~ ANO TH~ PLANNINQ DEPARTMENT~ THAT NO ONE SHUULD EXPECT ANY PROTECTION UNTII. THE PLAN WAS ACCEPTED~ AND NO POLICY WOULD e~ iN ~FFEC7 UNTIL THE PLAN WAS ADOPTED. MR. HAUPT ASKED NHY THE R~AN INDICATED A SHOPPIN~ CENTER AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BAIL P.OAD AND STATE CO~LEfiE BOULEVARD~ AFTER S5~ OF THE RESIDENTS WITNIN SIX (6) BLOCKS OF THE AREA DID NOT WANT A SHOPPING CENTER THERE. COMMISSIONER PEBLEY ASKED WMY THE SHOPPINO CENTER DESIaNA710N WAS MOVEO FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER TO THE NORTHNEST CORNER~ WHEN THE COMMISSION HAD APPROVEU A SHOPPIN6 CENTER FOR THE NORTHEAST CORNER. COMMISSIONER CHAVOS STATED THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NOT HELD PUBLIC HEARIN:S RE4ARDINa THE i'ROPOSED LOCATION OF THE SHOPPINO CENTER~ AND THAT THIS C~~:.v~iE HAD EEN THF. COMMISS:ON~S DECISION DURIt~6 A WORK SESSION. IR. REESE IN REPLY STATED THAT THE DESIONATION WAS INTENOED TO INDIGp .' . r:~TER ~T THE INTERSECTION~ AND COULD MEAN EITHER CORNE!?. IR. NAUPT AND Mlk. SILVERMAN FE~T THAT A MEETIkG WITH THE COMMi5510N A1 ::~E EAST ~KANI:IM HOMEOWNERS OROUPS SHOULD BE ARRANBED 50 TNAT THEY COULD PRESENT ~M[IR ~ROP05AL5 FOR PROPER DEVELOPMENT TO THE COMMISSION. IR. REESE MADE THE OBSERVATION THAT THE PUBLIC HEARINOS WERE 5CNEDULEp FOR THAT ~ERV PURrOSE~ ANO SINCE THESE PEOPLE YlERE PRESENT HE HOPED 7HEY NOULD MAKE THEIR IIEWPOINTS KiVOWN TO THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME. HE STRESSED TNAT THE COMMISSION ~_.~__...._~_~_..__.._..----~-~--- ____._~.___._... _. .~___...~._.---'-. __. . - -_ . ~ ~_ .....>~im•,m~ussxw~mvmun,.+...,~. qc,n.~:._-.~he.~~.o....,.~,,.._.....___..__.~_.._....,...__.w.._ ....___.___ .. . _ ._ . . . . ~ . . . _._._.._ ...____. _... ___,. ~r ~` V . _. ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 25, 1963~ PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN~ CONTINUED: 1421-D (SECOND HEARING) WOULD HAVE WORK SE5310N5 TO EVALUATE TME TESTIMONY OFFERED.AT THE IiEARINaS AND THAT ANY SPECIFIC PROPOSALS OR DISAGREEMENTS SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION AT THlS TIME. MR. STANLEY BACKI.UND 1015 EAST NORTH $TREET~ REPRESENTING THE NORTH CENTRAL AREA~ APPEARED BEFORE THE ~OMMISSION AND COMPLIMENTED THEM ON A FINE JOB DQN! ON THE OVERALL PLAN~ THAT HE HOPED IT WOULD BE ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL~ AS THIS IN HIS OPINION~ WAS A BASIC STEP TOWARD THE ORDERLY PLANNING FOR THE CITY~ THAT THE MAIN PROBLEM WAS TO HAVE A POLITICALLY REPRESENTATIVE GROUP OF COUNCILMEN FROM VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CITY WHO NOULO RESPECT THE MISHES OF THE PEOPLE WHO NAD ELECTED THEM~ AND IF THIS CAME ABOUT~ THEN THE COUNCIL WOULD TAKE HEED OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISIONS. MR. JOHN SIMPSON9 3309 WEST DEERWOOD DRIVE~ REPRESENTINCa THE NESTRIDGE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT MEMBERS OF THE AS50~ CIATION WERE HOMEOkNERS NEST OF BEACH BO:ILEVARD THAT THE HOMEOWNERS 6ROUP5 HAD RECEIVED A REVIEN OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAk~ AND THE WESTRIDGE HOME OWNERS aSSOCIATION AFTER HAVING RECEIVED AN IMPROVED VERSION OF THE PIAN HAD ALMOST ENDORSED IT l.T THAT TIME~ BUT AF7ER OTHER COMMUNITY GROUPS HAD RECEIVED SIMILAR BRIEFIN(i5~ THIS ENDORSEMENT HAD BEEN WITHHELD BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL CHANOES HAD BEEN MADE BY THE COPAMISSION. HE FELT THE PLAN DID NOT REFLECT ALL THE MU~TIPLE FAMI~Y DEVELOP- MENTS BL'ING PROPOSED THROUGH APPIICATION FOR ZONE CHANGES IN THE BEACH BOULEVARD ARfA~ BUT ONLY INDICATED THE PRESENTLY EXISTIN6 MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. HE FELT TNE COMMISSION AND COUkCIL SHOULD SPECIFICALLY INDICATE TMOSE AREAS WNERE MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE LOCATED~ BUT THAT THE TMO BODIES SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SIN~LE FAMILY. RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND PROJECT MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IN OTHER THAN LOW DENSITY AREAS. MR. REESE STATED THAT A STUDY WOULD BE MADE TO CLARIFY THE MULTIPLE FAMILY AREA PROPOSALSo THAT IT WOULD BE DETERMINED HOW MANY ACRES MERE PROPOSED~ HOW MANY ACRES WERE NOM 20NED AND HOW MANY ACRES MERE ACTUALLY DEVELOPED. AL50~ A MAP WOULD BE PREPARED INDICATIN6 ALL REMAININa VACANT PARCElS OF LAND. MR. SIMPSON STATED PLANS WERE NECESSARY TO PROJECT AREAS SPECIFICAILY FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTo WHETHER HI~H RISE OR NOT~ THAT THE MAP ON THE NALL WAS QUITE MISLEADINa~ THAT THE GENERAI PLAN SHOULD BE REVISED TO INDICATE A MORE ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY IN THE VICINITY OF KNOTT AVENUE AND BAIL ROA~~ AND THAT ANOTHER POINT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WAS THE FACT THAT THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DID NOT INSURE ENFORCEMENT OF WHAT WAS PLANNED fOR A GIVEN AREA. CHAIRMAN ~AUER AGAIN STATED THAT WHEN AND IF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE GENERAL PLAN~ iT WOULD BE THEIR MORAL OBLIGATION TO CARRY OUT THEIR ADOPTED POLICIES. MR. REESE NOTED THAT THE GENERAL PLAN AS A DOCUMENT HAS NO POWER IN ITSELF~ THAT IT WAS ONLY THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD THE DOCUMENT~ AND THE 4115E ADMINISTRATION ~AND ~NTERPRETATION OF IT THAT MAI;E IT EFFECT~VE. MR. SIMPSON THEN STATED~ THAT IN THE PRESENTATION~ MR. REESE HAD INDICATED TNAT A SPECIAL STUDY WAS BEINCa MADE FOR THE HILL AND CANYON AREA AND THAT ACCORDING TO NEWSPAPERSo THE RESIDENTS OF THE YORBA LINDA AREA NERE ASSURED THAT THEIR MASTER PLAN WOULO BE ENFORCED. WHY COULD THEY NOT BE AFFORDED THE SAME ASSURANCE. MR. REESE REPLIED THAT THE COMMENT HAD BEEN MADE THAT THE CITY OF ANAHEIM WOULD SUPPORT THE YORBA LINDA GENERAL PLAN AS LON~ AS THE CITIZENS OR YORBA LINDA BE- LIEVED IN IT AND SUPPOR.'~ IT. ~ ~MR. SiMP50N FUR7HER THATED H£ WOVLO l-lKE TO SEE THE SAME 57wTEMENT MADE RELATIVE TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PIAN~ 1"NA7 THE CITIZENS WOULD'LIKE TO SEE THE PLAN ADOPIED ' MUCH AS IT I5~ THAT THE SAME TYPE OF PROTEC'TfON SHOUID ASSURE THE HOME OMNERS OF THEIR RIaHTS~ SIMILAR TO THE DISNEYIAND AREA POLICV~ AND TNE POLICY OIVEN TO THE YORBA LINDA AREA RESIDENTS. UNTIL THAT NAS ACCOMPLISHED THE YI.H.O.A. COUI.C NOT ENDORSE THE PLAN. MR. REESE STATED THAT THE ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY THE C~TY COUNCIL MOULD AE THE FIRST STEP IN THE CITY dIVING SUCH ASSURANCES TO ALL OF ITS AREAS. CHAIRMAN GAUER ASKED THAT EACH MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION 61VE THEIR VIEWPOINTS AND FEELINGS REOARDING THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN~ AND THEN HE MOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADOPT OR REJECT THE PLAN. MR. REESE STATED NUMEROUS CHANOES HAD BEEN SUOOESTED WHICH SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION AT MORK SESSIONS BEFORE A RULIN6 MAS MADE:. ' COMMISSIONER ALLRED 5TATED THAT HE FELT THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD TAKE INTO CON~ 5'IDERATION THE SU6(iEST10N5 MADE AT THIS HEARINO~ THAT THE PLAN ITSELF MITH A FEM MODIFICATIONS TO HIS WAY OF THINKINa WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE~ THAT THE CITY NEEDED SOMETHINd AS A OUIDE~ AND IF THIS (iUIDE WAS NOT AVA1lABLE~ ONLV A HAPHAZARD TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT NOULD OCCUR~ BUT WITH A PLAN AS A QUIDE THE CITY MIaNT BE ABLE TO PROJECT BETTER PLANNINO FOR THE DEVEI.OPMENT OF THE ENTIRE CITY. COMMISSIONER PEBLEY STATED THAT MR. SIMPSON~S REMARK ABOUT THE KNOTT AVENUE AND BALL ROAD AREA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED~ TNAT THERE WERE MANY SUBDIV~SlONS THERE MITH STREETS AND DEVELOhMENTS WHICH SNOULD BE DRAWN IN ON THE MAP WHICH WOULD CLEARLY INDICATE --- __.. _ _ _... _ . ------- . _.~_._-. -- .s......r......r.T..~,_...___.. ---~~---- . , . -- . - --_. __ . ~ . ~ , _ ,... .. . _. . _...__ ..y.:aa.n~.~..sC!!'_NL?N~'r2rne~~avn~..yir~;.+n.ww.-..~~t!MTNY~w....._...~....~_.~~,_.....r_..~...~..~....~..._._.___.. ... ....."._'_."__...._ . .. .. . . ."_.__~._,.~_.~._..,....~.....,.. ~ ~~ • . • ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING~ FEBRUARY 25, 1963, PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN~ CONTINUEO: 1421-E (SECOND HEARING) THE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT ALREADY IN EXISTENCE THERE. SECONDLY~ THROUGH PLANNING STUDIES SOME TIME AGO~ AND THROU(iH WORK SESSIONS HELD BY THE COMMISSION~ 7HE COMMISSION FELT THAT THE SHOPPINO CENTER WAS BEST LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF BALL ROAD AND STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD~ THAT BEFORE THE COMMISSION HAD EVER HEARD OF THE VARIOUS HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS IN THE CITY~ IT HAD FELT THIS AREA NEEDED A SHOPPINO CENTER A7 THIS LOCATION. MR. REESE STATED THAT THE RED DOT DESIaNATING THE CENTER WOULD 6E5T BE PLACED IN TNE CEkTER OF THE INTERSECTIONo AND THAT HE HAD NOT READ THE SAME IMPLICATION IN THE LOCATION OF THE SYMBOL AS THE COMMIS.SION AND._1N7ERESTED PERSONS IN THE AREA HAD BY PLACINO IT NEARER 70 THE NORTNWEST CORNER~ AND THAT IT WOULD BE A VERY SIMPLE THIN6 TO CHAN~E THIS DESIfiNATION TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF STATE COLIEfiE BOULEVARD AND BA~L ROAD REFLECTt.Ni THE RECEIiT ZONiNG ACTION. AT THE NORK SESSION ALL CHANGES WOULD BE CONSIDERED AND MADE BEFORE REFERRINa THE GENERAL PLAN TO THE CITV COUNCIL. HE NOTED THAT THE BASE MAP WAS FIRST PLACED ON THE WAL~ IN 1957~ AND SINCE THAT T-ME MANY CHANGES HAD BEEN MADEo THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT OPPOSED TO THE SUQGESTION 70 PLACE NEW SUBDIVIS~ONS ON THE MAP~ BUT NANTED TO WAIT UNTIL THE PLAN HAD BEEN ADOPTED SO THAT ALL DETAILS COULD THEN BE INCORPORATED ON A NEM MAP MHICH NOULD fiIVE ALL THE LATEST SUBDIVISION INFORMATION AND COULD AL50 INCLUDE THE HILL AND CANYON AREAS. COMMISSIONER CAMP STATED THAT THE PLAN AS A MHOLE WAS AS COMPLETE A DOCUMENT AS WE CAN NOPE TO ATTAIN REA~IZINQ THAT THERE IS NO PERFECT DOCUMENT~ AND WE M~LL PROBABLY NEVER OET ONE WHICH WOULD BE AN IDEAL GENERAL PLAN~ AND WITH A FEW MINOR CHAN(iES~ HE FELT THAT THE P~AN WAS ACCEPTABLE. COMMISSIONER CAMP FURTHER STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO EXPRE55 HIS APPRECIATION TO THE PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED THE PUBLIC HEARINaS~ THAT THE COMMISSION NANTED TO HEAR BOTH THE PRO AND CON OF A1.1. INTERESTED PERSONSp SINCE EVERY RESIDENT IN THE CITY HAD TO LIVE WITH THE PLAN ONCE IT WAS ADOPTED~ THEIR COMMENTS REQARDIN6 THE PROTECTION OF THE HOME OWNERS IN THE CITY WERE APPRECIATED 3Y HIM BUT THAT THE CITY COULD NEVER STOP CHANOES~ AND THE BASIC RIaHTS COULD NOT BE TAKEN ANAY FROM SOME PEOPLE AND NOT OTHERS BY REFUSINf3 THEIR RIfiHT TO PETITION FOR A CHANOE IN 20NIN0~ AND CONCLUDED BY STATING THAT THE BASIC PLAN WAS SOUND, HE NOTED THE COMMISSION WOULD CONSIDER ALL SU~QESTIONS FOR POSSIBLE CHANaES AT WORK SESSIONS BEFORE THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED iT FOR ADOPTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER CHAVOS STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE HE DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN9 THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MUST MAKE IT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY NOT TO OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT WHEN HOME OWNERS OBJECT~ THEY ARE CONFUSED AND W~RRIED BECAUSE OF THE ENCROACHMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE USES AND TI'A7 7HEY DO NOT INTEND 0 APPLY ANY PRESSURES~ BUT ARE ONLY CONCERNEO FOR THEIR INVESTMENT AND I.IVIN(i ENVIRONMENT. COMMISSIONER CI~AVOS THEN STATED THAT MANY OTMER CITIES SUCH AS ROCHESTER~ KNOXVILLE AND OTHERS~ HAC THE SAME PFOBLEM AS ANAHEIM PRESENTLY WAS FACED WITH AND SOME CITIES'HAD TAKEN BOLD STEPS TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR fi0AL5 AND TH2 PUBLIC HAD ACCEPTED THE PLANS~ THA7 WHEN THE COUNCIL HAD ASKED THE COMMISStON TO PROJECT THE BEST AREA AND THE ZUNING REQUIREMEN75 FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMEMT~ THE STAFF HAD NRITTEN AND PRESENTED TQ THE COMMISSION A VERY CONSTRUCTIVE PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT~ WHICH THE COMMISSION AOOpTED AFTER REVIEWINOo ANO THEN HAD RECOMMENDED IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHO AL50 ADOPT~D IT~ THAT THIS SAME PROCEDURE HAD BEEN USED IN ESTABLISHING THE DISNEYLAND AREA PEKMITTED USES POLICY~ AND IF THE PLANNINO COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL COULD ESTABLISH POLICIES FOR THESE SPECIAL AREAS~ THERE WAS NO REASON THAT SIMILAR POLICIES COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED FOR SINGLE FAMILYp MULTIPLE FAMIIY AND COMMERCIAL USES~ THAT THE GENERAL PLAN SHOULD BE OOOD FOR 25 YEARS~ THAT 25 YEARS AQO ANAHEIM HAD OUTSTANDINO LEADERS WHO THOUGHT OF THE FUTURE OF TME CITY AND PLANNED FOR TNAT FUTURE EVEN THOU~H OPPOSITION HAD BEEN EXPERIENCED~ THESE MEN HAD THE FORESI~HT TO CARRY OUT THEIR PLANS FOR THE DEVE30PMENT AND THE ~ROWTH OF THE CITY~ AND THAT THE COMMi5510N SHOULD AL~O TAKE THESE SAME BOLD STEPS TO PIAN FOR THE FUTURE ~ OF ANAHEIM. COMMISSIONER MARCOUX STATED THAT HE HAD REFERRED TO THE PLAN ON THE WALL FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS MD DURINd THESE YEARS THE COMMISSION HAD ENCOUNTERED A aREAT DEAL OF TROUBLE~ BECAUSE THE CITY DID NOT HAVE A GENERAL PLAN~ AND THE COMMISSION HAD TRIED TO FOLLOYI DILIOENTLY WHAT WAS AVAILABLE AND AT TIMES IT WAS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE COM~ MISSION TO RENDER A DECISION AFTER CONSIDERABLE DELIBERATION BECAUSE AN APPROVED NORK'INO TOOL WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH WHICH TO NORK~ THAT REdARDLE55 OF THE DECISION MADE BY THE COMMISSION~ THE C UNCIL HAD THE FINAL SAV RELATIVE TO ANY 20NIN0 ACTION~ THUS~ CHANfiES WERE MADE IF THE~COUNCIL DESIRED TO DO 50 FOR ANY REASON~AND THAT ~F TKE GENERAL PLAN WAS ADO^TED~ THIS WOULD OIVE THE COMMI5510N A MEANS OF COMMUNICAT~ON WITH WHICH TO WORK WITH 'iHE COUNCIL AND ACCOMPLISN SOMETHIN6 WITH SOME ASSURANCE THA7 A DECISION BY THE COMMISSION WOULD NOT BE REVERSED WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL. HE FOR ONE HOPED THE PLAN WOULD BE APPROVED. COMMISSIONER MUN~ALL STA+t ED HE MAS VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN~ THAT IN 1957 THE PLANPIIN6 DEPARTMENT ^STOLE~ DICK REESE FROM SI EISNER BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT HE MAB A QOOD MAN FOR TKE JOB OF PRSPARINfi THE GENERAL P~AN~ THAT SINCE THAT TIME~ DICK HAD DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB IN THINKINO OUT THE DESIRES OF THE COM~ MISSIONo AND TMAT WITH J~ST A FEM MINOR CHAN~ES TME PLAN SHOULD BE ADOPTED. COMMISSIONER MUNaAI.L WEN1 ON TO CONaRATULATE MR. REESE ON THE FINE PREBENTATION HE NAD MADE OF THE GENERAL PLAN~ AND TNEN STATED THAT T~I~S PLAN SHOULD BE ADOPTED. COMMISSIONER PERRY STATED TMAT HE HAD MOT BEEN A MEMBER OF THE PLANNINQ COMMISSION VERY LONO~ BUT THAT HE HAD LIVED IN THE CITY FOR 10 YEARS DURINO MHICH TIME HE NAD i -°~_-.....-- -----. __._....._. _ ___ __ _ ..__. ~.~ ,_-___.__,._._.~.~._..._..~ _ __ . ___.._ .. ` .~ , ~ . ~ ~. _ ..~ . . . _ . . . -- I ' ..~ . ' h ~~i~.mc-v:o-.m,.~.~.......,.... ..~~.-~«,...,..~..r._. .... . ......_-.'_'.__ ... ......... . .. ...~._. . ..___"'."..... .....-.~.... ~..... ^I~'r~.~.~ . ~ ~•._ . ______~f~_~~.~~~._- .._ .._ - ~ {_) k ~~ ~ . ADJOURNED REGULAR FiEE~ING, FEBRUARV 25, 1963, PROPOSEO GENERAL PLAN~ CONTINUED: 1421-F ;~ (SECOND HEARING) ~ ~ SEEN THE CITY GROW FROM AN AREA OF 8 SQUARE MILES TO' 28 SQUARE MILES~ THAT THE 5 COMMISSION HAD INHERITED SOME OF THE HODGE-PODGE REFERRED TO AT THE HEARING~ THAT 3 THE PREVIOUS COMMISSIONS AND COUNCII.S HA~ DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB IN HOLDING THE ; LINE ON BUILDINCa ORDER OUT OF CHAOS FROM AN INHERITED PROBLEM~ THAT THE ANALYSIS f THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WAS MAKING RELATIVE TO THE LAND USE OF TNE AREA W~ULD BE i BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMSSSION AS IT CONTINUES FORWARD IN ITS STRIDES TO PLAN WELL FOR THE CITY~ AND THAT BASICALLY THE GENERA~ PLAN WAS A SOUND DOCUMENT WHICH,NOULD BE A BENEFICIAL MEANS OF S~!VING THE MANY COMPLEX AND DIFFICULT PROBLE~;S TO BE PRE- SENTED TO THE COMMISSION IN THE FUTURE~ AND HE APPROVED OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN. . COMMISSIONER CHAVOS IN MAKINO A FURTHER COMMENT STATEO THAT FROM THE COMMENTS MADE~ BY AND LARGE'THE GENERAL PLANo WITH JUST A FEW MINOR CHANGES~ NAS READY FOR ADOPTION. COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFF~RED A MOTION TO REFER THE GENERAL PLAN BACK TO THE f LANNING DEPARTMENT TO INCORPORATE IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THE COMMISSION AND INTERESTED PUBLIC SPIRITED CITIZENS~ AND THAT THE COMMISSION SET NORK SESSIONS ~. TO STUDY THESE IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS WITH THE THOl1GHT OF INCORPORATINQ THEM INTO ~ THE PLAN BEFORE THE COMMISSION ADOPTS THE GENERAL PLAN AND RECOMMENDS IT TO THE ; CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER CAMP SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSIONER PEBLEY (dOVED FOR A TEN MINUTE RECE55~ COMMISSIONER CAMP SECONDED THE i MOTION. FTOTfON CARRIED. THE MEETING RECESSED AT 9C40 P.M. % i AFTER RECESS: THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:50 P.M. WITH COMMISSIONERS ALLRED~ CAMP~ CHAVOS~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MUNaALL~ PEBLEY~ AND PERRY HEING PRESENT. } i PERALTA HILLS ESTNTES - MR. JAMES NAGAMATSU~ PRESIDENT OF THE PERALTA HILLS ~ IMPROVEME T AS~OGIATION IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION~ AND MR. A. M. ANDERSON~ ~ '• REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSOCIATION~ APPEARED BEFORE ~ THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND OUTLINED THE SPECIAL AWD , UNIQUE NATURE OF THE PERALTA HILLS AREA WHICH THEY WISHED TO MAINTAIN AFTER ANNEXATION~ ; AND REQUESTED THE COMMISSION TO TAKE A POSITION IN SUPPORT OF THE PRESERVATION OF THE ~ SPECIAL CHARACTER OF THIS AREA~ AND THE ENACTMENT OF APPROPRIATE POLICIES AND 1EG15~ LATION WHICH WOULD ASSURE CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA IN THE DESIRED MANNER. I CHAIRMAN GAUER REQUESTED THAT EACH OF THE COMMISSIONERS EXPRE55 THEIR VIEWS REOARDING i•• THE FUTSIRE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PERALTA HILLS AREA. iHE COMMISSIONERS UNANIMOUSLY AdREED THAT THE DESIRED TYPE OF DEVE~OPMENT REQUESTIED S:iOULD TAKE PLACE. IN TME EXPRESSION OF THEIR VIEWS, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE PERALTA ' HILLS OROUP REPRESENTED AN AREA OF SOME 400 ACRES~ WHICH WAS EASILY DISTINGUISH- ABLE FROM THE SURROUNDING TERRITORY~ TMAT THE AREA PRESENTLY ENJOYED A VALUABLE A1:f~ OESIRABIE RURAL CHARACTER WHICH SHOULD BE PRESERVED~ THAT IN TNE FORMULATION OF ~NE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE °HILL AND CANYON AREASM~ AND THE FORMULAT~ON OF THE ESTATE ZON~NCa TO BE APPLIED TO THE nHILL AND CANYON^ AREA~ APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE 61VEN TO THIS SPECIFIC AREA~ INCORPORATIN~ THE OBJECTiVES AND GOALS OF THIS AREA WHICH SHOULD BE ADOPTED AI.ONG WITH A SUITABLE ^ESTATE ZOkEN SIMILAR TO THE ORANGE COUNTY E~-1 ZONE. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED 1HAT IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMISS-ON TO PA.r.S A RESOLUTION TO TH15 EFFECT PRIOR TO THE HOIDINa OF PUBLIC HEARIN65~ AND HEARING THE VIEWS OF ALL THE PARTIES CONCEF~NED IN THE OENERAL AREA~ AND THAT IT WAS I:NDE5IRABLE ~ TO ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT IN TERMS OF A COMMITMENT OF LAND USE PRIOR TO ANNEY:ATION. i - HOWEVER~ IN CONSIDERINO THE SINGtE USE CHARACTER{ST{CS QF TIiE PERAtTA FI4l_l5 ARcA~ ', THE COMMISS~ION FELT THAT IT WAS APPROPRIA7E FOR THEIR'INDIVIDUAL VIEWPOINTS TO BE ; A MATTEFi vf icECORD. ~ COMM185107VER CHAVOS OFFERED A MOTION DIRECTIN~ THAT A COPY OF THE PLANNINfi COMMISSION ~ MINUTF_5~ F.XPRES'SINO THE INDIVIDUAL VIENPOINTS OF THE COMMISSION BE FOR~iARDED TO THE CITY COUNCI~ FOR THEIR 9:00 O'CLOCK P.M. MEETINfi WITH THE PERALTA HILl.S GROUP ON ` TUESDAY~ FEBRUARY 26~ 1963. COMMISSIONER PEBLEV SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION ~ CARRIEO UNANIMOUSLY. 10~ N~MENT ~- THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINE55 TO DISCUSSt COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED A MJTION TO ADJOURN THE ADJOURNED KEDULAR MEETING. COMMISSIONER GAUER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. THE MEETINN ADJOURNED AT 11:55 O~CLOCK P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITIEQ, l~~Z~jL7/~!/ ~~ ~ ECRETARY ANAHEIM PLANNIN6 COMM~SSION ._.~ --- _..._ . . __ .._ . ._ ___ _ _ ._ _--.. . _ .._------- - ----------..~ --. _ _ _. . - , . , . ~ .--- !~c . ~ _ ,._ . _. .. _ ..