Minutes-PC 1972/10/02~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
October 2, 1972
A REGULAR MEETING OF TAE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
MEETING called to order by Chairman Seymour at 2:05 p.m., a quorum
being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Seymour.
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
PRESENT Pson
- Assistant Development Services Director:
d
Lowry
Frank
Deputy City Attorney:
Office Engineer: Jay Titus
2oning Supervisor: Charles Roberts
Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel
Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
ALLEGIANCE Flag.
APPROVAL OF - Minutes of the meeting of August 21, 1972, were approved on
seconded by Commissioner Allred
d
THE MINUTES ,
motion by Commissioner Kaywoo
subject to the following correcticns:
N CARRIED
,
and MOTIO
pq, 72-526, last line, insert: it "was"
'
_
pq, 5y7, para. S, line 1, insert: the "name" "Chevron
pq, 527, para. 5, line 2, insert: "havin " the emblem (delete
"being")
pq, 527, para. 7, line 3, insert: she could "aAprove" having
(delete "not picture")
pg. 574, para. 7, line 11, insert: ~y "60 to 70 variances"
(delete "7 to 15 waivers")
Pg. 575, para. 10, line 3, insert: as "enforceable" (delete
"precise")
"
Pg. 575, para. 10, lines 4 and 5, insert: guarantee "multitudes
(delete "an undue number")
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IMPLICATZONS
Chairman Seymour noted he would like to bring to the attention of persons
present the action which had developed since September 28, 1972, in iPgard to r
the secent Supreme Court decision which would have quite an effect upon actions)
that might be taken by the P.lanning Commission affecting Items l, 2r 4 and 5 of
the October 2, 1972 meeting, and then requested Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry
to explain this court action.
Mr. Lowry stated that the California Supreme Court in the case of Friends of
Mammouth versus liono County ruled all developers in the State of California in
processing a reclassification, conditional use permit, or variance would be
required to file an Er.vironmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to provisions of
the Public Resources Code Section 21151, and as a result of that ruling, it
would be the recommendation of the City Attorney's office to continue Items 1,
2, 4 and 5 to allow time for the preparation of these r.eports; that the position
of the City at this particular goint was somewhat unclear because the opinion
was quite lengthy, and an opportunity to read it in great detail was not pos-
sible since the City Attorney's office did not have the report available until
3:00 p.m., September 28. 1972, and as a result, the City Attorney's office was
advising the Buildinq Depastment that any building permit to which an appliaant
was entitled as a matter of right may be issued so long as the building plan
cor.formed to all elements of the Code, including zoning, and was based upon
proving up on a reclassification, conditional use permit, or variance, an EIR
would not be required, however, if there was a basis upon which the reclassi-
fication, conditional use parmit, or variance was approved after November 23,
72-653
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, October 2, 1972 72-654
ENVIRONMENTAL ZMPACT ~2EPORT IMPLICATIONS (COntinued)
1970, no acti.on should be taken by this body until an Environmental Impact
Report had been filed and the City Council took action.
Chairman Spymour noted then this would mean a hindrance and delay on the petition
until this EIR was submitted, and the Commission did not have the answer to any
of the•questi.,ns reqarding delays or implications since the opinion was dated
September 22, 1972, but not received by the Anaheim City Attorney until September
28, 1972, when a photostatic copy of the opinion was finally made available, and
then invited any interested persons in the petitionFl mentioned to present ques-
tions and statements.
Mr. Harry Knisely, representing the petitioners/agent for Reclassification No.
72-73-8, Variance No. 2403, and Condit?onal Use Permit No. 1330, appeared before
the Commission and stated that he had just spent the last thirty minutes with
staff in the Development Services Department office, therefore, he was not sur-
prised at the statements just made, and his clients would have to wait until
this report was completed.
Chairman Seymour noted that the Planning Commission had forty days to take some
kind oE action.
Mr. Lowry noted that because oE this decision by the Supreme Court, he did not
know what would have to be done, and he did not know who would have the duty of
preparing the reports; that Mr. Knisely's client probably had a better knowledge
of the canditions than the City staff had, and this opinion was retroactive to
November 23, 1970, and a considerable amount of zoning had taken place since
that time.
Mr. Knisely then requested that the Commission continue subject petitions to a
date certain. ~
The Commission inquired how much time Mr. Knisely's client would need to prepare
a report to be submitted; whereupon Mr. Knisely stated that he would hane to
contact staff..to f.ind out what information would be needed, but it would not
take eight weeks.
Chairman Seymour noted it was his opinion th4t four weeks would be sufficient
for clearing of the "red tape" by the State.
Mr. James Ryan, representing the agent for the petitioner on Conditional Use
Permit No. 1340, inquired what information had to be submitted so that his
petition could be considered as soon as possible.
Mr. Lowry stated that this opinion had just been rendered by the Supreme Court
on September 21, 1972, and since this was a State directive and not something
the City of Anaheim reQuired, there was no direction, appellate number, or any-
thing that was available to give to the petitioners, and the only document
available was a photostatic copy from the Orange County Coun3el with about 48
pages covering the Supreme Court decision on the ruling, while there was an
additional 20 pages plus covering the dissent.
Commissioner Farano inquired whether it would be possible for a developer to
obtain a copp of this opinion from the Orange County Counsei; whereupon Mr.
Lowry stated that they were not making copies available for distribution and
were even reluctant to part with a copy for the City of Anaheim and qave the
City of Anaheim a copy only because Anaheim was a contractual city within the
County.
Mr. Lewis Canfield, 309 Apolena, Balboa Island, appeared before the Commission
as the agent for Conditional Use Permit No. 1343 and inquired whether the City
would notify the petitioner requiring the EIR.
Mr. Lowry noted that since he was tFa agent for the petitioner, he would have
to work with the Planning staff and the City Attorney's office as to how this
report would have to be prepared for presentation.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 2, 1972 72-655
ENVIRONMENTAL IM?ACT REPORT IMPLICATIONS (Continued)
Mr.. Bernard Perlin, architect for Pacific American Properties, Inc., on Reclassi-
fication No. 72-73-8, Variance No. 2403, and Conditional Use Permit No. 1330,
noted for the Commission that he would like to give some information to the
interested persons regarding this report, namely, that on projects under a stated
limitation, such as under $500,000, these would be allowed withouc an EIR.
Mr. Lowry noted that the City of Costa Mesa had a limitation of under one acre
and under $100,000, but the City of Anaheim had not indicated this would be the
set limitation on size or dollar, and the Code stated that something small enough
that it would have no significant impact on the environment could be acted upon,
therefore, he was recommendinq to the Planning Cummission that they act on a
2-faot garage setback since the City Attorney was of the opinion that this would
be of no significance or have an environmental impact to the area, and that Item
6 was only establishing a holding zone on property that wa~ being annexed into
the City oE Anaheim and had to have City zoning on it, although the R-A Zone
was not actually a developing zone.
Chairman Seymour then ststed that the Commission at this point in time and with
the knowledge and information available felt that the City Attorney had taken
as liberal a position in interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision as possi-
b1e, and he was not interested in stopping the operation if at all possible.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ORANGE COUNTY' FLOOD CONTROL
NO. 72-73-8 DISTRICT, Attention of C. R. Nelson, 400 Civic Center Drive,
Santa Ana, California 92701, Owner; PACIFIC AMERICAN PROPER-
CONDITIONAL USE TIES, INC., Attention of Bernard Perlin, 3670 Wilshire
PERMIT N0. 1330 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90010, Agent; property
described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land con-
VARIANCE NO. 2403 sisting of approximately 3.8 acres having a frontage of
approximately 600 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street,
having a max~mum ?epth of approximately 270 feet, and being
located at the suuthwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Crescent Avenue.
Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A CARWASH ON PORTION A.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTZAL ZONE TO CONSTRUCT THREE
OFrICE BUILDINGS ON PORTIONS S AND C.
Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of July 24 for further study;
August 7, September 6 and 18 at the request of the petitioner and for the sub-
mission of revised plans.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 72-73-8, Variance
No. 2403, and Conditional Use Permit No. 1330 to the meeting of October 30, 1972.
to allow time for the petitioner to submit an Environmental Impact Report as
required by Public Resources Code Section 21151.
VARIANCE NO. 2430 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. UNION OIL COMPANY, 461 South
Boylston, Los Angeles, California 90017, Owner; ARNE C.
BELSBY, Mini-Warehouse Corp., 5600 Orangethorpe Avenue,
#704, La Palma, California 90620, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF THE MINIMUM
NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS TO ESTABLISH A STORAGE WAREHOUSE on property
described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
5 acres having a frontage of approximately 592 feet on the north side of La
Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 520 feet, and being
located at the north~corner of La Palma and Tustin Avenues.. Property I
presently classified M-1, LSGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of August 21 at the request of
the petitioner; September i and 18, 1972, for the submission of revised plans
and elevations.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and MOTION
CARRIED, to continue Petition for Variance No. 2430 to the meetina of October 30,
1972, to allow time for the petitioner to submit an Environmental Tmpact Report
as required by Public Resources Code Section 21151.
~
....
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 2, ].972 72-656
VARIANCE NO. 2940 - PUBLZC HEARING. J. V. SMITH, 1925 Robert Lane, Anaheim,
California 92802, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE on property
described as: A rectangularly-shaped parrel of land having a frontage of approxi-
mately 75 feet on the west side of Robert Lane, having a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 119 feet, and being located approximately 100 feet north of the centerline
of Wakefield Avenue. Property presently classi~ied R-l, ONE-FAMZLY RESIDENTIAL,
20NE.
One person indicated his presence in opposition.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of sub;ect prop-
erty, uses established in close proximity, and the request to convert the exist-
ing garage of the single-family home into a Pamily room and construction o£ an
attached garage to the front of the existing home which would project 20 feet
from the front wall of the home, extending 2£eet into the required 25-foot front
yard, therefore, the Commission would wish to determine the effects of granting
a variance for a reduction in the front yard setback of 2 feet.
Chairman Seymour noted that subject petition, as determined by the City Attorney,
had little siqnificant impact on the environment to require an Evironmental
Impact Report.
Mr. Joseph Smith, the pet~tioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that
with this addition there still would be ample off-street parking which would not
interfere with the sidewalk because there still would be approximately 3 feet
between the car parked in the driveway, the garage door when openad, and between
the eidewalk, thereby not affecting pedestrians on the sidewalk.
Mr. Jessie DeArcos, 1900 Robert Lane, appeared before the Commission in opposi-
tion, stating that placing the qarage too close to the sidewalk would a£fect the
aesthetics of the area; that he had spen~ a considerable amount of money to im-
prove his property, and if subject petition were approved, perhaps the neighbors
would also request the same and the neighborhood would be less attractive.
Chairman Seymour explained the proposed plans for the opposition, and upon o
reviewing the plans, Mr. DeArcos withdrew his opposition, stating he had mis-
understood what was proposed.
THE HFARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-248 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2440, subject to cunditions.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, !~r•
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
ABSTAIN: COt~Q2SSI0NERS: SEYbfOUR.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LESLIE R. BOATWRIGHT, 319 North Harbor
PERMIT NO. 1340 Boulevard. Anaheim, California 92805, Owner; DESSIE BLANKEN-
SHIP. 121 North State College Boulevard. Anaheim, California
92805, Agent; rPquesting permission to ESTABLISH A CHURCH
WITH WAIVER OF (3) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK AND (b) REQUIREMENT THAT FRONT AND SIDE
YARDS NOT BE USED FOR PARKING on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 180 feet on the west side of
Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum d~pth of approximately 109resstStreetbeing
located approximately 166 feet north of the centerline of Cyp
Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. ZONE.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and MOTION
CARRIEn, to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1340 to the meeting
of October 30, 1972. to allow time for the pe±itiones to submit an Environmental
Impact Report as reguired by Public Resources Code Section 21151.
•
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 2, 1972 72-657
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PAUL J. AND RUTH E. KNAAK, 1751 S. E. Sky-
PERMIT NO. 1343 line Drive, Santa Ana, California 92705, Owners; LEWIS C.
CANFIELD and/or MICHAEL ESTEY, 302 Apolena, Balboa Island,
California 92662, Agents; requesting permission to ESTJ:BLISH
A RETAIL SALES LOT FOR AUTOMOBILES AND TRUCKS WITH WAIVERS OF (a) LANDSCAPED
SETBACK P.EQUIREMENT AND (b) FREE-STANDING SIGN LOCATION on property described
as: A rectangularly-shaped par~~el of land being the northeast corner of Brook-
hurst S*_reet and Lincoln Avenue, having a frontage of approximately 154 feet on
the east side of Brookhurst Stxeet and a frontaqe on the nozth side of Lincoln
Avenue of approximately 105 fe~,t. Property presently classified C-1, GBNERAL
COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and MOTION
CARRIED, to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1343 to the meeting
oP October 30, 1972, to a11oWi time for the petitioner to submit an Environmental
Impact Report as required by ?ublic Resources Code Section 21151.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC :~EARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING
NO. 72-73-25 COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California
92805; proposing that property described as: A rectangular-
iy-shaued parcel of land consisting of approximately 9 acres
having a£rontage of approximately 288 feet on the south side of Winston Road,
having a maximum depth of approximately 1,244 feet, and being located approxi-
mately 1,610 feet east of the centerline of. State College Soulevard be reclassi-
fied from the COUNTY OF ORANGE A1, AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT to the CZTY OF "~NAHEIM
R-A, AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that subject petition would
establish City of Anaheim zoning on the property recently annexed into the City
o£ Anaheim.
Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-249 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
No. 72-73-25 be approved, unconditionally, establishing City of Anaheim zoninq
on property recently annexed into the City of Anaheim. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONRRS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS RECLASSIFICATION N0. 70-71-13 (Cal Prop Corporation) -
Request for clarification concerning roof-mounted
equipment - Property located on the west side of
Imperial Highway south of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property,
previous zoning action on the property, noting that Condition No. 6 of Council
Resolution No. 71R-25 stated, in part, that "Raof mounted equipment, including
exterior mounted radio and television antenna, shall not be permitte~l in order
to preserve the view from above as well as from the horizontal"; that the
Director of Architecture, Mr. Robert Lindeman, for Cal Prop Corporation had
requested that the Anaheim Planning Commission give consideration to allowing
the installation of air-conditioning condensing units on platforms on the roofs
of the residential units within the Rancho Yorba development and had also indi-
cated this request had been prompted by the fact that some of the home buyers
had elected to purchase the air-conditioning option and had requested that the
condensing units be installed on the flat roof areas of these homes, based on
the following facts: (a) The units, although not excessively large, would
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, October 2, 1972
ITEM NO. 1 (Continued)
72-658
render the patio areas not fully usable; (b) the condensing units were somewhat
noisy, especially when amplified on three sides by building walls, as was true
in many instances; and (c) the units, by the very nature of their function,
would emit a considerable amount of heat.
Mr. Roberts, in reviewing the findinqs, noted that Mr. Lindeman had stated in
his letter that Cal Prop Corp. fully understood the intent of prohibiting the
installation of inechanical equipment on roofs, and it was their intent, there-
fore, to shield the requested roof-mounted units with materials that would blend
closely with ~he existing colors and texkures; and then presented exhibits of
the types ~f co]ors and textures planned for shielding these units from view,
noting further tha: the plans which had been submitted indicated the enclosure
for. the condenser units would be located in such a manner that two existing
parapet walls on the roaf would constitute two walls of the enclosure, while
there would be lattice work material on the other two sides, and that one-story
units would have four units in four different locations within the existing
parapets, while the two-story units would have them placed in clusters on the
flat portion of the roof.
Mr. Roger Lindeman, architect representing Cal Prop Corp., indicated his presence
to answer questions.
Commissioner Herbst inquired whether Mr. Lindeman planned to use the same
material as the existing flat roof; whereupon Mr. Lindeman stated that portions
of the flat roof would have the same material covering these condenser units.
Commissioner Herbst then noted that the original understanding of the Commission
zegarding the material of the roofs of the buildings in this development was to
have been all of Spanish tile, but between the appraval of the development and
construction com.pletion of the first units, the garages were treated with tar
paper and rock, and when one looked dowr on the units, the appearance of the tar
paper and rock detracted from the aopearance of these units, and it was his feel-
ing that this was a misinterpretation, since at the presentation of plans,
brochures, and exhibits, no mention was made that the garages would have roofs
of other than tile, and inquired why tile could not be placed on the existing
roofs where it was planned to have these roof-mounted condenser units placed.
Mr. Li:ideman stated that he had not been int~olved from the beginning with this
development, therefore, he could not say whether tile roofs had been proposed -
since he had been involved in this project, the plans indicated only a portion
of the roofs would be of tile. In addition, with the pitch of the roof, to have
tile would be inappropriate in ~this aarticular area.
Lengthy discussion was held by the Commission, Mr. Lindeman and staff, summarized
as follows: (a) The original concept as presented indicated tile roofs for the
project; (b) proposal to place condenser units as roof-mounted equipment rather
than having planned them originally within the development itself; (c) air-
conditioning units were optional for each unit, and it would appear that the
majority would indicate their preference for this option; (d) possible use of
red tile paint to match the tile roofs so as to blend in the roof-mounted equip-
ment rather than with the materials presented; (e) possibility of placing these
units under the mansard so that they could be completely hidden; (f) that since
the developers had planned to offer the air-conditioning units as an option,
there must have been some plan formulated to take care of these condenser units;
(g) it was not anticipated that the units would be noisy or generate the amount
of heat when placed on the pac._is; (h) that the architect must have k+:own the
r.esult of adding the weight, noise, and heat qenerated by each unit in n~signing
the project, therefore, it would appear it was something that was decided a:ter
approval os subject reclassification and conditional use permit.
Mr. Lindeman stated that they had zllowea for adapting the units for air-
conditioning, such as refrigerant lines and electrical lines for extra loads,
but they did not feel it would be objectionable on the patios, t.owever, they had
been proven wrong, and one owner had actually installed the condenser unit on
the roof and another had contracted to haWe his done.
~ •
MINUT55, CITY PLANNING COMN.ISSION, October 2, 1972 72-659
ITEM N0. 1 (Continued)
Continued discussion was held by the Commission and the developer as to the
possible alternatives that might be employed; whether the developer should be
required to provide the same treatment of the air-conditioning units that was
required by the City £or the commercial development to the north of these units;
whether the architect/developer had considered other alternatives than that
which was presented to the Commissions and that possibly the request might come
within the scope of the requirement of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) since
it would basically affect the intent and purpose of the SC Zone to retain the
natural appearance of the canyon area. Furchermore, it was possible without a
great deal of restructuring to completely enclose these units, integratinq them
with the balance of the structure, since the proposal prespnted to the Planning
Commission did not meet the intent or spirit of the SC Zone.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry steted he would request a five-minute recess
while Assistant City Attorney Allen Watts tried ta obtain the interpretation of
the Supreme Court ruling on a requirement that an EIR be submitted, since this
could affect Cal Prop in their development in the canyon.
RRCESS - Chairman Seymour declared a five-minute recess at 2:55 p.m.
RECONVENE - Chairman Sepmour reconvened the meeting at 3:05 p.m., all
Commissioners except Commissioner Rowland being present.
Chairman Seymour noted that the report referred to by Mr. Lowr.r was not yet
available, therefore, he would suggest that the Planning Commission make some
decision as ta whether or not an EIR should be submitted.
Continued discussion was held by the Commission as to the manner in which it
miqht be possible to minimize the appearance of the condenser units if placed
on the flat portion of t~ie roof; that the develoger proposed this as optio;~al
equipment, and the Q~ra SP~ig~l~d have beer built sufficiently strong enough to
locate them under the mansard of the structure.
Mr. Roberts, in answer to Commission questioning, stated that in his discussions
with Mr. Lindeman it was determined that placing these units under the mansard
could not be accomplished because it was not constructed substantially enough
to place them there.
Mr. Lindeman, in response to Commission questioning, stated that in order tu
place them under the mansard, they would have to provide additional support
structures of the roof for reinforcement of the beams, and this would mean
breaking through, patching and repairing to add this reinforcement, and it was
difficult to say how much work and cost would be involved.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and
MOTION CARRIED, to deny the psoposal for r.oof-mounted equipment as presented
by the developer for Cal Prop Corp. under Reclassification No. 70-71-13 on the
basis that this did not meet the intent of the SC, Scenic Corridor Overlay,
~one which sets forth that no roo£-mounted equipment shall be permitted; and
that the developer redesign the area to house the condenser units so as to be
u part of the actual building units. Furthermore, if the developer intended to
offer the same option to future units not yet under constrt.ction, then adequate
measnres shall be provided to insure that if an option.is ex~~~s~e~dJ~ that these
air-conditioning units shall become an inteqral part of the -~
, in order to meet tne intent of the
SC Zone.
ITEM N0. 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry presented copies of the interpretation of the
recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Friends of Mammouth versus Mono
County in which it was dete'cmined that no building permit could be isaued nor
any zoning action taken without the report, however, a more realistic reading
~f the case would indicate that the City must have a report before it may act
upon a permit, such as a conditional use permit, or act upon zoning regulations
where a project was involved, and that the ruling would not be applicable to
~
MINUTES, CITY PI,ANNING COMMZSSION, October 2, 1972 72-660
ITEM NO. 2 (Continued)
the issuance of buildinq peraiits except as they related to the aforementioned.
in addition, to be on the safe side, where building permits had not been issued,
ne permits be issued in connection with any conditional use permit or reclassi-
fication of propertp involving a project where such was approved subsequent to
r*ovember 23, 1970 - the effective date of the iegislation "Public Resources
Code Section 21151"t that where buildina oermits have been issued, it would be
the City Attorney's holding that such p.its were voidable but were not void,
and, therefore, the projects could continue unless attached by some citizens'
group. Any permits issued subsequent to the date of the decision, September 21,
1972, should, however, be revoked, as such permits would not come under the
protection of having been issued to the pronouncement of the law by the court.
(See copy on file)
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner
Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred
and MOTION CAFRIED to adjourn the meeting to Wednesday,
October 18, 1972, instead of Monday. October 16, because
the Commission would be at a meeting of the League of
California Cities.
The meetinq adjourned at 3:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
L~~`~~~"`~..-_ ~
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
AK:hm '
0 R C 0 MICRQFILMING SERVICE, INC.
19:0 Lac7 Aac. 116-3220
Anahc~m, Cel~tornin