Minutes-PC 1976/02/24~
~
~
Clty Hall
A~i~helm~ Cal i f~ornla
Feb ru.~ ry 2~~ ~ 1~176
11DJ~lIRplCb a[r,UL11P MF ET I tlf, AF TIIE A~IAHF I M C I TY.PIANN I~!~ f.~MMI SS I ON
A~Jnu~~IFn - An a~llourned renulsr menting of the Anohalm City Planning Commtsaton wAs
RF.fIILAR cAlled to order hy f,halrman Farano at 7:3~ P.M.~ ln the Fr~mc~nt Junlor lilgh
NEF.TINr, School Auditortum. (~~~ 1Jost Lincoln Avenue~ An,~hetm, a quorum befnq present.
PRF~CNT - CNpIRM~~~~ FArAno
- Cf1h1MIS51~~ICRS: Barnes~ Herl,st, King, liorl~y~ Tolar
ARSEMT - CnMMIssIOr~ERS; Johnsnn
ALS(1 ('ftGSENT- Ron~l d Th~mpson
f:,,owl ton Fern~l d
Frank Lowry
Malcolm Slauqhter
Uon McUaniei
f'aul Sin~er
Bill Cunninc~ham
John Anderson
Ron Contreras
Patr(cl~ Scanlan
Planninn Department Oirector
Cemmur I t, t'cvclopr~nt D( rector
peputy City Attorney
Deputy City Attorney
~;;-.;-4~± Planntnn Dircctor-Planning Supervlsor
Traffic Engineer
A590CIAtC Planner
Assistant Planner
f?edr.velopment Planning Supervisor
Planning Commiss(on Secret.~ry
PLEDGF. OF - Commissioner Morley led in the Pledge of All~qlance to the Flag of the
ALL~~IANCE Untt~ed States of America.
E~IV I RONMFNTAL I MPArT - PURL I C HEARI tlG. i N I T I ~TED ~Y 1'HE ANAI~F I M C 1 TY PLANt~I 1 NC
R~P~RI' N~. j~~ C~MMISSI~t~, '1~~~ ~ast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim~ Ca. ~ to
-' ~~ conslder am~ndin~ the Anahelm General Plan in the vtci~ities
GF.~IFRAL PLAfJ of :
AMENDM~:~JT N0, 139
I- Center City - bounde~i by Harbar Boulevard, Cypress Street, East Street~ and
Broadway for the purpc~5e of reviewing redevelapment alternatives.
!! -°att Street are~ - cleneraiiy boun3ed ~y !'.c;snp 5*_rPet, Jultanna Street, Olive
Street~ and La Palma Avenue for the pur~osp nP changing the land use designation
from l;~dustri~~l to resiclenttal uses.
II1 - TF~e southeast corner of Lincoln P,venue and Gilbert Street for the purposr_ of
chanqtnq the land use designation from residential to commerctal and/or
restdential uses.
IV - The arsa located at the intersection of Imperial Highway and L^ Palma Avenue
bstween Esperanza Road and the Santa Ana Rtver and extending frnm 60~ feet
west of Imperia) Highatay easterly to the proF~osed alignment of 4~eir Canyon
Road for the purpose of changtnQ the land use designation from industrial and
residential to c~mmercial uses.
Deputy City Attorney Fr~nk Lowry reviewe~ the procedure to be followed in the Planning
Commtssion's consideration of the subJect Genera) Plan Amendment, being that although the
Commtssion may draw conclusions at the end of the discussion on each portion of the
Amendment, any formal action would of necessity be requirsd to cover all four areas in the
form of one res~tution,
Ass(stant Plannin~ Director ancl Pl~nning Supervisor pon McOaniel presented the StafT
Report to the Plenning Commiasion dated Fe~ruary 24~ 197~, and said Staff keport is
referred to and mad~ a part of the m!nutes. Mr. McOaniel reviewed the dtfferences between
the land use ~ies(pnations on the A~~aheim General Plan and specific zoning on ~ndl~~idual
properttes, bein~ that the GenerAl Plan was a long-range proJectton of anticipated
~6-a~
•
~
~
MI ~~UTCS ~ C I YY PLAhM i ~IG COM~t! S~ I ~M ~ February 2-~ , 1~S7h
ENVIRONM~NTIIL _IMPACI' R[~'~i~7_N(1. ~G~ AN~ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 1 9 ~Contlnued)
76-84
relatlanships of lan~1 use ln the enti~a community and dld not Intend to ~liuw thc ~pecific
zonln~i on speclf'ic C~ropertles~ but rather ghc~wc~ t~nd usa chr~racterlstics, Mr. McD~miel
th~n revlewe~l t'~e r~emc~rAndum deted Docember t": I'!'S~ rddre~sed to the Planning Commission
from the Clty Attornoy's Off,ce and Planninq DPps~~~nknt rcnardirg the rrx~st rec~nt
lealslattor pert~intn~ to qenerHl plan amendmo~~t prnc.r.c~:ir~~ -~~'~l~:~ that s~id logislatlon
proh Ih I ted thc Amendment of` any rn~+ndatory el ement nf a g~~e~al pl an n~i e than threc~ t ln~ess
durtn~ ~~r.y GelendAr year~ hc»vever~ within each "time" s~:verai ltems n~.;;~ he included.
Coples of the SrAff R~port to the Pl~nninc; Commisslon wpre m~d~ avali+~le to ~11 persons
preagnt At the suhlect public hearing,
ARFl1 I - CENTFR CITY
Planner John Andersan introducPd Area I- Center City end revie:wed the locatian of lhe
areH, thc~ ~cre~qea of exist(n~~ zoned~ plannrd and proposed lnnd uses in Center City,
noting that the street acreane: was beln~ reduced from the r.xisting 65 acres to the
propose~i ~~~; An~f th~t the measures higlily desirable to assure success of antlcipated
redevelopment lanrl uses werp as folioars:
~ Prnvirlw r.~mnlete new traffic control systcm witliin the "trt~n~le" formed by ihe
~~ Sant~ Ana~ R)versi~ie tind Orange Freeways.
b, Provicie grade separatl~n between arterfal streets And railr~ad ltnes.
c, Wlden Anaheim Do~~~evard fr~m 9a11 Roaci north to Riverside F~eeway.
d, Widen'Hnrtor Rnulevard fram the Santa A~~a Freeway north tn the Riverside Freeway.
e. Widen 4lncoln Avenue from the Santa Ana Fr~eway e~sterty to and w(thln Center
f,!*y.
f. Improve the Llncoln Avenue/Santa An~ Freeway interchan~e.
g, f.onstruct Naster Street/Anaheim Boulevard overcrossing ~f Santa Ana Freeway.
h. Improve the HarUor Boulevar~~/Ball Road tntersection.
1, Desian and construcC a"by p~ss" from Narb~r Baulevard to direct proJec~-related
trAtric int~ pr4]ect center from north and south.
J, Select final street ali~r.ments to follow "travel desire corridors" and reduce
turn movements.
k. Provide peripheral parkin~a areas and controlled access ~~Ithin ~enter City.
Mr. Anderson further noted that Exhihit "A" on display depicted a land use and clrculation
alternattve that would accommodat~ the Redevelopment Concept Plan.
Community Development ~irector Knowlton Fernald ~eviawed the proyiess of redevelopment in
the Cit;~~ noting tha*_ che prc~~i'Nn befor~ ±hP Plannina Commisslon at this p.,ulfc hearing
per•tained to the ctrculation~ gener~l land use and open space for the redevel~pm~nt area~
witho~~t a lake. since the lake was to he decided upon at a later date; th~t open space~ in
h1s opinlon~ should be th~uqht of as park use regardless of how it was developed, and ±I~e
proposal was tc have 2(1 acres of open space.
THE p~18LIC HEARI~d~ WAS CL~SEC~.
Mr. Thoma~ Catterson, a~6 North West Street~ appeared before the Plann'ng Commission anci
made an observation that widening of the stree~s would make them more available tc hesvici•
traffic and also increase the smog in the area.
In response to Mr, Catterson's comments, Chairman Farano noted that the proposal for
strGet circulatfon was a part of the general redevelopment of downtown AnahelM and the
wiae~ing and improvament would be pald for from redevelopm~ent funds; that whether or not
the streets would carry morz traffic and generate more smog was a good questlon; and that
the amount of trafffc wc,uld depend larnely on th~ density that developed in the proJect
area.
In further response to Hr. Catterson's comments. Traffic Enatneer Paul Singer noted that
the streets would be widenec{ to accommodate the neo~ development and~ wl~h or w(thout the
streets~ the land use was the ma(n dec~sion at this public hearinn~wtth access to be
provtded In ar~,f out of the area over streets. In response :~ a~:~stf~ning by Chairman
FarAno. Mr. Singer proJected that about 35,~~~ additional trips ner day would occur after
redevalopr^~ ~t.
Nr. Frank Deotsch, 'i~0 North Anaheim Bou!evarr~ appeared before the °lannincl Corxnission
and st~ted that the proposed curve ~f Anaheim Bouievard 1ri the area of Clementine StreeC
or Lincoin Avenue bothere~l him; that when the Sa,nta Ana Freeway was constructed~ many
~
~J
~
~
M1~~~1TE:5, CITY PL,ANNIN~ COMMISSI~~I~ Fr.hruary 2~~, 197h
7G-85
E~~VIRONMENTAL IMPACT RfPbR~ N0. 1~~ 8 AND GGNERAL PLAN AMENDMENT M0. 1~~ (Contlnued)
streete wore curve~ Anc1 Che StAtn then trled to strnlhhten the streets out a~ain At a b19
expense; that he wa~ .~u~sttanin~ wt~y Anaheim Boulevard could nc.t be left stralght; and
th~t hl~ nroperty wAS l~cated on the corner of Cypress Skreot nn~1 Anahelm Roui~vard end.
wltFi khe wi~foninc, of tlie ~treet~ lis would lose A considerflble anx~unt of hls proparty.
Mr. 9111 Nurre~: ~f Wilhur S~nitli ~~iid Assoclates appeAre:i befor~~ the Plr~~ninn Commisslon
and stntecl that the trAffic clrcul,~tlon with curves in the str~ets woul~l not affect thr
efflclency ~f the roadweys In thc sllghtest.
Mr. Daalsch then inqulreJ whRt would h<ippen to the v~c.~ted part af AnAheim Boulevard and
wheth~r it w~uld be left v~cAnt.
Mr. Fernald n~iteri th.~t the street curves werr. a part of thc solutlon to the over all
planninq process; thnt the curve was not pro~osed for the I~esnc:fi~ of hnving a curve but
because it seemGd to be the best way to construct the ror,dway~ inctudinq fo~
beautlficatlon ~nc1 other purpose~!~; that lt w~s dif'ficult to work out t.he tndividua)
concerns of property ownars in p~-blic meetings and he was avotlable nt any ttmc to meeC
with Mr. D~eatsch ~r any other prop~rty owners who were elther locAted withln the proJect
areA or would be affected by the redevelopment.
Chr~irman Faran~ notecl that when streets were reconstructed with the resultant effects of
rsJuclnc th~ s4'" ~f ~,arcels of land, there ~Nera ~raya ~f r~~m(~~naatinn rhP ~+rnnPrty nwnPra;
howevcr, the speclfic man~er in which the pr•~~perty awners were to be compsnsated would
have to be w~rkecl out on an incllvidual basis, and that w~s what Mr. Fernald was
~ uc~~es t i na .
Mr. nOCL3CF1 ln~~icateci th~t he was satisfted with the answers to his questians.
Mr. Melvin Ililclenfeld~ 8Q~! West Broadway, appeared before the Pla~nin~ Commission and
sf.ated he oamed 8 ITOr-'L7~v between Anaheim Boulevard and Claudtna Street ancl tt appeared
that the reallgning of Anerelm Boulevard would go through the rnort~iary property; that the
alignment of Anaheim B~ul;:vard had been chanqed from the origin~l proposal; and that he
wanted to knc~w if the ol~j Rank of Amerfca buildinn and tha other o~d bui'lin~s would all
be torn dnwn.
In response, Mr, Fernald advised that the prectse alignment of Anaheim Boulevard was not
yet known~ but that information would be available withi~~ npp~~::'~:~~1~ tW~ months;
however, it was p~!tsihle that the realt~nment would no+ affect thc mortuary bu~lding
itself,
In response to q~iesttoning by Chatrman ~'arano, ~1~. LoMrr~ advEse~ th~t an ~~~dltional public
hearl~9 woutd b:, hel<1 hefor~ the Planning Commission and Ciky Cnuncil in connection with
approvin~ the precisP reatignment of Anaheim Boulevard and each of the affected property
owners would be notl~led of ti~e public heartng.
Mr. Gant Eichroc~t~ 7.~3 South 1lelrose Strtet~ appeared b~fure the Plannin4 Commission and
scated he was the uni~ientifled person v~F~o was present at the Joint Pl~nninq
Commiss(on/Comr~wnity Redevelopment Commissioii meeting on February 18, 197~~; that he had
spoken to others In ~he Clty and one person predicte~i nothing was ~oinc~ tn happen with the
redevalopment pro~r~M since the City had heen tryinq to do somethtn~ for the past 2S
years; that he wished to ask severaY questions beinq (1) wh2t was the need for six tanes
of trafflc in the downtc~wn ~rea~ (2) why was it planned to completely surround the
downtc~wn area with addltfonal freeways (being the same as six-lane streets) when there was
an existinq trian~le of freeways~ a~d hic~h traffic and high den5lty wo~~1d not appear to
flt in a center ~f cultur~l activity~ • d(3) a~hy was it necessary to t.ar down the older
buildtnqs which could never be reptaced since bullu!ngs were not b~~ilt the ~ay they used
to be bullt~ the bulldlnqs t~ be displacea being homes, business structures, etc., with
high aesthetic value and the resultant effects being that most of the businesses would
relocate and possibly mc~ve back to the downtown ~rea at a later da~e~ with many not
returning te the f,tty at all.
Chair~nan Farano respon<1ed that the preposal to redevelop was an nnsv~er to a downtown area
generally considered to be unprociv~tive; that, In his opinion~ th~ real ~uestion was what
cauld be done and what w~uld be the best plan; that the proposal betnq reviewed at this
meettng was a comp~sitr. of input from the citizens, the City staff and City o~ficials, and
would pr~bably work, best buC was not necessarily rtght; and that th~ pr~pox~l was upen for
constructi~e criticism an.1 for sugqestions of other passibly better plans. Chairman
Far:,no further noted tha[ he understoc~d the m~~rchants on Lincoln Avsnue favored the
redevelopment plan an~1 he questioned to ~ahat extent the mr.rchants who h~d been In contact
with Mr. Eichrodt had macle their Input t~ the City staff and offlctals.
~
~
~
MI~lUTES~ f,ITY PLANNING COMMtSSI~N~ F~bruery 2u~ ~976 76-Rh
`cNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT _REPORT N0. 16A ANn ,ENERAI 1'LAN AMFNDMENT N0. 139_ (Cantinued)
Mr. Elchrodt respondecl thnt nn one would argu~~ th.,~ the dc~wntown was unproductive;
howover. If tearlnq down thr, c~re of Anahclm and replacln~ it was thc anly nlternative~ he
wnnted :~ knc~w why; that the duwntown area wauld nat be increased, but the use w~uld
tncreASe,, similar to puttin~ 2~ p~unds of flour ln a 5-pour~d baq; thrt~ In hls oplnlon~
the dc.wmtawn area ha~i been ne~lected fr.r sume ttme; that he ha~i livecl ln Anahetm for 17
yeArs and hnd not h~en tnc~ ~+et i ve ; hu~eve r~ i F the C t ty was torn clown ~ 1 t shou) c! be ca 1 1 ed
samethlnq ocher thnn Anahelm.
Chalrman Farano rosponcled th~t experience had proven that Che developers who would come
Into the area neer~~i an tncentive tn do so and whether the incenttve would invalve tearing
dc»vn a whole block, etc.~ M~as ~ posslblllCy; And that any sugqestl~ns ur other lnput
c~ncernin~ the dctaiis for speciPic development should be mAde to the ProJect Area
Committce which was presently funr.tioning.
C~mmissi~ner lierhst made an obsarvation that it ap~~e~~red same oP the cltlzens werC of the
impresstan that re~ievetopment would happen overnlght; however~ the program wnuld probably
take 15 Y~ars to really het under way and~ ther~:fore~ the bu(ldings would be taken out
gradually.
Mr. Davtd 5. Colltns~ 1Q77 West Ball Road~ ap~~eared betore the Flanning Lu~r~~~lsslo„ and
stated he liad Ueen a real estate broker in the Ctty of Anahetm Far many years; that he had
been tnvolved in romodeling some of the old buildinqs downtown an~ many of ths bulldfngs
were ui~safe due to the type of mc~rtar that was used to construct the brick and other type
bulldings; that he would crmplime:nt the Clty on the proposcd ptt which had some
excltement to it to stimulate ihe area~ and the plan should be at least as unlq~~e as the
proposal; and that he was dtsappointed that the tdea t~ have a lake was not more acce~+t~d,
Mr. Collins further stated that all of the butld(ngs Iri drnvntown i+nahefm needed to bc
replaced; that it might be appropriate tc, desigr~ate the City as havinn two city areas~
being the downtown area a~ one and Disneyland as the nther; that there was no excitement
about the existing downt~-n Anahetm; that, although some thought tha City Hall buildtng
was great~ he dld not; that many of the businessmen presently located downtown were there
because the rent was lower th~n they could gaC elsewhe.~e; and that he was critlca) of the
proposed circulati~n element of the redevelopment plan on the basis that he did not feel
there was sufficler.t north/south clrculation throuqh downta~n,
Mr. Fernald clarified that tlie roads shown on thP proposed plan were only the maJor toads
and it did not mean thare would be no other ~oads )ncluded in the plan when the speclfics
were betng dealt with; an~1 that all of the existing rnads woui~ he included~ if they were
determined to be needed,
Mr. Colllns contlnued by stating that tlie land use and circulation were i+~terrclated, and
there was a need for o~~tside connecttons which wauld be stimulated by good ctrculatian~
and that he was suggzsCin~~ chaC the proposed redevalopmant plan and a dramattc clrculation
plan be considered simultaneously.
Mr. Mike Browr~~ 2~7 South K~oeger~ appeared before the Planning Comrnlssion and qu~esttoned
whethar the inclusion of the old roads~ atong with the new or proposed roads, would total
more than the 40 acres of roads prnjected in the 5taff Report,
Mr. Fernald -~esponded that 65 acres o~ roads p~esently existed in the redevelapment area
and the new roads~ combined with the old roads~ would tot~l more than 65 acres; however~
it was anticipated that when the propcased circulation became ef~ective fol~owing
construction of the new roads, the old roads would no longer ne needed.
Mr. Browr, then que5tioned the spectfic wideninn o'F 3roadway. Mr. Fernald advised that the
speclfic widenin~ woulcl depend on specific development; and that thers would be a need fo~
pub{ic input wher. the precise alignments of the streets were considered in public hearings
for that purpose. Mr. Fernald further advlsed that the procedures betng fallowed for *.he
Cfty of Anahetm were typical of all redevelopment proJects.
Mr. Joe White~ ~~9 West Broadway~ appeared befare the Planning Commission and stated he
~~es unable to understan~l why the curving of Anaheim Boulevard through the prnJect area was
adv~ntageous to tfie redevelapment plan.
Mr. ~ernald respon~led that a new course for a road would serve the trafflc needs whlte
constructin,y a permanent roaci, or a read ~ould curve to the rear of a hotel, etc., sa that
the hotel could frent onto the open space~ etc.~ among the reasons for curvtng e road.
~
•
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNING COMMIS!iION~ February 2~+~ 197t~
ENVIRONIIF.NTAL IMPACT REPQP,T N0._ IG8 AND GF.NER~~L PLAN !1FlENDMENT Na. 13y (fontinueJ)
1~-~7
Mr. ~eorqe ~.anq~ n renl e~cr~te broker, 1~6 Norr.h Claudlni~ Appeflre<1 hef~re the Planning
Commisalun an~1 requeste~l ;,l~r(PlcAtion as tr, whether thc publ(c heP~tn~ was for a general
plan nmendment or an env! mnrrx~ntal imp,~ct repart, st~tinn that although h~ wa5 very muth
is~Car•asted In seeln~ somethinq done to the d~nyntown area~ he did noC ~ec! il• was
approprlntir, tu a~lopt a plan when only gr_ner~l breas were heing Include~~.
ChAlrman Far+ano clnrifleci that the Plannin9 Conmission was not adoptfng ~ redevplopment
plan~ but wAS considerlnc~ the gencr,~l land us~s that may be devoked to thc redevclopment
are~n tc~ provl~le: for U5C5 th~it did n~~t presently exist on the General Plan for s~ld are~.
Mr. Lan~ then st~+tec1 he represented hls clients In the dc~wntown orea who were very much
Interestad In conttnulnn with the recievelopment program.
AREA 11 ~ Pl17T STRI`FT
Mr. Anderson presented that p~rtfon of the Staff Report to the Flannin~ f.ommisslon
pertainin~ to tl~e Patt Slreet ne~yhborhood ancl reviewed the s(te luc:~,tlon~ descrtp.•lon and
backgrouncl.
Mr. J~hn Agullar, Urban Pra.iects~ Inc.~ 1~850 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Anyeles, appeared
Lefore tt~e Plannl~~ Commtssi~n and stated his firm had becn retained throu~h the use ~f
go~ernment funds for the purpose of warking with the Patt 5treet neighborhood ~estdents to
formulate a consensus or alternat(ves *.~ work out an action plan an~1 incorporate the ~eeds
s~nd desires of both the sub_(ect residents and the Clty at large; th~t their rote was not
to cfuplfc~te anv of the work done by the City staff~ nor clld they intencl to make surveys
that had already been completed; and that they would re-assess and ident1fy certaln kinds
of physica) needs in the area~ residPntia) purposes~ and dPVeiopment apportunittes. Mr.
Agiallar continue.f by stating they hac~ some unavoidable delays in gettinq thelr contract
approved by tf~e City an~l articivate:d itenstfying the;r role; that thus far they had found
that the overwhelminn concerns of the ma.Jority of the residents in the Patt Street
nei~hborh~od were that they (1) wished ta remain in the neighborhood and (2) wanted to be
fully aware of the kinds of Impravements h~hich would be availablP t~ 355i5[ them in
rehabilitattnq their n•~tnhborhaod; that the residents of the area had strong feelings and
cultural ties tc+ the Mexican tr:-dition and dld not want Industrtal development in thelr
community; that it woutrl be difficult to project what the flnal plan would be. however,
their recommendations would be corretated with the City c+ffices; that the City was to be
congrat~•lated in brinqing the matter to the point ~f the General Plan Amendment process In
response to the desires of the residents of the Patt Street neighborhood; that the
amendment to medlum-density resldential for long-range land use o~ould facilitate homeowne~
rehabtiitation; and, therefore~ lt was reco;miended ~hat the Plannin~ Commission recomme~d
adoptlon of Exhibit "A" of the proposed General Plan Amendment pertaining to the Pdtt
Street area.
Mr. Steve Valdez, cliairman of the Patt Street nelghhorhood committee, appeared before the
Plannln~ Commission and stated the residents wished to have the General Plan land us~
designations for the Patt Street neighborhood changed to medium-density residential; that
the people wistied to rehab111tate most of the I~ames~ with some help~ to ~iave better hanies~
better streets and alleys, etc.; and that most of the houses tn the area were from 25 to
5(1 years old~ hawever, most of' the present residents wished :o remain in Che area. Mr.
Valdoz then questloned whether the land use designat(on would be for industrlal or
r~sidentlal,
Ms. Ramona Reveles, 1031 Patt Street~ appeared before the Planning Commission and stated
she was a resident an~1 home~wner in the Patt Street area; that she wished to I:now whether
the land use de5ignation would be changed from industrial to residentt~l~ as requested by
the residents; that she was 9rateful for the o~Portunity to provide tnput in the form of
her ~pinians and d~sires at this public hearing since she did not feel that the people in
the La Palma Park area were gtvan such an ~pportunity to speak in behalf of *_h~i!'
properttes.
in respanse, Chalrman Farano advised that each of the Pl~nning Comnisstoners wou!d vote
independently concerning the subJect Genera' Plan Am~ndment and whatever the outcome of
the vote, it would be in the best interest of the community at larqe~ includincl the
surroundtng ~reas, a3 wetl as the Patt Street area.
~
~
w~•
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ February 2~F~ 1976 ~~'"8S
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC7 REPORT NA. ~68 r~ND GENERAL PLAN AHFNOME~~T NU, i33 (Cantinued)
Mr. John Skinner~ 1022 Patt Street, appe~red befores the Planning Commission and stated he
wfls presently interestGcl in purchasfn~ a resiclence tn the Patt $treet nel~hborhood ~nd he
would respectfully request that the Hrco land use desi~nAtlon bc resafclentlal.
Mr. Alex hbore~ 317 East La Palm^ kvenue~ appeared before the Planning Commtssion ~nd
stated he rit~cl owned the rp~rtment hou~~ at :hls addross for three ye~rs And durinc~ that
tlmn the nel~hbors had bcen si-owing an interest tn thelr homcs and the community wlth
In~ilcatlons that they wantc:d t~ I~.~prove their ~et~r~nornood; that I~e would be In i~AV~r .if
Exhibit "A" whtch woul~i provide *,he people wtth the tool and nec~ssary advice aS to hc~w
they could go about ftxin~ up thelr propertles; that hardships woulci be cr~~ted tf the
residents were relocAtecl; and that. therefore~ he felt Exhihlt "A" +vould be In the bpst
inCerest of the resl<lents of thc subJect area.
Ms, t3etty Ronconi~ 1?1~1 South W~ln~it Strcet, appeAred before the Planning Commisston and
stated that she was the pr~perty crri~er of 1041 P~s;t Street; and that~ althou~h the
ma;orlty of the people wanteci the restder,tial land use designatlnn, slie was concernPd
whether m~iltl~le-famlly residentl~l would bc includecf In said destgnatlon.
AssisCant Plari~~i,~ Dtrcctor pon MrDAniPI res-x~nc~ed th~~t if Exh(blt "A" (s•.~me as Alte;natp
"A") w~re approvec~, mecllum-density r.oninct ~t a later date could be for as mnny es 3G unlts
per acre on e,~ch property~ depending on the outcame of zoning appllcations whare
approprtate or appllcAbl~.
Mr. Anderson A~vised that the present zoning in the area wa~ RM-12Q0 (Multiple-Family
Residentlalj.
Mr. Ben Bay~ 214`~ W~st Grayson~ appeared before the Planning Commiss(on and questioned
whether rha alternatives offered in thc Staff Report were all that the Planninci Commission
could consider~ ar whether oth~er alternai:ives could be devela~~ed durtng the Nublfc hearing
~rncesses. stat(ng that he °xould think tf~at the Planning Commission would want to hear
specific oplntons from the gener~l public a~bout what they would llke for their community.
Chalrma~ Fardno respon~~ed tha~ the ~taff Report offcred Staff's analysis ancl recorrtnenda-
tions t~ the best of their professional knowledcle; and that the Planning Comnission would
also cansider ~ny recommendations or suggestions from tlie g~neral public in makln~ a flnal
declsion.
ARF.A III - L1PlC~L~i AVFNUE ANO GILBERT STREFT
Associate Planner Bill Cunninaham przsented that portion of the Staff S~c~ort tc+ the
pla,-„-,;,g Commisslon pertalnin.7 [o the L(nc~ln Aven~~e an~ Gilber*. Streez area and reviewed
the site location~ description and background.
Mrs. Jacqueline Dvorman~ 2-i33 Transit, appearad before the Plannin~ Corrmission ~nd stated
she wzs an a`flcer of the Gilbert Street Homeuwners Association; 'hat Councilman Seymour
had made a very strong recommendation t.hat the Clty's prof~ssional ~on(ng st3ff ineet with
r.he homec~wners to decide what particular uses would 5e best for thp oranqe grove at the
subJect locatton~ but not to encroacl~ upcn the existfng residenttal development; that the
Clty 3taff had never met with the penple and, therefore~ she wnuld suqgesC that it was not
valid to hold the public hearing at this time; and that the pubilc hearing should be
withheld unttl the people were given an opportunity to meet with ~he professional zoning
staff, as promised by the Ctty Council.
Ctialrman Farano noted tha~. he cou~d not Indicate at this potnC in the public heari~,y
whether or not actlon would be taken; however~ the Planning Gommission w~as rpceptive to
any su99estions or criticisms of the proposals. Mr, Cunningham further noted that the
recommendations offered in the Staff Report were very general In nature.
Mrs. ~yrna Vachon, 2?80 Mall ~lvenue, eppeared before the Planning Commisston a~d read a
letter dated February 23, 1976, from Nr~ Oean E. Graham (1;3 South Gllbert Strcet) ;n
which Mr. Graham expressed that "...Ai~~+ attemFt to encromch on the tranquility of a
predominantly sinqle famlly residentlal neighborhood with in~iscriminate intrc+ductlon ~f
excessive traffic con~estion car lntolerable andlor illegal nolse levels ~vtil be
st~enuo~tsly, vocally And collectively resisted with maximum effo~t and ~rganizatton. I
feel. and have cons`:'.+•abie sup~sort, that a reasan,~bly conc-lverl C-Q usage, a tow to
m~dlun density residen~lal deUelopment or possfbly a m~blle h~.r.~e prnJect could be
compaitble with the Ge~eral Plan. as artginally conc~ived~ and the exlstin~ ~~sidential
....i
~
v~
~
MINUTES~ CITY P1.11NNfNf COMMISSION~ Fabruary 2~~, 1376 7h•89
ENVInONMFNTAI IMPACT RFPORT I~O._ 168 ANU GENERAL PLAN AM~NQMENT NQ. 1~ (Contlnucd)
nalghbo~hood. Remember~ Gllbert Street Is Nt17 Brookhur5t~ Euclid~ Harbor. East or c ven
tM~gnolla. It Is a resldrntlal ytroot and we Tntend ~t to be rtaintalr~ed es auch."
Th~ereupon~ Mrs. Vachon presented tl~e referencbd ~etter ta Clty Stsff for the records _
Mrs. Vechon continucd by statin~ sho realized It wns not feaslb~e to keep tlie sub)e e t
prop~rty ~~s an orchard; th~t :hc trafflc on Giibert Street hnd been excesslve and th e
street could not handl~ additlonal Lrnffic; that an acceptehle reslclentlal denslty for the
devalopment of the s~ihJecc prnperty would be medium to low denslty; that ~eceptable
development of the praperty could include mabllehomes~ commerctal-affice (srn~ll gard en-
typo or~ ln neneral, a supern~rket); hcwrever~ shc wc~uld be more In favor of the sev~n RS-
l1-~i3.0f1~ zoned lots.
Mr, Ben Bay appeArcd analn befnre thp Pl~nnlny Commission anrl Mok exccptinn to the
concluslons (n the Staff Raport indicatincr traffic from the subJect property only coming
nut on Gilbert Street~ an~l he questloned why there coulci not t~c some npenl~ns onto L!ncoln
Avenue. Hu further stnteci th~~t with khe amount of propcrty invotved~ he was questl oning
why there could not be an openin~ at the east and af the property to Ltncaln Av~nue .
Mr. Cunnlnqh~m r~espondecl that If the subJect property were dev~lopecl resl~entially, the~
h~~mes would prob~bly rear on Lincoln llver~ue.
Chalrman Farnno noted that Staff's ~roJections or altern~tlves were basecl upon thei ~ best
csttmato as to haw the land could be best designed to yleld Che most develnpment in the
arGa; th~t thoy I~ad superimposed street desiyn, etc. ~ and whetl~er the trafflc counts wers
correr,t or not was really not an issue ~t this public hearing,
Mr. Bay contlnued by Stattn~ that while one typa af commercla) ~~ses of the praperty might
be acceptable to the area~ other types m1ghL be totally unacceptable; and~ therefu r e, he
would hupe that the zoning would be very sQeciflc for the eventuai c'evelopment of t he
proptrty.
~h~~lrman Farano noted that the decisl~~n of the !'lannfnq Commisslon would not be io
re::omn~eni specif(c zorfng, however, there was no reason why said body could not indicate
that a speclfic N~rtion of the property would be highly appropriate for CL, for In c taneQ.
Mr. Bay then stated that~ hypothetically, if CG (Commercial, General) lzncl use cles igna tion
was adopted as the General Plan, he was of t:~e opinion that the property could ther~ be
developed with any GG use without the necessity of an additionai publi~ hearing.
Mr. hicGanlel clarifled that whiie th~ General Plan may designate land for ccxnmerci ai o r
other type uses, the e:cistin~ zoning on khe land would remaln untll a zon(ng action
(reclass(ficatton petitio~) was taken an the property. with specific zoning being ehanged
through the publlc hearing proc.es5es.
Mr. Dan Rowlar~d~ 10~0 ~lest La Palma Avenue, representln~ the ow,~ers of th~ ~ub.ject
property. a,>peared befpre the Planning Commissiun ana stated he did not h~ve to re~nind the
Pianning Comnission that CL was s~eciflc in use, as clearly set forth (n the Zont~ g Code;
that they had prepared a series of traffic atu~les ~aith a pian for each of the lan d us e
alternates discusse~l ?n the Stgff Report and~ if the zone fitt!ng a particular pla n were
adopted~ then that plan could be Implemented witfiout a c~nditional use permlt or a
varlance petltlon; however~ non° of the plans were exhaustive. Mr. Rowlanci prese n ted the
Rlan~, being (a) a multiple-famlly development, (b) the market and drugstore which had
been approved by the Planning Commissio~. (c) a mabilehome development {which coulci be
developed with a maximum of 49 units due to the site developrnent and noise le.el
standards, maktng such a davelopment economically infeasible)~ (d) a combination ~f
commerclal and residentiei~ and (e) a sinyle-family resi~ent(a) dcvelopment (which co utd
only be developed with 25, 7?0~-square-foot lots with no access to Lincoln Avenue) . Mr.
Rowland then presented drawings of other areas in the City which were devcloped s~m(lar to
tiielr prop~sal r"~r a market and drugstore~ said areas being at East and Sycamor~ Streets~
Br~ookhurst Street ancl Oran~~e Avenue~ State College Boulevard and South Street. Li~coln
Avenue and Sur~kist Street, and Lincoln Avenue and Rto Vista Street, etc.~ and he noked
that all oF the foregoing developments were hordered mainly by single-family resi dentiai
uses.
Mr. Don Ralstony 13B So~~th Gilbert Strect, nppeared before the Planning Camniiss~o~ and
stated he wa! a m~mber uf the Gilbert Street Norr,eowner~ Association and lived at thc south
end af the subJect property; that he would like to continue to live in the neighborhoad
and felt it was good that the peaple in the area were concerned; that if the subj ~ct
property were developed resid~ntial, it mlght not be a~ bad as they had initially thought,
however~ they were Impressed witn ths prt~posal of rederated Markets and the actia~ of the
Planning Commission thereo~; that some of the peoplc in the ~rea of th~ Lincoln
~ ~
MINUTES, C?TY PLANNING COMMiSSIaN. Fehruary 24. 191~ ~~'i-90
ENVIP,'JNNE~ITAI IMPAGT REPOR7_ NO_ 168 AND GENERAL. PLAN AM~NDMENT N0. 139 (C~ntlnued)
AvenuelSunkist Strent cortmerciai development had beci cont~ctod and~ aithnugl~ not all ~f
th~ people In the e~ea were hbppy to be living next to the conmerclel davelopment~ i~~~Y
of thom were very~ f~appy; an~l that thc ccxnmcrcl a) de~'elopment et the corner of Hay~~ol ia
end Gerden Grove ~oulavard vnry closely parallaled che pro~oeal and eltuatlon pertrintng
t~~ tl~e subJect properly.
Mr. RIl) u~-L'~on, 23~~ Mal) Avenue, nppeared beFore the Plonninn Commisslon ~nd stated the
maln concern with Exhlbit "A" for ovar-all commerci~+1 was the 6A~ cars thet would be
gennrated on Gllbert Street alone; that he dld not imderstanci why mobilnhomee would not be
an ecanomicr~lly fe~sible development for tho property; thae no consicferatlon had been
glven to comm~rcl~~l officr. buil~ltnc~a; ThAt~ al thouqh the Planning Departm~+nt Iied been
instructed hy the Clty Counc(~ ~j,~wquestion;tandPthat~he~ r,c~c~,~~ealizedYth~dpropertyrc uld
with the owners of the pr~p~rty
not remnin ~s ~n oran~e grove.
Mr. Shorr 1! 1 J, Pohlmann~ 2333 Wese Lincoln Avcnue~ appeArecl befor~ed~n GllhertQ~nJ make b
Commisslon and stated that most of thr pe~~ple on Linca~n had t~ g
U-turn nnd he, too~ generated trafPic c-n Gi lbert d~arecl the predominate pra~lemsrineti eR
of Gilhert and Linculn was signal ize~i; that i t app
area wort relatc~l t~ traffic congestlon; that the on-street parking on lincaln Avenuc w~s
presently taken up; that an apartment pro)ect or rrw~bi lehomas on thr: subject property would
not be gcx~d plannin~ due t~ the on-street parking problems whlc.h hould be c~eeted by the
new devc;ubhouses~,~'etce~fthe mobileh1omes ~tAUlci not bepeconom~callyPfeasib~eor swimming
pools,
AR~A IV - 1'1~CAIAL HIG!~WAY AND I.A PALMA AVENUE
Mnd LanPalma~Ave~ueeanddreviewedrthensitetloeStion,Rdescripllon'anJ9backa o~~dA~ tlighway
a
Mr. Ray Spehar, 913 Peloma Place~ Fullerton, ~~pp~ared before the Plannfng Commisslon and
read from a prepared statement~ that the Pl~~nning Cammission had prevlously mAde a
racomaendatlon to the City Council for comme~c~al zoning for a davelopment plan~ but as a
result of the recommenctatian of the Canyon A~ea Generai Planning Task Furce, the Plani~ing
Commlysion had been requcsted to consider the c:ortmerclal zoning on the entire 19 acres ~s
ar~ amendment to the Anahe im G~nera 1 P 1 an ; that - al th~~ugl~ he apprec i ated the recem-
mendetlon, he could not develop the entl re 19 acres as comnercial bec:ause of the l imited
access to La Pa1ma Avenue and~ furthermore, because he did not have a tanent or lessee whc~
was presently interested and he would not 1 i ke Co carry the propert, _~'i l a tenant came
alon~ as i t would be qu:tc cxpensive; that he woul~ l ike to pursue th_ •-'ous prdposal
:ly; that he
for the lO-ecre shopping center and proceed wi[h satd development immedlo
wou!d be receiving a letter of Intent from one ~f the three markets unti 1 arrangements
could be .-~da 'o discuss and draw up the lease for a 35~~00 square fuot building to be
occupled on J~ iuary 1~ i9%8~ however, he would need the corm;ercial zoning in order to
procaed wi t~ heybel ieved peawouldareceiyekaareply5from~them~sh~rtly;rthatttwosdrugstores
property an
were interested, one for a 30~0~0 square foot bullding; that ouk of approximately 1 0
tnqulri~s from potential lessees~ he was positive that he would be able to lease about
25~000 square feet of satel l i te stores, as soon as tlie feaslbi 1 ity study was comple~ed,
wl~ichwould fotlow the grantiny of cortmercia) use of t~e property; that he was emphaslzing
that if the Pl~nning Commission recortme~~ied approval of ttie 10-acre commercial si*.~~ the
propart~~ would be under construction wittiin six to ~~ght months with completion by January
~, 1y78; however, if the entir~; 19 acres w~re ap~rovPd far commercial use he did not see
hoa it could be deyelaped wi tf the 1 imE ted access on La Palma Avenue; that a parcnl map
hacl been subml:*e-1 f.o the En~ineering Divi ston partitloning the land into two parceis with
access to the Ri~1-1200 between the shopping center and the raitrosd by a 64-foot wtde road
adJolninq the mobilehomr: park, and sald parcP.l map was being held pe~dlrig ~ declslon by
thn Ci ty Councl I; that the approxtmately 8. S acres for RH-1200 doval~of ccmmercialsusP~of
in escraa and the buyers were ready to close esc,aw pending a~+p
the 10 acres; that the aM-1200 p ro) ect Mr~ 1 d cons i st of 20h un i ts and was raady for
constructlon immediately; that altho~~gh h~ dld n~t knc~w what valuatton the developers
would place on thelr pro.lect, {~e estimated the value of hls lmproven~ents at 53.800~d00
whlch c,ould add apprecla~ly to the redevelopment fund; that the City Cauncll was seeking a
aeternsinatlon from th~ Planning Coumisslon es to whether a n~ed extsted in the subJect
area for another sh~pping center; that the need was being expressed by the nvmber of
potential lessesas who had Indicated an i~ternst and wt{Iln9ne!ts to risk thelr capital to
become o lnlon fwi th the, freeway~a~tingi asaa, barr (erWabothWOfethe shoppingecenters al ready
In hls p .
~
LJ
~
~
MINUTGS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N, February 24~ 1~76 ~6"g)
E~~V 1 RONMGNTAI. IMPACT FFP0f1T N0. 168 ANf1 GENERA~. PLAN A~iENDMF.NT NO.. 139 (C~nt inuPd)
app~oved for the area (ana c~xnpleted and one under construction) would accortrnc~dat~ the
A~ahelm Hills and Peralte Hills erea south of the freeway~ and tho subJact c~nter would
accomrt-oclnte the people in the area north of the fr~away; thet~ wfth the compieYlon of ti~e
~ew Fn i r~nQnt Bou) evard ~ wh I c:h wo~al d be an ovPrpass of tlie ra) 1 rohd and Espera~za Road, the
proposed ~hop~ing ce~ter would draw from the Yorba L(nua area for e distance of Approxl-
mately 1.5 mlles, And also east ~f Impc~~lal Hlghway and north of La Palme Avenue to Wotr•
Gany~n Road~ a distance of approxlmately 3 miles; and, therefore. he waa respectTUlly
requestlnc~ that the Pla~ning Coomisslon nppro~~e the commerclal land use ss prevlously
grented by said body undcr Reclesslficatlon No. 75•~76~2•
In response to ryucstl~nincl by Commisslonor lierbst, Mr. Cunninghum advis~~1 that Area IV had
be~n extendnd to the west ncroes Imparlal Nighway to include a commerclal development
which was existl on pr~perty deslgnat9cl on the Ganeral ?lan for inciuatrial uses.
CoRxnlsslaner Hei~~yt noted that a wlde street was tha best b~undAry far d U~ne1'A1 pl~n
am~ndment; that the referenced 9xistlnq commerctal development was approved under a
cc~ndltlonAl use permit and~ therefore~ wAS acceptable ln thr, I~dustrlai z4ne. ~1r.
Cu~nfn~hAm concurred ln Commissloner Herbst's explanation and aclreed thnt Im~erlal Hlqhway
should be t.he boundary for the area un~er considergtion.
TNE PUBLIC HERRIWG WAS CLOSE~.
In response to questioning by Chalrman Fara~o pertalning to Area f I I~ Mr. RowlAnd stated
the property fronta~e along Lincoln Avenue was approxlmately 605 feet, and ap~:roxtmate!v
467 feet along Gilbert Street.
The Planning Commission entered into discussion with Staff cancerning Area I- Center
Ci ty. dur!ng wh(cf- Mr. McDanlel polnted out that whilP the spactflc acrGa~~ shown in the
Staff Repart might vary slightly, the linps on the approved er.hibit wo~ld bc transferred
t~ the AnahPi m Genera 1 P1 an map, wl th khe speci f i c 1~nd use areas ~ as des i gnated ~
following whicFi no acidltlonal changes could be made to the Anahelm General Plan unti) such
tjme as another amenclment was processecl, Mr. McDanie) further polnted ou; that the maps
indicated open space but cild not sppcify that a lake would be included.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner King and MUTION CARRIEO
( Commissioner Johnson t~eing absPnt)~ that Environmental Impact Report No. 168, having been
cc~nsider~d this daCe by thP Anaheim City Planning Commission and evidence~ both written
and oral, having been presented to supplement suid draft EIR No. 168~ the Planntng
Commission belleves that sald draft EIR No. 16H does conform to the City an d St~te
Guidellnes and tl~e State of Callfornla Environmental Qual ity Act and~ based upon such
ir~formation~ does hereby recommend io the City Council that they certify said EIR No. 1G8
i s ln compliance with said ~rvtronmental Quality Act.
Gammissloner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC76-35 and moved for its passage and adoptlon,
t hat the Anahelm C( ty Pl ~~in i n~ Commf ssion does hereby adopt and recommend t~ the C i ty
Vouncil af the City of AnaheEm adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 139. and specifl-
eal l y that Exh ibi t"A" bc adnpted fnr Area I- Cente r C i ty ~ that Exh i b i t"P," be adopted
for Arca li - Patt Street. that E~:hibit "~" be adopted for Area I11 - Gilbert and Lincoln,
ana chat Exhib(t "B" be adopted for Area IV - La Palma Avenue/Imperial Hi~ hway~ as
modl fted to el lminate any praperty westerly of Imper(al Highway. (See Resolution Book)
Commissiorver Herbst discusseci the foregoing resoVution, noting that Exhibi t"A" wi th thE
acreage shc+wn for Area I- Center City was approprla*_e 3nd included the al ternate
elrculation eiement of maJor !harouqhfares shown on P17n ~); ttiat Alternate "A" for Area II
- Patt Street v~as a~~proprlate since it designated ;ediw~~~density resi~lential uses as
~EC'UC~`}P~ ~'! the res' dents and property owners in the area; that A1 t~~rnate "A" for Area
111 - lincoln Avenue/ ~ilbert Street was beirg selected on the basis that he had not
ehanged his mind in considering what would best serve the area; that c~omme rci~l
development would generate the least artx~unt af permanent residents and traffic tn the
area; that an apartment pro;e~t w~uld generate people an~ if a residential use were
selected~ it should be sin~le-fam(ly; that commercial developmenC wouia noc generaic
traf`ie impact on the side streats tn the r~sid~ntial neighborhood; a~d that the
eommercial for t!~e subJect area should be a shopping center consisting of a market and
drugstore and not a full-b{own shnpping center; that Aliernate "fl~'' with a modification to
eliminate an; property westerly af imperial Highway, was being seiected fo r Area IV - La
Palma Avenue/Imperial Hl~hway on the basis that it would be approp~•iate for the southerly
11°acre portlon af the 19-acre parcel to be develaped commercial and the northerly 8-acre
portton of sald parcel to be developed medlum-density residential. IC w~~ noted that Lhe
remalnEn~ acreage included in Area tV w~~ included in this General P!3n Amendme~~t to bring
the General Pian up-to-date.
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING f,OHMIS510N~ Fabruer~ 2~+, 191f>
ENV 1 RONMF.NTAL 1 MPACT IIFPORI' N0. 1 GB AND f,ENERAL PI.AN hMf.NDMEN7 NA ~ 139 (Gnnt I nued)
Commis~loncr Morley not~~i thrt *.ha prcvloua
at Gilbcrt ~~nd Llncoln hAd hean approvnd ;+y
changed hls min~l sir~ce he felt sald approval
Judgment.
76-92
eortmerclal develop~rc~nt plan 4or tlie property
tho Plennin~) Cammis:;lon and hd~ too~ hnd not
had been based ar good~ sound buslness
Commissloner Kinq noted that ~~e was In aqreernent wtth ehe foregolncl resolutton.
Cortmisslonar ('sarnes notcd tl~at alkhough shc would 1(ke tt~ see low to medlum dcnsit;~
appr~veJ for th~ Gt Ibc;rt and Lincoln pror,ertY, aporCrx+nts would brtng more parking and
othar proh~ems to tF~e adJacent reslcientirl devclopment than wo-~ld a commerctal d~velop-
mc+nt, as proposed ~ and that ~as why sho woul d voto L~ hnve corm~ercl al ,
Commissloner Herbst addecf~ concerning Are~~ ~ II, that the sound level frcxn the conmercial
development and the truck trafflc cx~ Gilbert Street could oe c~ntrolled.
In response to questioninq by Chatrman Farano, Staff advised that GliberC Street was a
collect~r street but was not Improved to th e standard width. Mr. Singer advised that 70Q
aars per lane aver a pertod of 24 houi•s would translatc into 8F0~ ta 900~ vc~hicles; that
bas~+d upan the commerclal developmcnt approved under Reclasslficatlon No. 75-?h'S~ the
total estimated average dally traffic for both Llncoln and Gilbart v~as 56~~ and for
Gilbert 5treet only was G~O; that the subJe ct Area was alrn~st fully develaped; that the
impact on the capacity af Gilbert Street wo u1J I~appen only if the ma)ortty of the trip~
oc~urred during the highest peak hours~ and the nature of comn~;rcial (opposed ta apartment
dnvelopment) was that it woulci not utilize the street durtng the highest peak hours, 700
cars betng the peak; ancl that a comparlson of squa~•e footage for retall-commercial opposnd
to commerctal-offtce would p~.,~.~ab1y reveal the sAme aMOUnt of ADT.
f,~rtmissioner Tolar noted that he vrould not cunsiJer conmerctal-affice fo~ the subJect area
(Area I i I ) .
Chatrman Farano noted that slnce Gilbert wa s the only *.hr~cugh street hetween Magnolla and
Brookhurst,t~c would question whether it was W1se to permit a development that woul~l bring
the streets inmedi~tely to within 2~$ of thelr ultimate capacity.
Mr. Singer noted tfiat the ca~acity of Gilb ert Street was presently at a point where
traffic could move freely with minor delay s; that ultimate capacity would be in the
nelghborhood of 14~0~~ cars per day; howe ver, tts designed capacity would flow with minor
delays and carry approxlmately Q6~0 cars.
Chal~man Farano noted that he would be voting "no" on thc foregoing resolution on the
basis that h~ did not favor the proposal for Area III, since he felt same additional
thought should be givan to the trafflc problems which~ in his opinion, a~ere sPrious.
On roll call, thc foregoing resolut+on was passE.i by tfie following vote:
AYES: C~MM I S5 10~lERS : tiARNES ~ HER~ST. K I N~ ~ MORLEY, TOLAR
Nc1E5 : C~MMI SS I nrtERS : FARAt~~
ABSENT: COt4MI SS i ONERS :.1(1H~.°,Otd
AaJOURNMFNT - There being no further business to dtsc~ss~ ~ormissicner Herbst
'-" offerecl a motion~ seconded hy Cammissinner King and MOTI~N CARRIED
(Commissioner Johnsan being absent)~ that the meetinct be adJo~rned.
The meeting adJourned at i1:35 ~'•M•
Respectfully submitted,
~V v
~
Patrtcla B. Scanlan~ Secretary
A;~ahCim City Pla~~ning Commission
PfiS:hm
U R C 0 n ~-iIMIPIC, SE~VlCE., INC