Minutes-PC 1985/12/09~' ~
~~ :~
REGULAEt MEETING OF THE ANAH~;IM CITY PGANNING COMMISSION
EtEGULAR Mh,E~i~iNG The regulac meeting of the Anuheim City Planning
Commi3aion was called to order by Chairwoman La Claice
at 10:00 a.m., December 9, 1985, ir~ ~he Council
Chamber., a quorum being prenent, And the Commission
reviewed plans of the iCeme on today's agenda.
R~CESS:
RECONVENED:
PIt~SENT Chairwoman:
Cotnmissioners:
ABSGNT: Commissioner:
11:30 a.m.
1:3U p.m.
La Claire
Fioua~, Ery, Ilerbst,
McBurney
None
AGSO PRE~SENT Nocman Priest
Annika Santalahti
Malcolm Slauqhter
~ay Titus
Paul Singer
Dan Schiada
Greg l~astings
Kendra Morri~s
Edith Harris
'PEM N0. 1 EIK NEGATIVE DECLARATIUN AtJD
(RE~ AUVERTISED)
I.awicki, Messe,
Dir. oE Community Development/Planning
Asaistant Director for Zoniny
Ueputy City Attorney
OfEice ~ngineer
Traffic Engi.neer
Associate Traff ic Engineer
Associate Planner
Assistant Planner
Planning Commis~ion Secr.etary
SIFICATI~N NO_ 85-86-
PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: LARRY ALVIN AND DINA LYNNE TORGERSON, 216 N.
Claudina Street, Anaheim, CA 92805, CITY UF A~1~HEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd.,
Anahzim, CA 92805, ATTN: NURMAN P. PRIEST.. Property d escribed as a
rectanyularly-sha~ed parcel of land consist ing of appro ximately 0.63 acre
located at the southeast corner of Cypress Street and Claudina Str.eet, and
turther described as 210, 216, 220 and 226 North Claud i na Street.
CG to RM-1200 or a less intense zone.
Continued Erom the meetings of October 14, and November 13, 1985.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposit i on to subject request
and although the staEf report was not rF .', it is referred to and ;,iade a part
of the minutes.
Larry Torgerson, owner, was present to answer any que~ tions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
85-671
12/9/85
J
.~
,. ~.
1
MINUTLS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 9, 1985_ 85-672
ACrION: CommiESion~r Fry oE[ered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Bouas and
MOTION CAkRiEll that the AnAheim City Planning Commf.ssion has reviewed the
prop~sal to reclanaify gubject property from the CG (Commercial, General) Zone
to the RM-1200 (ResidentiAl, MultiplP~Family) Zone on a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land conststiny oE approximately U.63 acres located at the t~outheasr.
corner af Cypreas Street and Claudina Street end further described as 21Q,
216, 220 and 226 Nocth Claudina S~reets and does hereby Approve the Negative
Declaration upon Finding ttia~ ik has considerec3 the Negative Declaration
toyethec with any coinments received during the public ceview process and
Eurther finding ~n the basis oE thc Initial Study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
efEect on the envlronment.
Commiasioner Fry ofEered Res~lut.ion No. PC85-258 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commissfon does hereby ycant
Fteclassification No. 65-86-8 subject to Int.erdep~~rtmentAl Committee
recommendations.
On rull calk, tt-e E~ceyoing resolution was passed l~y the following vote:
AYE;S: Bt~UAS, FRX, k{EREiST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NUES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm S.Laugt~ter, pe~uty City Attorney, presen~ed the written right .o appeal
the Planning Co~Rir,s:an's de~.sion wit~in :.2 da~^ to tF ~~y Council.
ITEM NU. 2 EIH NEGATF6'E D"cr1.~~RATION, WAIVF.R OE COL:. n ~. ~QM~~NT AND
CONllI'PION~I, USF E•1,~tMI'P NU. L'3:~ ~
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNrR;: J, WILLIAMS, 103L demp Street, Anaheim, CA 92805.
PKOperty de~cribed as a cecl,...~3ularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
e~pproximately 0.23 acre, 1039 and 1038 Kemp Street.
To permit an a-unit seniur cicizens' apartment complex with waivers of minimum
distance between buildinge and minimum are~ of private recreational-leisure
acea .
Continued frum the meeting ~f October 28, 1985.
Tl~ere was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff ceport was not read, it is referred tn and made a~,art
of the minutes.
J. Williams, owner, was pcesent to answer any questions.
John Ybarra, neighbor speaking for Mr. Williams, stated his family resides at
.1U34 N. Patt and 321 E. Julianna Street and explained he is a real estate
broker and a member of the Patt 5treet: Neighbarhood Committee which was
instrumental in the impruvement of the area. He stated Mr. Williams sees the
need for senior citizen ',~ousing; and that accessibility to nece3sary services
such as shopping anrl ~.aundry facilities was a problem, but with the help of
Ci.ty staff, Mr. Williams has prepared a map showing the various locations of
t.~ose services and they are within a 5-minute radius.
12/9/85
MINUTCS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, pECL'M~GR 9, 1985 85-673
Mike Dnyle, P. C~. Box 1895, Idyl.lwild , epeaking for Mr. Williams, ~tated he
hAS worked with Mr. Williama Eor a number of yeare snd he has collected theae
~ma12 parcels of land to tr.y and upgrade and hel~ the community and atay in
his own neighbochood. Ne stated the majority af the people who will be living
in thoAe housing units ar~ alre~dy residing in substandard housing in this
area. HQ stated the Housing Uepartment is in Eavar oE thi~ proje~t.
'xNG PUF3LIC fIEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairwom~n L~z Clai.re atated the Commissi.c~n discuased this projF:ct with
repres~ntatives from lhe Nouaing Uepartment and learned what efforts have been
going on in that area whicti has eliminated a lat of Commission's questions.
Commissionec Herbst stated -~e would have a hard time justifyin9 approval
because of the accPSSibility to services which is not within Code.
Chairwoman La Claire staled she had those same concerns, but there seem~ ko be
a lot of people liviny in those units who are relatives of other people livirig
in the acea. She added l•here are mackets within a halt mile and some even
closer.
Commis~ioner Fry stated originally he was definitely opposed ~a this type
development i.n tt~is are~ because he did not think it would be compatible and
he agrees with Commissionec Fterbst that accessibility to the difEerent
~ervices is not what the Commission thinks it should be; howevec, he drove
throu~3h the area and remembers what it uaed to be like and sees what it is now
and what it could possibly become ard has changed his mind and is now in Eavor
oE the pr4ject.
ACTION: Commiss.ioner Fr.y offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner '~~:s:s and
MOTION CARRICD that the Anaheim City nlanning Commission has reviewect "~w~
proposal to permit an $-unit senior c~tizen apartm~nt complex with waivers of
minimum distance between building~ a~~d minimum area of private
recreational-leisure a:ea on a rectangularly-shaped par~:el of land consisting
o~ approxi~ately Q.23 acre havinc approximate fruntage of 75 feet on the east
side of Kemp Street and further descr:bed as 1034 an~9 '^38 Kemp Street; and
does hereby approve the Negative Decl~c~tion upon finci `~at it ha~s
cnnsidtred the Negative Declaration t~:~ge~.her with any cu~,~;: r^,~s r~~'~- °~d during
the public review process and furthe: firding on the basis oE tF.~ .~..ial
Study a:~d any cnmments rECeived that tnc~e is no substantial evie•,~. . that the
project. will have a significant et~ec; on the environment.
Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bauas and MATION
CARRIED that the Anaheim City F~lannin~ r;ommission does heceby grant waivers of
Code requirement on the basis :ha:~ c.r~ere are special circumstances applic~ble
to the property such as eize, shape, toP~graphy, location and sucroundings
which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity;
and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identicaJ. zone and
classification in the vicinity.
Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC85-259 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anat~eim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
12/9/85
. -+
. ~:
MINUTBS, ANAEI~IM CITY PLANN~ING C~MMISSION~ DECEMBER 9~ 1985 __ 85-67A
Condi.t.ional UeQ nerm~t No. 2733 pursuAnt to AnahPim MunicipaL Code S~ctions
18.U3.030.U30 through 1b.U3.03U.U35 and does heceby find that ev'_dence wds
submitted showing that said project i~ r.easonably accessible to the aecvices
inr.luding grocery stores, tranaik stops, me9ical facilltie~ and banks anc~
subject to Interdepartmental Committee recomrt~endations.
On roll call, the foregning resolutian was ~asse~ Uy the following vol•e
AYES: E30UAS~ FRY~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC DURN~Y~ MESSE
N0~5: HfsRBST
ABSENT: NONB
Cammissioner Herbst stated he did not vote in favor o[ this project becAUSe he
did not think the necessary ~ervices are reasonably a~:cessible.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, pre~er-ted the written cight to appeal
the Planning Commissi.on'3 decision witt~in 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIUN, R~;CLASSIFICA'PI.ON N0. 85-86-14 AND
VARIANCL•' N0. 3518
OWNERS: DOROTHY LBE MACDONALD, 925 S. Webster Ave., Anaheirn, CA ?'L804 and
'PHOMAS CHARLES CONWAY, 917 S. Websl•er Ave., Anaheim, CA 92804. AG~;NT: BLASH
MOMENY, 25283 Cabot Road, Suite 205, Laguna fiills, CA ~2653. Property
desctibed aa a rectangular.ly-shaped parcel of land consisting oE approximately
G.87 acre, 917 and 925 South Webster Avenue.
RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone.
Waiver~ of maximum Pence hei.ght and maximum struckural height to construct a
25-unit apartment building.
Continued from the meeting of November 25, 1985.
AC'PIUN: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ery and
MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to
the regularly-scheduled meeting of. January 6, 1986, in order for the applicant
to submit revised plans.
ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 205
OWNERS: HENRY B. WESSELN & THELMA M. WBSSELN, 9382 Thistle Road, Anaheim, CA
92804. AGENT: HUGO A. VAZQUEZ, 619 S. Live Oak Dr., Anaheim, CA 928'S.
Property is approximately 0.6 acre on the north side oE Lincoln Avenue,
appcox. 740 ft. west ot the centerline of Brookhurst Stceet.
An amendment to the land use element of the GEneral Plan: tu ca~~sider
alternate proposals nf ultimate land uses including b~~t not limited to general
commercial, low-medium density residential and medium density residential
designations.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
af the minutes.
12/9/85
,~
.,
v
,. ~ .
MiNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMEIF.R 9, 1985 __ 85-675
Greg Hastings, Aasociate Planner, preaented a statf repnrt inclicating this i~ a
property owner initiated General Pla~ Amendment cequest ~n U.G acres located on
the north side of Lincoln Avenue to chai~ye ~he general p.lan dPSignahion F.rom
general commercial to low rnedium dEn~ity and mediwn density residential
desi4nations. !i~ noted the ~tudy acea i~ luc~ted ad~acent to whAt has c" en
been con~ldered the City's primacy east-we:st ar.terial higtiway and is located
midway along an approximate one-mile lang general commercial str.tE~ designation
ad~acent to the north side of Lincoln Avenue. Hr. stated development plans t~ave
not accompanieci this reyueat; t~owever, thE applicant has indicated intentione
to consktuct a 24-uni~ afEordablc apar~.ment complex. Mr. Haa~ings explai.ned
sraff did discuss with the applicant some disadv~~ntages nf sut~j~:ct reyuest
including tt~e celatively smal.l size of. the acea and the fact that if it was
appcoved, it would create a law medi~~m oc medium den~ity island in a corridor
that is currently desiqnated for commezcial u~es.
Mr. Hasti.ngs stated the Zoning Code requ.ires develapment alor,y Gincoln Avenue
to maintain a bui].ding setback oE 3S fe~t and ~evelopers Y~ave afCen reque~ted
waivers oE the front setback iii order Lu rnaximize r,he density, and medium
density cesidential pro7ecCs adjacent tr~ arkerial hiyhways are required to Ue
sound attenuated also nece:sitating a 6--foat hiyh wall adjac~nt to the Eront
propeGty li.ne and if this amen~~ment a:, adopted, speciEic requitements and
improvements necessary wc~uld be addressed in a subsequenk staff report for
reclassification.
Elugo Vazquez, agent, slated thty are pucchasing this prope:ty and h~: ~ound out
quite by accident thar. when thF: lot was s~lit in the 7q's, that six feet along
ttie westerly side of this property whict~ abuts the shoe stote has l-o bP
ded~cated over to the shoe s~c,re by easement or jusC by ~iving the owner six
feet of the pr.operty an<~ the ~~tri~er alternat.ive would be to impxove the side of
that wall with a 2-hour fire wall i.n conformance with Code.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Fry asked the size af the lat. Greg Hastings stated the property
is 0.68 acre, 101 feet wide by 2~6 feet deep.
Commissioner McF3urney stated he did not think this i.s the proper ~lace to put a
residential 2one because oE the strip cornme~ccial along Lincoln. He added he
thouqht tfiis would look like "spot zon.ing" and he could not support it.
Commissioner Bouas agreed it would be `s~ot zoning".
Chairw~man La Claies sta~ed she Leels the same way and when thete is a General
Plan Amendment it is usually for the whale block oz a larye portion of it. She
stated everything along F:here is commerciale
AC'rION: ~omrtiissioner Fry of.fered a motion, seconded by Commissioner aouas and
MOTION CAI2RIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commissi~on has reviewed the
proposal to change the General P;an designatio~t from general commercial to low
medium density or mAdium density residential on a rectangularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of appcoximately 0.6 acre, having a frontage on the north
side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 740 teet wes*_ of the centerline of
Brookhurst Street; anci does tiereby approve the Negative Declaration upon
finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any
12/9/85
85-676
EIM CI_TY PLANNING COMMISSION D~CEMBF.R 9 1985
cammento received during tfie public revi~w pcoaess and further. finding on the
basis of the Initi.al Stu~y and any comrnents ceceived that there is no
substantial evidence that the projECt will have A signific.ant effect on the
environment.
Commissioner ~cy ofEered RCi~~~planning Commiss0onndoesVherebY deny~General~n~
adopL•ion that the Anaheim Y
Plan Amendment Nu. 205 oninhe~esidentiAl an'd geneoaldcommercial~land~useAnot be
campatible with the exist y
currently existing in the area an~9 that the current designation shou~d not e
chanyed.
On coll call, the fureyoing re3oluti4n was passPd by the Eollowing vote:
AYES' BOUAS, FKY, HF~RBST, LA C~AIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY- MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Malculrti Slaughtec, Ueputy City Attocney, explained in OLdP.C Eor this matter to
be set Eor public hearing befoce the City Council, it would have to be appPaled.
Hugo Vazquez stated he was advised by staff nol- to bring tl~e plan before the
Commission because of the size of tt~e patcel.
ITE~ M ND• 5 EIK N~GATIVE Dti~CLARATION (PREV. APPROVEll1 WAIV~R OE' CODE
REQUIREMENT ANU CONllIT10NAL USE ~'ERMIT NU. 2144 (READV.)
OWNERS: CI'PY OF ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 200 S. Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN:
NORMAN J. PRIEST, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOROXBURYNDRY,~BFVERL~(~HILLSD CA 90212, ATTN•
AGEN7': KING OF CALIEORNIA, 468 S. eles CA
LEO FREEDMAN and SHELDON L. P~LLACK CO~escr.ibed aslahrectangu~arlysstaped I
90010, ATTN: DAVID COLLINS. Property
parcel of lanc~ consisting of appcoximately 1.3 acres located at the notthwest
corner oP eroadway and Philadelphia Street.
To ~ermit a perfocming acts theatre and entertainment center and a restaurant
with on-sale alcohol and with waivers oE minimum number and type of pa:king
spaces and minimum landsca~ed setUack.
Thece was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and
althouqh the staff repoct was not read, it is referred to and made a part of
the minutes.
Leo Ereedman, 17U0 South Hacbor, Anaheim, was present to answer any yuestions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WA5 CLOSED.
Commissioner Ery stated it is his personal opinion that fWhich lisd201yea~sg
standpoint, tnis is an i~l-conceived, misplaced facility
behind its time and thoudeveltoamenttandShesis1not~inUfavortofnthe parking~ed ~e
is not in £avor of thls p will be used in off-houcs.
waivers, even though the parking
12/9/85
~~~o
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBEk y, 1985 65-677
Commiesioner tierbst sl•ated he would agree and he ia particularly concerned abouk
the parking with a 2300 seat theater having 95p parking sPaces required, with only
65U being provided. He stated he could aee when there is a successEul event with
large crowd~ every night, that there will be a parking problem on the stteets and
ottier parking lots in the area and he thought it is poorly planned,
Commissioner Bouas aaked if more pucking could be provided. Mr. FreedmAn stated
by actual experience at Melodyland, they tound there is a surplus of ~arking and
pointed out one bus carries 60 people and also, there is a lot of oEE-street
pnrking and the Cit,y has a new parking structure and noted he wauld be tt~e one to
suEfer if there is not enough ~~rking.
Commiasioner I3ouas stated th~ neig~»~~rs would be th~ ones to suffer because the
patr.ons would come to the theaCer and would park on the streets.
Mr. E'reedman stated there is ample parking and there is another parking Structure
further away and if reyuired, the theater could pay for valet parking. He stated
he would be wi.l.ling t~ make arrangements to lease other parking.
Mr. ~reedman state~ khe:e ~~i.ll be matinees on Saturdays and Sundays only and the
yuestion has been asked if the reataurant will be open duriny the lunch hour
duri.ng the week ~~nd h~e would leave that option up to the City because it could be
a con~enience tU have it open for lunch for people in the area.
Commissioner 9oua:3 statPd maybe there would be people patronizing the restaurant
within wa~r..tn~a distanc~ so parking would not be required. She stated at this
point it wauld be S.mpossible to make a decision about the restaurant since it is
not knoan what type oE restaurant it will be. M~. Fceedman stated it will be a
nice restaurar-t because this will be a first class facility.
Commissioner Bouas referred t~ cehearsals and Mr. Freedman stated the theater will
be closed on Mondays and rehearsals generally will be done some othar place,
except for the principles of the performance. He stated the rehearsal hall is in
the second building on Philadelphia Stceet and stated there are othec rehearsal
halls available.
Commissioner Messe stated rehearsals could be some plac.e else, but asked where
they would most likely be held. Mr. Freedman stated they wi11 probably be held
here on dark nights. Commissioner Messe asked about rehearsals for a production
where there are a lok of performers. Mr. Freedman stated they would use an
outside rehearsal hall with a dress-rehearsal on Monday nights at this theater.
Commis3ioner Bouas asked about L•he 90-day not.ice to the City of programs and
refecred to a time when there will be no proyrams scheduled and a local high
scliool may want to use the facility and they could not be~ause oE the 90-day
notice to the City requirement.
Malcolm Slaughter stated under the terms c~f the lease to the City and King of
California, they are required to give the City 90-days notice i.n advance of
nerformances.
12/9/85
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 9~ 1985 85-678
Norman Prieat explained this is being handled ~h!:ugh a leASe and the ~eveloper is
paying Eoc the use oE the Eacility and the nci~edule he ie outlining would be known
aubata.ntially in advance and the lease p[ovides specific hours and days of
operation. He stated he was not auce what the 90-day notice of evenhE provides as
long aH he ia paying foc the lease, unl.eas it ofEers that if the tacility is not
scheduled, he does not have to pay. Malcolm Slaughter stared the reason for this
requicement is thpt the City is obligated to operate, police and otherwise r.un the
patking f.aci~ity, including the obligation tr ~ol:e~t parking fee~ established by
the lessee.
Norman priest stated it would t~e up tu Mr. Ereedman to insure that the notice
given because of the operating personnel. necessary tu run the facility.
Chairwoman La Claire stated she is concerned about the parking and wants t
theater to be a big success and would be in favor oE this request if the
petitioner would agree to a condition to provi.de additional parking in the
if necessary, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer.
Nor.man Pr~est stated Mr. Ereedman has already liad to undertake khe PCeproariateoif
a paCking study and pointed out the condition as suqgested might be app p
the Traffic Engineer could give eeasonable assurance at this point that he is not
certain rhat this is a sound deveaopment. tte stated there are 650 parking spacps
on this side of the street and another 650 packing s~aces across the street and it
seems whaL- the Commission is asking is inappropriate and is a likely event, but it
is asking tt-e develo~er to commit a rather substantial amount oi money and quite
possibly jeopardize his operation, unlesa the Cily can give him reasonable
assucance that it is likely to occu~, so he can allow f~r it. He stated if the
Traffic Engineer said moce par.king is needed, until the developer found more
parking, he would have to sto~ his operation. He skated the site is in the
kedevelopment area whece parking is very diEficult to obtain by actions of the
Redevelopment Agency itself.
Commissioner t~erbst asked what could be done if that situation occurs. Paul
Singer stated a parking study was conducted for the Redevelopment Agency by Wilbur
Smith and Associates and indicates that under the worse conditions and if their
recommendations are follawed, theGe would be a deficit of 42 spaces and that would
occur only when there is a City Council meeting in session and a full house at the
theater, but under normal circumstances, there wauld be a surplus of 67 parking
spaces. He added in order to accomplish the parking as suggested by t.he traffic
study, valet parking would have to be instituted to an open lot at City Hall and
the applicant has agceed to thak. He stated he really does not see there will be
a shortage o£ parking.
Chairwoman La Claire st.ated she agrees, given the present situatian and the
recommendations in the ceport, but in the future if this area develops differently
and the City of Anaheim had more employees and more parking is needed, that could
be a pzoblem. Paul Singer stated the parking structure was designe~ so that in
tt~e Euture if. there is a Parking shortage in the area, another parking structure
could be added on the vacant lot and if there is a parking shortage in the area,
it will not be caused by the theater, but by other adjacent businesses and at this
time it would not be a problem. She stated she hopes this theater is a success,
but was concerned that if it isn't, what it could be converted to. Norman Priest
stated there is a public parking structuee across the street for 650 to 700 spaces
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER 9, 1985 85-679
and the develoNer has talked about and expressed a willingnesa Eor valet parking
and those spaces could be made availaale and a portion are available now on a
non-designated baAis.
Chairwoman La Claire stated ahe did not understand why there is sa much oppoRition
to the suggested condition since there is parking availAble and noted lhat would
be required of: any developer.
Norman Priest stated the condition t~ pcavide some undetecmined amount of parking
is his concern and at this point, there is parking available an~ Aaked if it is
possible ro sNecify or afEer him a maximum number that could be required. He
asked if the petitioner could be required t~ obtain a11 his parking ac~neplace else.
Chairwoman La Claire stated that is not what is i.n the agreement with the City.
Norman Priest stated he was not sure what the Commisaion is ceferring to when they
say, "in the future", or what the requirement would be and I~e wa~ worriPd for the
procedure of an undetermined amaunt of parking in the future.
Chairwoman ~a Claire stated Commission has requi.red rnany developers to agree to
khis condition, especial.l,y when there is a shortage of parking spaces. She stated
in lieu of parking, the Commission has required a condition of many developecs
that iE and when, in the opinion of the Traffic Engineer, there is a parking
prublem and the TrafEi.c Ei~gineer requires the parking ceqi~irements be met, that
parking be provided, and i.t duesn't say how it i.s to be provided.
Commissioner Bouas stated there has t,een a time limit imposed on that condition.
Paul Singer stated he believes there were thcee instances when this condition was
imposed and the three developecs posted bonds equaling the cost oE providing the
spaces and this would be quite an imposition on this developer. He stated he
really fee.ls quite comfortable that r.here is adequate parking in the downl•own area
at night for this particular development. He stated Anaheim is strictly a day
time downtown area and there will be plenty of parking available.
Commissioner Messe ~sked Mr. Singer to review the yitual•ion with a full theater
when City Council is meetinq.
paul Singec staked patron parking for the theater has a different vehi.cular
occupancy rate than nar.mal business parking requirements, with the business
parking rate being 1.2 persons per vehicle and the study indicates, the vehir.ular
occupancy rate for the theater would be 2 persons per vehicle, which reduces the
need ior packing further. He stated the wors~ con~ition that would occur would be
a difference of 193 parking spaces if thare were no valet parking and the surface
parkiny .lot was not used for stacked parking, but there would be adequate parking
and with stackr+parking thece would be a difference of 42 spaces; however, under
normal conditions, there would be a G7 vehicle surplus available parking for the
theater and he did not see a rea~ problem.
Commissioner Lawicki asked if the restau:ant wil.l be operated independently from
the theater, wondering whether or not there will be people coming strictly for
dinner.
12/9/85
MINUTCS ANA}IEIM CzTY PLANNING COMMISSION I)ECEMB~R 9 1985 85-680
Mr. Singer stated the wors¢ condition foc ~he ~estaurant woul~ be lunch hour
traff.ic, but then approximately 758 of the patrons to the reotaurant for lunch
would be witti:n walking distance, similar to Fuddruckere and other restaurantR in
the downtown area and similar to the re~t~urants around Disneyland. IIe atated he
did not tliink the restiaurant itself will generate a parking prublem and doubted it
wauld attcact patron~ ott~er than tho~e attending the theater. Mr. Freedman
explained the eestaurant will be operated completely under the theatet's
jurisdiction and that the restaurant aeats about 150 people. Ne stated they have
~lready given u~ 50 se~ts in order to accommodate Mr. Singer's traEEic plan.
Commissioner Mesae stated it was indicated there could be a 42 space difference if
stacked parking was utili2ed and Paul Singer stated stacked parking would be
utilized Eor a sell-out performance and the recommendaeion is that the applicant
has to abide Ly the parking plan provided.
Norman Pziest stated the operation ot the ~arkinq lot is within the jurisdiction
of- the City and not the th~ater.
Commissioner Herbst stated some cities do not allow stack~parking and the ~ir.e
Depactment does not approve of it and ~asked iE the Fire Depar.tment has been
contacted about this proposal. Malcolm Slaughter staL-ed generally cities do not
permi~ stack.~parking to be counted [or purpose~ oE zoning requirements and tt~at
que~tion should be checked.
Commissioner. Herbst atated I~e wou]d disagree that there would t~e plenty of
parking. P~ul Sinyer explained the packing he has Ueen referrin9 to is public
parking.
Commissioner Herbst stated hopefu~ly downtown Anaheim will grow and the Commission
has to look at the long rangP overall picture and he did not think it would be
appropriate to grant a variance fnr this much future parkin~. He disagreed with
the parking proposal because Anaheitn does not have public transportation like
other cities and all patrons will arrive by private vehicles and referred t.o
parking at the Stadium when the Rams have a sell-out yame. Paul Singer noted
parking iG accommodated for those Rams games.
Chairwoman LaClaire stated she finds it very interesting that the Cotnmission is
acyuing with staff when they should be arguing with the developer; that the
Commission understands that the Traffic Engineer feels the parking, as proposed,
is sufficient, and Commission believes that is true right now and asked if the
petitioner would object to a condition that if in the fut~re it is determined that
additional parking is needed, to pc~vide that additional parking.
Mr. Freedman asked how that would be stipulated without him jeopaCdizing his
project. He stated he is not even remotely concerned about the parking and if it
could be stipulated in such a manner n~t to jeopardi2e his financing~ etc., he
would be happy to agre~: to such a condition. He stated it would not affect the
financing at the moment and that he has just gone through a tremendoeatsa~ole with
the Traffic F.ngineer and that they did reduce the theatCe by fifty
accommodate the Traffic Engineer recommendations and that if patrons are ~aying
~25.00 for a ticket and it would cost him ~5.00 to rent a parking space, then he
would be willing to pay that $~.00, but did not think that needs to be included as
a condition.
12/9/85
~
~
~
~ ,
~. ;`
MINUTESj ANAHETM CITY PLANNING COM~9IaSI0N DF,CEMBER 9 1985 85-681
Chairwoman I~a Claire s~ated she felt it should be included because some~iay these
Cnmm~.c~sioners and ataff inember3 wi11 not be here, but there will be people living
in h~he area •
Nialcolm ~laught~r stated there have been some auggestions pertaining to va.let
parkin~~ and wanted to make sure thal• it is known khat the City is not under any
obligation to provide that valet PaHeiadde~orhisris~aeconditaonalnuse~pecmittandr•
Freedman providing valet parking.
iE circumstances concerninq the ~arking 3hould become a p~oblem, revocation
p[oceedinqs are ~vailable.
Norman Priest asked if it is deter.tnined that there is a parking need, would the
condil•ian require the developer to provide parking spaces other than the 963
reyuired by Code and indicated he was concerned because he did not know what the
maximum number would be. Chairwoman La Claire stated the number required by Code
is khe maximum and added that additional parking may i~ever be need4d and that the
devEloper will nnt even have to post a bond to g~~arantee the parking.
Mr. Freedman stated he would agree to that proposed con~3ition, as long as it reads
that he will "provide" addi~ional parking spaces and not 'acquire" them. He
stated this will be a fine facility which the City will be proud oE.
it was noted that a negative declaration was previously approved for this project.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki
and MOTION CAREtIED that the Anaheim City Planninq Commission does hereby grant
waiver (a) on the basis r_he parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic
congestion in the irnmediate vicinity nor adversely affPct any adjoining land uses
and granting of the parl:inq waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not
be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general wel:ace of the citizens of
the City oF Anaheim; and waiver (b) on the basis that there are special
circumstances applicable to the properky such as size, shape, topography, location
and surroundings whicl~ do not apply to other ide7tically zoned propetty in the
same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoninq Code deprives the
property of privileges enjoyed by other propArties in the identical zone and
classification in ti7e vicinity.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC85•-261 and moved for its passacje and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant an amendment
to Conditional Use Permit No. 2144, approvinq re4ised plans and conditions.
On roll call, the Eoregoing resolution was passed ~y the following vote:
AYES: 80UAS~ HERBST, LA CGAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: FRY
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Atturney, presented the written righ~ to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision withic~ 22 days to the City Council.
12/9/85
r
MINUTF.S ANAH~IM CITY PLANNI;~G COMMIS52UN D~;CEMBER 9 1985 H5-681
Chairwoman La Claire stated ehe Eelt it should be included becattse someday these
Commisoionera and staff inembera will not be hece, but there will be people living
in the area.
Malcolm Slaughter stated there have been ~ome suggostionfi pertaining ko valet
parking and wanted to make aure that it is known tt~At the City is not under any
obligation to provide that valel• parking; however, the City does not object to Mr.
Freedman providing vale~ parking. Ne added this is a conditional use permit and
iE circumstances concerning the parking stiould become a problem, revocation
proceedings Sre av~ilable.
Norman Priest asked if it is deter~~~ined that there is a parking need, wou.ld the
condition require the developer to provide parking spaces other than the 963
required by Code and indicated he was concerned because he did not know what thE
maximum number would be. Chairwoman La Claire ~tated the number require~ by Code
i~ the maximum and added that additional parking may never be nee~ed and that the
developer will not even have to post a bon~] tc, quarantee the ~arking.
Mr. hreedman stated he would agree to that pr~posed condition, as long as it readti
that he will "pcovide" additional parking spaces and not "acyuire" them. He
stated r.his will be a fine Eacility wt~tch the City will be proud of.
J.t was noted thaC a negative declac~tion was previously approved for this project.
ACTION: Commissioner Eierb~t offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner. Lawicki
and MOTION CARl2IED that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hereby grar~t
waiver (a) on the basis the packing waiver will not cause an increase in traffic
congesti.on in the itnmediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses
and granting of the parkinq waiver under the condi.tions imposed, if any, will not
be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welface oE the citizens of
the City of Anaheim; and waiver (b) on the basis that there are special
ciccumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topogcaphy, location
and surroundinqs which do no~ apply to other identically zoned property in the
same vicinity; ar~d that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the
property of priv:ileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
classification iil the vicinity.
Commissioner Elerl~st offered kesolution No. PC85 -261 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant an amendment
to Conditional Use ~ermit No. 2144, approving revised plans and conditions.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ HERBST, ~..A CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NU~S: FRY
ABSEPJ'P: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Con~mission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
12/9/85
MINUTFS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 9, 1985 85-682
ITEM N0. 6 EIK NEGATIVE DBCLAkATION, WATVER OF CODE REQUIRF.MENT AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT N0. 2742
OWN~kS: CALI~URNIA PROPERTIES PENSiON ~UND, 245 F'ischec Ave., ~D1, Coata Mesa, CA
92626. AGENT: CALVARY CHRISTIAN CENTER, 3452 E. Orangethocpe, Anaheim, CA 92806,
ATTN: JOE ~ALL and C. NORMAN PULI.IAM, 1517 North Fairview, Santa Ana, CA 92706.
Property described as an iccegu.larly-ahaped E~arcel of land conaisting oE
approximately 2.91 acres, 13452 and 3A56 G. Ocangechorpe Avenue.
To permit a chuxch in the CL Z~ne with waiver oF minimum number oE ~ar~ing spaces.
There was no one indicating their presence .in o~position to cubject request and
although the staEE report was not read, it is reEerred to and made a parr oE the
minuteo.
Pastor Joe eall, agent, explained most of ~he storea i.n this center are closed
when they are having ci~urch service,^
Regina Flarcien, 1517 North Fairview, Santa Ana, stated she r.epresents the ownera of
the sh~ppinq center and they ace in favoc of this church and pointed out two okher
businessea in this center are religiously-orier.r.ed and are compatible with this
church.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSED.
Commissioner Messe asked if there are any plans fur a day care center at thia
facility. Pastor Ball reaponded they have no plans for any school activities or
day centec centers at this site.
Responding to Commissioner Bouas, I'c,star Bal] stated they have a one-year lease.
Commissioner Messe stated he was by tlie Eacility }~esterday d~ring their services
and saw no problem.
ACTION: Commissi~ner Fry o.Efered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim Ciky Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal
to permit a ctiurcn in the CL (Commercial, Limited) zone wi.th waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces on an ieregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 2.91 acre, having a frontage of approximately 1,Q80 feet on the
so~ath side of Orangethorpe Avenue, further described as 3452 and 3456 East
Ocangethorpe Avenue; and does tiereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding
tr~at it has consideced tt~e Negative Declaration together with any comments
received during the public r.eview process and further finding on the basis of the
Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that
the prnject will h~ve a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Fry offered a motion, secarded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION
CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commissi.on does hereby :ant waiver of code
requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in
traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining
land uses and qranting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any,
will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfar.e of the
citizens of the City o~ Anaheim.
12/9/85
MINUTES, ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMIS~ION, DECEMBF.R 9,_1985 85-683
Commissioner Fry oifered Resolukion No. PC 85-262 And moved fnr its paesage and
~dontion that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion daes hereby grart Conditional
Use Pecmit No. 2642, pucsuant to Anaheim Mun~cipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030
through 1R.030.U30.035 foC a period of two (2) years, to expire Decembet 9, 1987,
and suu~oct to Tnterdepartmenta.l Committee Recommendationc.
On rol.l call, the foregoing resoliition was pi~ssed by Lhe Eollowing vote:
AYES: ~OUAS~ FKY~ HERB5T~ LA CLAIRL, LAWICKI~ MC 9URNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONC
ABSLNT: NONE
Malcolm Slauyhter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written righC to ap~eA1 the
Planning Cornmission's deciston within 22 days to the City Council.
TTEM N0. 7 EIR CATEGORICAL BXFMPTJON-CLASS 3 ANU CONDITIONAL USG PERMI'P N0. 2743
PUBLI(' HBARING. OWt~~l2S: OWNERS: ROE3ERT C. 5'POVALT~ AND LOIS S'POVALL, 1.110 W.
Katella, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: JAMES STOVALL, .187U S. Chris Ln., Anaheim, CA
92805. Property described as u cectangulacly-~haped Parc:el of land consisting of
approxir~ately U.69 acre, 1870 South Chris Lane.
To per.tnit a?.imousine and bus rental service.
There was no one indicating their pr~sence in opposition to subject request and
although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part ot the
minutes.
Jim Stovall, agent, explained ;: is in the hotel business and just recently
stacted this bus and limousine ~ervice. He stated his brother owns this building
located in the Anat~eim Stadium area.
THE PUBI~IC HEARINC WAS CLOSED.
It was noted the Planning Dicector or his authorized cepresentaL•ive has determined
that the E~ruposed project fa11s within the definition of Categorical Exzmptions,
Class 3, as defined in the Gh.ate Envi.ronmental Impact Report Guidelines ahd is,
thecefore, cateyorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner McBurney ofcered Resolution No. PC85-263 and movpd for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dops hereby grant
Conditional Use permit No. 2743 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section
18.03.U3U.030 through 18.030.030.035 and subjert to Interdepartmental Committee
Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pass~d by the following vote:
AYES: T30UAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presenked the writken right tc appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
12/9/85
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION, U~CEMBER 9, ]9~5 85-684
ITEM N0. 8 EIR NEGA'PIV~ DECLAI2ATIUN, WAIVGit_OF CODE RG~UTl2EMENT AND CONDITIONAL
USC PERMIT N0. 2746
PUBGIC FIEARING. OWNE;RS: OWNERS: SOUTHERN PACTEIC COMMUNICATIONS C0. , c/o GTE
SP1tIN'r CUMMUNICATION CORP., P.0• Bo~ 974, E3urlingame, CA 9a01Q, ATTN: JACK
UAVIDSUN. AGENT: .JORDAN ARCNITLCTS, INC., 16218 McDUrmott, ~D, Irvin~, CA
92714. Pcoperty c~escriued ay a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consist:ing of
approximately 1.52 acres, 1776 Penl~all Way.
To permit a publ:c selt-storage fac:llty and on-site m~~nager's residence with
waiver uf minimum number of pArkinq s~~aces.
ThFre was no one indicating thPir pre.~ence in op~ositl~n to subject request and
althougt~ the slaff report was not read, it i:~ rNEerred to and made a part oE the
minates.
Bruee Jordan, architecti agent, presented a color.ed extiibit of the nroposal.
'PNE PUBLIC HF:ARTNG WAS CLOSGU.
Chai:woman La Claire asked it there will be controlled acce4s. '1r, Jordan
re~ponded there will be a manager's oEfice and the gate woulc3 be o~ened by the
manayer and noted there is very little traffic generated by this ty(~~ use.
ACTIqN: Commissioner Fcy oEEerec~ a motion, seconded by Commissionec Bouas and
b1oTI0N CARRIED that the An~heim City Planning Comi~iission has reviewed the proposal
to permit a public self-sto~:age facitity and on-stte manag~c's unit with waiver of
minimum number of parkinq spacec ai~ a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consi~ting of ap~roximately 1.52 acres having a Erontage of approximately 240 feet
on the south side af Penhall Way and further described as 1i76 Penhall Way; and
does hereby approve the Negative Declaration uoon finding that it has con~idered
the Negative Declara~ion together witt, any comtnents received during tt~e public
review process and Eurther finding on the basis of the Initial Srudy and any
co~runents received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have
a signifir,ant effact on the enviconment.
Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Comr~issioner Bouaa and MOTION
CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commi~sion does hereby grant waiver of code
requirement ori the basis that the p~rkiny waivec will not cause an iricrease in
traffic congestion in the iinmediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining
land uses ar,d grantir~g of the Farking waiver uncler the conditions imposed, if any,
will not be detrimental to ttie E~eace, health, saEet,y and general welfare oF the
citizens of the City oE Anaheim.
:~mmissioner Fry of£er.ed Resolution No. PC85-264 ~nd moved for its passage and
adoption tha~ tt,e Anaheim City Planning Commission ~oes hereby grant Conditianal
Use P~rmit No. 2746 pursuant to Anat~eim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030
Ltirouyh 18.Q30.030.035 arid subject to Interdepartmental Commiktee Recommendations.
On roll ca11, the fore~o~ng resolution was passed by the following vote;
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HEkBSTi LA CI~AIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOE~: NONk:
ABS~NT: NONE 12/y/g5
h
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECGMBER 9, 1985 85-685
Malcolm Sla~~ghter, neputy City Attocney, prerer~tc~d the writken right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 9 ~IH NEGA'rIVE UECLARATTQN (FREV. AI~k'ttUVLD) AND CONDITIONAL USE PF.RMIT
N0. 1858 (REA~VERTIS~D)
PUBLIC NEARINGS FOR TSME EX'~ENSIOtJS. OWNER: OTTIS E. PI'1'TMAN, 14U1 N. Jetferson
Street, Anaheim, CA 92~07. Pro~erl•y described as a rectangularly-shaped parcFl of
.land consisting of approximately 5.0 acres, 1401 North .Tefferbon Street.
Requeat Eor a 5-year (2-year retroactive) extension o£ time ur deletion of
Condition No. 12 of Resolution No. PC78-126 perta.ining to ceyuired extension oE
time to r~tain a cat kennel and maintenance and ctorage yard fot heavy eyuipment.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to cubject request and
although the stafE report was not read, it is reEerred to and macle a part oE the
minutes.
Ot~is Pittman, 1621 W. Lindendale, Full.erton, petitioner, explained he is
reyuesting a temporary extension oE time until the sale of this property can be
finali2ed; that this is an unusual propecty and t~e could prcvide a copy of the
restrictions and reservati~ns on the propecty which make it difficult to develop,
and no~ed to build any structures on the property, they muat pzovide a 100-foot
setback From the well site which would restc.ict any permanent buildings.
Kendra Morries, Assistant Planner, responded to Commissioner McBurney that
Conditions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 could be delayed until the property is upgraded or
permanently developed; tt~ar. Condition No. 1 require~ street improvements on
Jefferson Street and ttie Engineering Uivision is asking that that cor~c~ition be
complied with now; and that Condition No. 7 has not been complieci with.
Chairwoman La Claire stated the petitioner wants ec•erything to be extended for six
months and Commissioner Messe stated the request is for a six-:~onth extension
after the close of escrc.;. Chairwoman La Claire suggesl:ed an eight-month
extension only.
Commissioner Herbst asked if the buyer is aware of the conditions that. must be
met. Mc. PiLtman stated the 5uyer has about 45 acres adjoining this property and
they are awar.e of the requirements and will be coming before the Commission for
approval.
ACTION: Commissioner McBucney offered Resolution ho. PC85-265 and moved for its
pasaage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planninq Commission does hereby grant
an eight-month extension of timE to Pxpire on August 9, 1986, on the basis that
the use is being e~cercise~ in a manner not detrimental to the particular area and
surrounding land use~ nor to the public peace, health, safety and genera]. wclface.
12i 9/85
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION QECF.MHER 9 1985 85-686
ITEM N0. 10 RE~ORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2622 - Request from C. ~. E. Devel.opment
(propecty owner) for an extension of time for Conditional UsE~ Permit N~.
2622, property located at 505 South Anaheim Hills Road.
ACTION: Commissioner Ery ofEered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Herbat and MUTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby gcant a 1-ye~r l2-month r~troactive) extension of time Eor
Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2622 to expire on O~tobec 1, 1986.
g. NILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE - Request for a wai.ver oE the requirement c~f
the City oE AnahPim Hillside Grddzng Ordinance as it relatEtt to the
location oE manufactured slopes within resi.dential lots o£ ~'ract No.
10972, located within the Anaheim ttills area nortt~ of Caminc~ Grande and
south of Noh1 Ranch Road.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst oftered a motion, secondedommis~iongdoes~r
Fey and MO'PION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning
hereby recommend to the City Council ap~rovaJ. of the reyuest f.or waiver
of the tiillside Gcading Ordinance as it celates tu the loca~ion of
manufactured slapes within residentiai lots of Tract No. 10972.
C. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT - Am~ndment to Section 18.04.OSU of the Anahei.m
Municipal Code relating to required improvements.
ACTION: Commissioner Hecbst offered a-~otion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouac an~ MOTZON CAItF.tED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council adoption of the draft ordinance
amending Section 18.U4.080 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to
required improvements.
ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Fry oFfered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MO'PION CARRIED that the meeting be adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
Respec~fully submitted,
~~.~~ - ~ .
Edith L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
ELH:lm
0159m
ia/y/as