Loading...
Minutes-PC 1961/12/18h" . ':}•<(~r ~5 f~ ,,7 1 ~ ' t • 3 T~ar~i-. >. - . . ~ , aa, ,~ }~ ° _ ~ .__ _ Ci'ty:.,Hali. ~ ~ Anaheim, California December 18, 1961 DJOURNEO REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CIiY PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOU~CNEO REGULAR - An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was MEETING called to order by Chairman Gauer et 2:15 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being ~ present. PRESENT - CHA~RMAN: Gauer; COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Hapgood, Marcoux, Pebley, Sumners. . ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Mungall, Perry. PRESENT - Planning Director - Richard Reese Senior Planner - Martin Kreidt Assistant City Attorney - Joe Geisler Commission Secretary - Jean Page CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by LEO FREEDMAN, 2018 ColdwaterCanyon,. PERMIT N0. 186 Beverly Hills, California, Owner; raquesti~g permission to CONSTRUCT THEATER - CONVENTION HALL on property described as: An "L" shaped parcel with a frontage of 60 faet located on the east side of Harbor Boulevard between Katella Avenue and Midway Drive; its southwest corner being approximately 1,205 feet north of the northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue. Property presently classifiad in the R-A, Residential A9ricul~tural, Zone. Mr. Leo Freedman, the petitione~, appeared before the Commission and described the proposed establishment of a theater-convention hall on the subjecx property. He indicated that the proposed theate.r-in-the-round would have a seating capacity for 3,000 persons, that it would have a ~ w circular stage 36 feat in circumference, that during the summer months it would be utilized for musicai piays and entertainment, that during the winter months it could be used as a banquet or convention hall, that there was a need for the facility in Anaheim, and Chat religious services ~ and athletic events could be accomodated. He dispiayed an architect's • rendering of the proposed development, described the unique method of installation, presented a rendering of an existing facility established • in San Diego, and stated that the proposed development would be similar to one in San Uiego. Mr. Freedman informed the Commission that he considered the proposed parking layout to be adequate and stated that additional parking facilities could be provided on the adjacent Charter- house Hotel property. He stated further that he had a signed agreement I with the Edison Company to utilize a portion of their property for an access strip. ~ The Commission discussed Code parking requirements and noted that the Code requires 600 parking spaces and that the proposed plans were 6 spaces sfiort of compl'rance wlth Code requirements. Chairman Gauer point- ed out, however, that Code requirements were not.realisttc and that 600 spaces would not be adequate for a 3,000 seat facility. 1n response to inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Freedman indicated that at the present time alcoholic beverages would not be sold on the premises. However, the design of the building.might include an area for such a use. The matter of access to the subJect property and traffic circulation was discussed at some length. Mr. Fraedman indicated that a 60 foot street would be provided from Harbor Boulevard adjacent to the Charterhouse Hotel where the Standard Oil Company service statiun installation will be comrrenced in January, 1962. Commissioner Pebley expressad strong objec- tion to the use of Clementine Streer.for the provision of access souther- ly to Katella Avenue, because he considered the traffic that would be ~ ' 599 ! bIAMETER i ti r ..n~~~ r~~ . . "... F ~.' ' • .:. '. ~ . f. r:.. " . ! l ! '..'. . ' .. . 4r,f,..:~.f5 . .i..~~ . . . ,~. . . . .~:~...., ..} ~ r...~: ~ i.~ ... .,. ~. i~~..L'~_f.<.~W4t+T.~la ~+.~.....~+- . ~ ~...1.J..+-,.. ~ ----- ---.^._.~ . ----- ~ I l~ ~' ' , i ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMlSSION. December 18, 1961 Continued: ~ 600 ~ ~ CONOiTIONAt USE - generated by the subject development to be detrimental to the industrial PERMIT N0. 186 properties in that area. Mr. Freedman indicated further that he had in- I ~Continued) stalled two streets in the subject area, and that he owned the parcel of ~, , land located easterly of subject property. The Cortmission discussed k' the possible extension of Clementine Street to Katella Avenue on the ~; . ~ south and Mr. Freedman indicated there was the oossibiliry ef ~re~~?din~ ~~. . ~ a road northerly or easterly to the freeway frontage road. He cornpiained~ ~' , about the lack of streets extending easterly from Harbor Boulevard in ~ the subject area. In response to inquiry from Commissioner Pebley, Mr. ~ Freedman stated that he would be happy to provide land for an access street but that he considered the cost to be the City's responsibility. ~ , ~:~...-..e The Commission discussed the possibility of obtaining a recommendation ~ from the City Engineer relative to street layouts for the subject area, I and it was pointed out that it would be difficult to prepare a precise • layout of the circulation pattern with possible street alignments either ~ to the freeway frontage ruad or northerly to Alro Avenue because it ~ ` would invo)ve the State Division of Highways and because it would have to fit in with private developmentydetails of which are not available at I the present time. The Commission discussed the feasibility of stubbing the proposed street into the freeway frontage road at the present time or to wait until the property easterly of subject property is developed. ~ r'l,.. Mr. Freedman pointed out to the Commission that the Stanford Research Survey had determined that a convention facility was necessary for the Anaheim area, and Chairman Gauer indicated that it was agreed that such a facility was needed and the proposed development appeared to be a fine conventio~:i facility. He stated, however, that it would be prudent to insure that adequate access and parking area be provided at the Cime of development rather than to face the problem of traffic congestion in the future. Chairman Gauer stated that, in his opinion, an averali pian for the future street development of the area should be considered in order to avoid future probiems, and that the success of the project would, in large part, depend upon provisions for tha public convenience and the public safety. Mr, Freedman requested that the Commission grant the subject petition in.accordence with plans presented and stated that he woula work out the parking and access problems with the City Engineer to meet the Council's approval at the time that he presented his proposal to the City Council. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEO. Commissioner Pebley stated that, in his opinion, it would be best for the existing development in the subject area if the traffic from the pruposed convention facility could be directed toward Harbor Boulevard and north- erly to Alro Avenue or easterly to the freeway frontage road rather than to be directed southerly toward Katella Avenue. He stated that to per- mit the amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed fac- ility to utilize thos~ streets serving the industrial section would be an injusti.ce to the industria'. development. Mr. Pebley inquired about the possibility that the subject petition be approved subject to the posting of a bond to insure the installation of appropri~te access roads within a two year period of time. Mr. Freedman indicated his willingness to dedica~e the property for access purposes but that it should be the City's responsibility to complote the constructiort. Chairman Gauer indicated that the provision of adequate access would be for the pubiic safety and welfare. Commis- sicner Pebley stated that it was the Commissi:~n's responsibility to recommand specific condtl•tons for the proposed development that would comply with the requirements of the Code and would provide for ~he public safety and welfare, and that it was wlthin the Council's jurisdiction to 601 MIMI;TES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 18, 1961, Continued; CONBITIONAL USE - review the Commission's recommendations and to revise them if it was PERMIT N0. 186 considared necessary. ~Conttnucd) ~ ~ Mr. Freedman stated that he would rather post a bondfor the provision of adequate access rather than dedicate the property at the prasent time becaus~ at a future date he might wish to develop the subject and abut- ting properties in a manner that would conflict with the dedication. He agreed, however, that the access road should be extended through the subject and abutting properties in order to provide adequate curculation The Commission noted that the plans submitted with the subject petition do not show ingress and egress to the subject property, that access roads are not shown, and that the parking area adjacent to the Charter- house Hotel, indicated by Mr. Freedman as being a part of the parking area, is not show~. Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that it would be difficult and impractical to stipulate the exact location of access roads at the present time for the subject and abutting properties as a condition of approval. He indicated, however, that access and dedication could be required from the site through tha adjoining property to the freeway frontage road, that a bond could be posted to insure the pro- vision of access, and that it could be stipulated that in no event would access be extended to connect wiYh Clementine or Zeyn Streets. A Staff Report and Interdepartmental Committee recommPndations were read to the Commission. T~e Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the subject petition: .~ l. That the petitioner requests a Conditional Use Permit for which provtsion is made in Code, Section 18.64.020 (3-j} to permit the establishment of a theater-convention hall on subject property. 2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land usES and the growth and development of the area in which it is pro- posed to be located. 3• That the size and shape of the site p~oposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will notimpose an un- due burden upon the streets and highways designed and proposed to carry the traffic in the area; provided that access easterly to the freeway frontage road is provided. ' 5• That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and gant~•al welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 6. That it is hereby racommended in the event properties abutting to the east of su~,;ect property are developed with facilities catering to large assembiages of people, that access be limited to Harbor Boulevard and the f~••rev~ay frontage road only and that Zeyn Street and Clementine Street be cul-de-saced to prevent a conflict of heavy traffic with the oxisting industries established on these two streets. ~. _. ~ . ~ ~ • ~ ~ '~ ~. .~ 7. That no one appeared in opposition to subJect petition. I ~ : ~ ~ C) 602 MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISS10N, December 18,1961 Continue6: • CONDITIOMAL USE - Commissi;,ner Fcoley offered Resolutian No. 175> Seri°s 1961-62, and ~ PEP.,iT N0. 186 moved for its passa,ye and adoption, seconded by Ca~nmissioner Summer_, tc~ iContinued} grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 186, subject to the follow- r. , ing conditions: l. 2. 3• 4. 5• 6. Developmc~~°t ~cc:bstantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 ar~d 2, ( with t~a provis;ort that parking area be provided on the basis~ af one parkinq -,~~dse fur every five (5) seats in the assembi; building. j. De~iicati~r„~•~ 6G feet for the proposed ruad from the Conventi~n Hall site to Fiarb:~r Bo~~levard. Preparati~~~ or sirae.t improvement plans ana i~,s?~Ilation of 311 ~m- ~ro~ements for the proposed road from ths: ConvenL:on Hall s3te to Harhor Boulevard. subject to the approvai of the City EnginPar and in accordanc4 w(th the adopted standard plans on file in the Office. of the C9ty cngineer. Installation of street lights on the proposed road from the Cor~vention Hail site to Harbor Boulevard in accordance with a street lighting pian approved by the Director of Public Utilities. Dedication o~` a raadway sixty (60) feet in width to provide access from the subjeo*. ~roperty to the frreway frontage road easterly of subjecY property, the alignment of sai~ roadway to be s~~bject ta thE• approval of the City Engineer. Posting of a bond for the period of two {2) yea:s to ~,nsure the pc~e- peration of strevt improvement plans ar.d ?~st:llation or al i~:r.r~:;v::.- ~ ments for thc access road, subj ect :..: ~~.e approv:.l of tha ~; ty Erig- ~ ineer and in accordanco with tfie a..:op:ed standard pleins on file in , the Office ol the City Engineer. ~ 7. Installation c~~ st~•eet lights on the propesed access ~oad in accord- knc~ ~vith a s~reat lighting plan approved by the Director of Public Utilities e~t the time of development of subject property. Tna f~~re,y::3~~y conditions we.re reciced at the meeting and were found tu be~ a nec~3ssary prerequisite to the ~~se of the p~or~rty in order to preserve I the s7fety and w~~lfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On rol! call the toregoing resciution was pas~ed !+y the foliowing vote: i AYES: ~OMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gausr, ..ap~ood, Marcoux, ~ebiey, ~, Summers, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ":ont. ABSHt37: C0~4MISSIONERS.: Mungali, ?erry~. - - PUBLIC HEARIN6 - CCi:~iUERb1TI0N OF AN AMENDI4ENT TC Ct1tCULATIdN ELEMEi:T OF THE GENEFtAL PLAN in or•~~r to establish the realignment of Le~~vis Stree:, F~etween Cr•rritos AvPnu> and Ball Road, and to consider the ~assible initiation of a Peti- tion for Reclassification relative ta thos.e properties ab~tting said ~trer..:s as follows: From the P-L„ PARKlNG SANPiSCqPING, ZONE to the M-1; `_iG!~I7 MANUFACTURING, ZONE of those proper;tias abutcing the existing al"grr„:nL; and from the M-l, LIGHT MANUFAGit~s~;NG, ZD,~r~ to the P-L, PARK- ING LANUSCAPON~, ZONE of those properties abuttiny the ~roposed alignment Senior Planner Marcin Kreidt displayed exhibits of the sub~.~ct area and stated that the subject properties were located betwean Ball Road or. ~he north and Cerritos A4enue:on t{ie south and tha~ th~ Fu~iic Utilitie~ Com- mission had requested the re-alignmant of Lewis Street between these two streets because they considered a:grade crossing to t. deCrim.ntal to the railroad company due to the acute angle,and ciue to t:.e fiigh speid train~• that cross Lewis Street, or that a grade separation ba instelled tc provide circulation. ~ i . ~ 1 ~ . ~f.7,•';,'„'S~~l~_.;l.:W v_.~.,;.'..."- +~-~,Jn.~ _., . .~~~..~_;.1, ,~ t~:.'. „.f--.:..`~;a. _ . . ...~..-..-l.u: ~~i~...~~.. l~i..-. ---..- -.-.~-^~,....,. . . ...., . . ~ ~ . '~ ~. . 1 ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ 603 MINUTES, CITY PLAS~NING ~LOMMISSION Decembe~ 18, 1961, Continued: Mr. KrP?dt explained that Exhibi*. No. 1 indicates the present land use of the subject area consisting pradominantly of agricultural and industrial u~ses, indicet:ss tha imp~~vement of Lewis Street to an 80 foot width from Ball Road souther'~~ to a parcel of land owned by the Americah Thermos Prod~ucts Compan~ ~d shows the extension of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Rai1;•oaa Company right-of-way across the subject properties and tl;e propo:•ed alignmer.* of Lawis Street as indicated on the Circulation Ele~ment of the General 1'lan. Mr. Kreidt stated that a Tentative Map of Tra~:t No. 44~8 F~ad racently been approved for the establishment of 18 in- :ustrial lots to be lacated on the northwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Le~vis S~;ee: a:id that ~he engineering plans were presently being pro- cessad for t5o< yroposed tract. Exhibit tio. 2 indicated the zoning of the entire area to be in the M-1, ~ Li~ht Ma~~~facturing, 2one with the P-L, Parking Landscaping, Zone abut- ~ ting all thu streats presently indicated on the Circulation Element of the Ganeral Plan. Mr. Kreidt explainad that should the requested re- alignm~:nt of Lewis Street be deemad necessary it would require the re- ~ classification of the M-1, Light Macufacturing, and the P-L, Parking Landscapi~~y, Z~nes to correspond with the relocation of the street. Exi?ibit No. 3 outli~~ad the ownership of the parcels of land ~n the subject are,3. Mr. Kreidt reviewed the ownership of the parcels of land and the present stage of development on the sub~ecc properties, irdicating the l~cai:i~~n of industrial plants and the railroad companies,' facilities. Exhibi*. t~os. 4, 5, and 6 inu;aated possi5le alignments of Lewis Street which were described in detail by Mr. Bill Sandlin of the Engineering Department. Mr. San~~lin submitted an e_=imated "_raffic count based upon the possible `;:ture development of tha subject properties. He reviewed the various alig~~ent possibilities, explaining the degrees and radii that would be necessary for each proposal and the resulcing efficiency of each proposal. He indicated that the proposai outiined on Erchibit No. 6 completely removad from the existing alignment of Lewis Street would are•ride a suitable secondary highway, ~lthougl-. the present aliynment oF Lewis Street as indicated on Exhibit F.~. 5 was considered the most desirable. Mr. Jim Manning, representative of the American '(hermos Prod~~~Es Compsny, appeareo h,fore the Commtssion. He submit•.ed ia plot plan or the pro- perty owned by the company and indicated tha: tha c~~mpany proposed to r.onstruct a glass plant addition to the ex~sti~.~g faciiities to be lucat- ed on the southern portion of the company's prc~perty as a pliase in the oxpansion of the oparati~n, that it was necessary to instail `1~~ plant for the expaiision of the business bocause glass ts Fres..ritly being shipped from Com~^cticut, thai iiie aew plant would in..rc•:,sa thE number of emplc~yees in addiLion to the amoun: uf dollar :~olume t.hat would be increasa~, and tihat an access easement had been ut~tained frrn ths Southe~n Pacific P.ailroad Company to pern:;t truck t~~ffic• inr.o the proparty. ~tr. Manning reviea~ad the various alignments and indieated that aligrmants "D, F, ~ J" to ti:~: east or" tlie present alignment would eliminate the glass plant and would force the business to cease opera- tion. Hr. Manning stated f~rther thst the company has pr•ovided parking and landscaping in excess of the requirements, that building setbacks had been.more than maintained, that the company had built the facility with tha area in mind, that the company's gross sales value had reached approximetely twenty-one million dollars, that the property had bean purchased with future expansion in c:.ind, 3nd thar the property would not have be9n purchased tf they had known of tha proposed reaiignment of Lewis Street. ~- The,Commission disc~ssed the possibility of cv3rt~~ad crc«ing over the railrr,ad tracks or the possibility of a cul-de-s,:c terrtiir~ating on eit'r~e~ si~~ of the railroad right-of-wa2•. ; _ - ~ u .~t~i.~C:i-:+~..'' mmm e ;. . y~+f i . ~ ~ .. . . . ,. 'i'„ . , , ... ?~.if:~~., , , i'~~ \`ia.._.~ .x... .. . . . „-......._. _....~ - ~ `~ ' ~ t. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .. . . _~ - ~ ~__--------- _ ~ - ~ ~ ' _.: . ~ , ;. ~~ ~' ~ '~ : 605 ~ ~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING COPlMISSIOM, December 18 1961. Continued: r . ~ ~;,' `~ PUBLIC HEARING - mission conside•- a recommendation to the City Council regarding the ' } SContinued) matter of maint~iinirig the present alignment with the recommendation that ~,• i the City install adequate safeguards et a grade level .r,rossing. It ~! ~~ II C` C ~ F.' ~ ~ . would be the proposal of ttie City Engineer in the event the crossing were obtained that gates and lights be installed and•the intersection be ~ completely signalized. He indicated that all the alternativt~s were mere- ly suggestions to present to the Commission and the property owners to see if the problem that exists might be resolved. Mr. Kreidt noted tha*_ the Engineering and Planning Departments' recommendations were as fallows: first recommendation, Alternate "K" for straight alignment, and second alternate recommendation, Aiternate "E" for slight curve (60 degree angle of approach and 500 foo: radius). Hs stated that the departments feet strongly that the projected traffic counts warrant the extension of Lewis ~tre~t from Katella Avenue to Ball Road. He stated further that in the event the straight alignment couid not be obt~ined they would recom- mend as a third alternate the realignment of Lewis Street westerly of its present projected alignment. Hawever, the third alignment would dis- courage through traffic and the basic function of a secondary hiohw~y. Chairman Gauer inquired about the interes.t of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroed Company and noted that a representative was not pre~• sent at the meeting. Sersior Planner Martin Kreidt stated that when the Circulation Element ~f the General Plan was endorsed, the Public Utilities Commission was con- tacted as to the feasibility of the alignment and verbal agreement was f given to the City. However, now that the property is being developed , they state they are opposed to anything but a grade crossing at the point of transection. He indicated, therefore, that i•: would be nec- essary for the City to petition the Public Utilities Commission for approva: of a crossing at the point of transection and to include a w;;;;ngress to s8gnalize said crossina. If the Public Utilities Commis- sion denied the request, and givan the fact that the realignment would discourage development and the functional circulation element in the area, the City could then pursue court proceedings for a final deter- mination. The Commission discussed traffic hazards in respect to 9rade crossings and it was noted that a traffic engineer safety expert could determine the effect of signalized grade crossi~igs. The Commission indicated that they constdered a grade crossing with gates, signals, and barriers pro- hibiting vehicles from circling the crossing, it would be the most dasirabie solution of the problem. It was noted that a majority of the property owners represented at the meeting were,.in favor of the extensior of Lewis Street. The amount of daily train traffic in the subject area was discussed and ~ ' Mr. Freeman ind.i.cated that prese~tly the Santa Fe Railroad was operating ~ four passenger trains daily amounting to eight crossings daily, that a - substantial volume of freight train traffic was also run daily, and that approximately four to six trains were in the area during the day light hours. Mr. Freeman stated that the Public Utilities Commission was opposed to the granting of street crossings over railroads because of the hazards involved. He stated, however, that the Southern Pacific and the Pacific Electric Company were constantly installing new railroad lines and that they have recently secured approval ef a grede crossing from the Public Utilities Commission, and that experience has proven ~ that th~ gate system with signals is a very effective method for solving . the problem at intersections wheie the traffic is not too heavy to i: warrant other methods. He stated further that it was his considered opinion that the Public Utilities Commission would grant the request I for a grade crossing provided the proper protection fac~lities were provided. ~ . C~ 606 MINUTES. CITY PLAkNING COMMISSI.ON. Cecember l8, J961 Continued: PUBLIC HEARING - Mr. Jack Danford, representative of the Autonetics Division of North (Continued) American Aviation Company, appear~d before the Commission and stated that the company was concerned with the traffic problems in the area and the importance of the railroad crossing. He stated that the rtumber of cars leaving the Autonetics plant daily is appruximately 3,500, which creates a tremendous traffic problem in the area, and that they considered the extension of Lewis Street to the south would elleviate the present traffic congestion in the area. Therefore, they wished to go on record as being highly in favor of the continuation of Lewis Street. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. i: ~ ~,: ~. l... ~' rr~~ ~~ ~,..; ~.: i ~ ~... ~' i s ~' ~ Commissioner Pebley indicated that, in his opinion, if Lewis Street were extended in a straight aligr~ment, the crossing should definitely be pro- vided with a gate system, that the Commission could recommend as a first alternative that Lewis Street be extended straight through to Cerritos Avenue as shown on Aiternate ~'K'~ with the proper safeguards such as gates an~ flasher signals, and that as a possible alternative, Lewis Street be extended at a 90 degree angle as shown by Alternate "B". Chairman Gauer noted that tt was the unanimous opinion of the property owners and the Canmission that the grade crossing should be provided with a gate and proper signalization. Canmissioner Pebley pointed out that, if the crossing were ;~ermitted to extand in a straight alignmenL, a 90 degree angle would not be necessary. The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the consideration of the ali~nment of Lewis Street: l. That the extension of Lewis Street should be provided irt a straight alignmen*_ in accordance with Aiternate "K" with the installation of a grade crossing at the transection of the Atchison, Tooeka and Santa Fe Railroad line subject to the provision of proper safeguards including ftashing signals, a median strip, and the installation of a gate system. 2. That it was the unanimous opinion of the property ownersin the sub- i ject area that Lewis Street be extended in accordance with the Cir- i culation Element of the General Plan in order to provide adequate ', traffit. circutation in the subject area and to protecc the land use ', and development in the oubject area. ' 3• That the Engineering Division, Department of Public Works, is hereby directed to develop a precise detailed pian for the layout of the grade crossing, showing the median strips, the location oF signals and gates, and all necessary safeguards for the installation of said grade cross i ng. 4. That it is hereby recommended that the present zoning of the propert- ies in the subJect'area remain in the existing M-1, Light Manufactur- ing, and P-L, Parking Landscaping, Zones, and that the alignment of Lewis Street remain as presently projected on the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 5• That the Planning Canmission recommends to the City Council that the Public Utilities Commission be petitioned for a grade crossing in accordance with Finding Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. Commissioner Marcoux offered Rasolution No. 176, Series 1961-62, and moved for its passage and adoptton, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council_that the alignment of Lewis Street be ex- tended in accordance with the Circulation Element of the General Plan on the basis of the aforementionod 4indings and that the PublYe Utitities -~-- -- , ~ .3.f.~ xl ..~, 1~-„F ~ > . .'~ . . . ._ ( . + ' :~ ~ ~ ~~ 607 ~ MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION December 18 1961 Continued: ~: ~ PUBLIC HEARING - Commission be petitioned to grant permission for a grade crossing in ~ ,, (Continued) accordance with said findings. ~. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fn~lowieg vote: R ; ;: i ' ~ .. 1 4 a h", : K~..__~~,~ . ~4 I ...~ ~• ' ~ '. { ~. . ....,"' - . ,. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Pebley, Summers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mungail, Perry. Chairman Gauer thanked the owners of the subject properties and repre- sentatives of the industries located in the subject area for their in- terest in the subject hearing and stated that the City was proud of the industrial developments presently in the area and of their contribution to the welfare of the City of Anaheim. ~ i i ~ ., REPORTS AND - REPORT RELATIVE TO COUNCIL INTERPRETAT9~N AND CLARIFICATION: RECOMMENDATIONS Senior Planner Martin Kreidt submitted an excerpt from the City Council minutas of'the meeting held on December 12, 1961, Page 5308, relative to ~ the "Interpretation and Clarification" of the termination and amendment of actions taken by the Planning Commission upon which the Council has taken no action. i i The Commission discussed the statement of policy by the City Council that~ when an action is taken by the City Planning Commission and the City ; Council elects to take no further action of matters concerning Variances i and Conditional Use Permits only, it becomes the act of the City Planning~, Commission and not the act of the City Council, therefore, any amendments, ~r deletions to said action should go directly to the Planning Commission, for action rather than the City Gouncil, and that Yhe City Gouncil shall ' retain the right to review the action if they elect to do so. Canmissioner ql1red offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley '. and carried, that the Planning Commission shall henceforth review amend- ed actir~ns in accordance with the policy statement by the City Council. ' AOJOURNMENT - There being no further busines~, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 0'Clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ JEA~YIjAGE, Secretary ~/ ~ . p~. . ~ '~:~~ S ._; .. ,...~ , ,~.~'.,~~l..a.:l..~. .. . _ .. Y . ].....1~ . .~ F..: r rr,. . ~_~:_ ..~ f'~.....:,'d-f•,