Loading...
Minutes-PC 1972/10/13~ City Hall Anaheim, CaliEornia November 13, 1972 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was MEETING called to order by Chairman pro tem Kaywood at 2:00 p.m., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Kaywood. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don Mc Daniel Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLRDGE OF - Commissioner Herbst led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGZANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Kaywood oEfered a motion to approve the minutes THE MINUTES ~f t:~e meeting of October 18, 1972, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following corrections: Pg. 72-661, line 6 nf corrections to September 18 minutes should be line 1 of pg. 647, para. "Sb, line 1(not line 4) Pg. 72-676, para. 2, line 4: Reston, Virginia (not Weston) para. 8, line 2: Reston Pg. 72-680, para. 2, line 3, insert: the "Southern" California Pg. 72-681, para. 9, line 1: Commissioner Kaywood (not Seymour) " pq, 72-682, para. 12, line 1: "manager" shonld be "President Pg. 72-683, para. 3, line 3: Commissioner "Allred" seconded (not Kaywood) Pg. 72-684, para. 2, line l: Commissioner "Farano" offered motion, seconded by Commissioner "Rowland" (not Kaywood anfl Gauer) para. 5& 6: Commissioner All,red was absent for this vote. pg. 72-687, last para.: Commissioner Allred voted "aye". None absent. Pg. 72-668, ADJOURNM~:NT, line 2, insert: Farano "moved to adjourn" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS~ INC. & TEXACO VENTURES. REPORT P10. 12 INC., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, California 92806, Owner. WILLIAM J. STARK. President, Anaheim Hills, Znc., VARIANCE NO. 2455 360 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, California 92806, Agent. ENGINEERS: VTN, 2301 Campus Drive, Irvine, California TENTATIVE MAP OF 92664. Property, consisting of 97 acres with a frontage TR7:CT NOS. 8115, of 4900 feet on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road, west 8116, 8117, 8134 of 12oya1 Oak Road, is proposed for subdivision into 73, 65, 75, and 56 R-H-10,000 zoned lots with waiver of (a) MZNIMUM LOT AREA AND ~b) REQUZREMENT THAT A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE REAR ONTO AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY. Chairman pro tem Kaywood noted that staff had recommended that Item No. 6 be continued to the December 11, 1972 meetinq, however, there now appeared to be some question as to whether the problem could be resolved by that time, and inquired whether there was anyone present to represent the petitioner and received no response. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the Enqineering Division had indicated that due to problems that had come to light regarding extending Crescent Drive south throuqh subject property to Villa Park and Orange, which was on the General Plan but not indicated in the tract map, it was felt that perhaps the four-week continuance would be insufficient, therefore, if the 72-719 ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1972 ~2-~2~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 12~ VARIANCE NO. 2455, AND T~NTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 8115, 8116, 8117, 8134 (Continued) Commission would like to defer any action, staff would contact the engineer of the tract, who would appear to answer any questions regarding a more extended cantinuance than requested originally. Commissioner Allred inquired what steps would have to be taken if the items were removed from the agenda; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that the variance would have to ~e readvertised. The Commission then indicated they would defer any action unti~ later in the meeting. Later in the m~eting, Mr. Horst Schor appeared before the Commission and in response tc Comm~~sion questioning regarding an extended continuance beyond December 11, stated ~hat because of the problems encountered wherein both the County of Orange and Cities of Orange and Villa Park would be involved, it would appear that a four-week continuance v~ould be insufficient, therefore, he would request that the items be removed from the agenda, and they would have the variance readvertisedwhen the problem was resolved. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland and MOTION CARRIED, to remove Environmental Impact Report No. 12, Variance No. 2445, and Tentative Map of Tract Nos. A115, 8116, 8117, and 8134 from the agenda and reachedule and advertise for public hearing at the expense o£ the petition~at such time as the problem of extending Crescent Drive through subject property to the Cities of Villa Park and Orange had been res~.,lved. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ALDOR CORP., 363 South Main PERMIT NO. 1351 Street, Suite 105, Orange, Cal~£ornia 92668, Owner; (READVERTISED) DIC1C VAN ECK, G27 Ga.ymont. Anaheim, California 92804, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A TRUCK MAIN- TENANCE FACILITY, WAIVING PERMITTED OUTDOOR USES on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel o£ land having a front- age of approximately 168 feet on the south side of Miraloma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 214 feet, and being located approximately 378 feet east of the centerline of Jefferson Street. Property presently classi- fled M-1, LIGHT INDUSTR~AL, ZONE. Subject petition was cuntinued from the meeting of October 30, 1972, in order to readvertise the petition to include an adjoining parcel. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. A1 Fishman, President of Aldor Corp., representing the property owner, appeared before the Commission and stated that in accordance with the Commis- sion's request at the Uctober 30, 1972 hearing, they had redrawn the plans to reflect the items to which they had agreed to, and that he would be available to answer questions. Commissioner Herbst noted that there was an interested person in the Council Chamber who had several comments to ~ake. Mr. Vic Peltzer, 5061 Stone Canyon Avenue, Yorba Linda, appeared before the Commission and stated he owned property to the east and north of subject property; that he had not received a legal notice for the previous public hearing, therefore, he was not present at the meeting of October 30; that he was wondering whether the t=uck storage operation would have some detrimental effect upon the existing uses in the area and whether it would be similar to Truck Haven located farther west in the Northeast Industrial Area; and that it was his hope the proposed development would be an attractive one. Chairman pro tem Kaywood noted that the petitioner was now proposing a 6-Eoot masonry wall around the periphery of the property to enclose any outdoor storage. THE HEA1tING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-281 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1351, in part, permitting the outdoor use only since the ~etitioner withdrew waiver of the required 6-foot masonry wall to enclose the outdoor storage area, with the finding that Environmental Impact Report No. 5 was acted upon at the October 30, 1972 public hearing, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~ MINUTE~, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1972 ~Z-~21 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1351 (READVERTISED) (Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was pass2d by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSZpNERS: Farano, Seymour. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INCOME EQUITY LTD. OR REPORT NO. 31 INTERWATIONAL 6, INC., 901 Dover Drive, Suite 102, Newport Beach, California 92660, Owner; J& B SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2453 COMPANY, Henry Chuba, 7582 Acacia Avenue, Garden Grove, California 92641, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN TO ERECT A 50-FOOT HIGH~ FREE-ST~,NDING SIGN on property described as: An izregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 225 feet on the south side of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 210 feet, and being located approximately 123 feet east of Palm Street. Property presently classified C-O, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the October 18 and 30, 1972 meetings for the submission of an Environmental Tmpact Report. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the m:::utes. Mr. Henry Chuba, agent for the petitioner, appeared before t'.:e Commission, stating he was representing the sign companyt that the petitioner was request- ing permission to erect a 50-foot high, free-standing sign because of several problems as it pertained to this motel, namely, that the location was off of the main arterial - Harbor Boulevard - and the previous owners of the motel were not very successful because they could not get the proper exposure; that the present owner reduced the rates in order to get more business, however, he did not make a profit but did get the exposure; that there were a number of service stations at the intersection of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard that had heights of over 50 feet for free-standing signs, while those businesses on Harbor Boulevard had 50-foot high signs. Commissiones Gauer noted that the oil companies' signs were 50 feet high, and one - American Gas - had taken down their £reeway-oriented siqn. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that several weeks ago Mobil Oil Company's representative indicated they were taking over an American service station and asked for additional signing with "self-s~rve" signs, at which time he indicated that the tower sign would be removed, and the only sign that would remain would be at the corner, which was 25 feet high, however, the service station at the northeast corner had a very tall sign. Mr. Chuba, in response to Commission questioning, stated the existing sign was 18 feet high and very small, however, it was planned to remove that sign because the proposed sign was to be located there, and that the proposed sign would be in conformance with Code exc~pt for sign height. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland stated he would agree with the petitioner/agent thar_ the environmental impact o£ the sign would be negligible and trivial, and, there- fore, an impact statement by the City Council would be unnecessary. Commissioner Rowland o£fered Resolution No. PC72-282 and moved for its passage and adoption to receive Environmental Impact Report No. 31 and recommend to the City Council that due to the trivial impact of the request upon the environment, there was no need to make an Environmental Impact Statement. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PCi2-283 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variaace No. 2453 on the basis that approval of subject p:tition would establish an undesirable precedent wherein other C-0 ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NoVe1nber 13, 1972 ~2'~22 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 31 AND VARIANCE NO. 2453 (Continued) uses established in close proximity and throughout the city would be request- ing similar signing; that approval of the proposed signing would not be a guarantee that the petitioner would be successful in attracting additional motel trade from the freeway since similar signing in other areas of the Commercial-Recreation Area and the commercial areas had not assured additional success; that visual inspection of the property indicated the existing sign was readily visible by passing automobile traffici and that the requested variance wauld be materially detximental ta the public welfare and injurious to the pioperty or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property was located. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEAR:NG. JOHN M. SCHLUND, ET AL, Frank Schmehr, REPORT NO. 23 Referee, 450 Wells Pargo Building, 2323 North Broadway, Santa Ar.a, California 92706, Owners; BUCCOLA COMPANY, CONDITIONAL USE 4501 Bergh, Newport Beach, California 92664, Agent; PERMIT NO. 1345 requesting permission to ESTABLISH A 226-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH WAIVERS OF (a) MINIMUM TENTATIVE MAP OF LOT AREA, (b) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (c) REQUIREMENT THAT TRACT N0. 4001 A LOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET, AND (d) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE-FAIdILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE on property described as: A rectangu- larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 19 acres, having a frontage of approximately 1300 feet on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 640 feet, and being located at the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and West Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: Subdivision of subject property into 226 planned residential zoned lots (R-3). Eight persons indicated their presence in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a 226-unit planned residential development with waiver of lot frontage, minimum building site area, minimum site width, and maximum building hei~ht within 150 feet of R-A zoned property, noting that the proposal to develop tk,is 17.97- acre site which would have approximately 15 acres of net buildable area, would yield a density of 15 units per acre, or approximately 2006 square feet of net buildable area per unit; that the coverage would be approximately 38.7$; that plans also indicated two and three-bedroom units ranging in size from 1093 square feet to 1282 square feet; that 2~S parking spaces per unit were proposed, two of which would be within a garage; and that access to and from the project would be via one driveway to Orangewood Avenue ancl one driveway to West Street. Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, noted the area was shown on the General Plan as being appropriate for commercial-recreational land uses, and the proposed PRD would not fall within the category of permitted uses in the C-R Area; that there was a resolution of intent for R-3 on the property, which theoretically could allow 36 units oer net acre, however, practice had shown that the average density would be approximately 25 to 26 units per net acre; that the Commission would recall that PRD's throughout the city had been approved with a density no higher than 12 units per acre, while this proposal was for 15 units and would not fall within the previously-approved range, consequently, 45 more dwelling units were proposed than comparable size properties had developed with PRD's in other parts of the city; that three of the waivers were typically those requested in PRD's in Anaheim in the past, therefore, the Commission might consider approval of these waivers; that the waiver of the maximum height within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone was being requested because the applicant proposed two stories within 110 feet of the single-family residential structures across Orangewood Avenue to the south and wi*_hin 130 feet of the single-family residential structures across West Street to the west, both in the City of Garden Grove; that the applicant had maintained the 150-foot setback for two-story along the easterly ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1972 ~2'~23 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 23~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1345, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 4001 (Continued) property line separating the single-family structures in the City of Anaheim from this project, and the Commission, in the past, had not required the 150- foot setback for structures adjacent to an adjoininq city where the adjoining city had no such requirement as it was in this case; that in addition to the requested waivers, the submitted plan would appear to have other site design deficiencies, and the Commission would wish to give consideration to the amount of usable open space provided. Furthermore, it would appear that the pedestrian and vehicular circulation patterns were in conflict, wherein a pedestrian would be required to cross one or several private streets to utilize the primary recreation area. Mr. McDaniel, in conclusion, noted that the Commisslon in the past on similar projects had required a 20-£oot landscaped buffer between multiple-family or condominium projects and a single-family tract, whereas the petitioner was providing a 5 to 15-foot landscaped buffer along the east property line. Mr. George Buccola, 413 Cabrillo Terrace, Corona del Mar, developer of the tract, appeared before the Commission and submitted a rendering for the Commission's consideration; wherPUpon 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the rendering presented was one of the revised plot plans submitted to the Planning Commission. Mr. Buccola noted that the revised plan was necessitated because the Inter- departmental Committee determined there was inadequate turn-around for trash and fire trucks; that he had been a developer in Anaheim for a number of years and felt like Anaheim was his second homei that they were purchasing this property, and upon analyzing it, the R-3 Zone approved for the property could permit development without filing a conditional use permit, however, they were limited by the present owner to develop the property for multiple-family reaidential uses; that he felt the property warranted some merit and evaluated it from the aesthetic as well as the economic point of view, and it was deter- mined there was a sufficient number of people needing the proposed typ.. of residential use in thzt area, therefore, they decided that a planned unit development was much better than an apartment complex, and they had built some very successful apartment complexes; and that they had presented staff with pictures of their other units. Mr. Buccola, in reviewing the proposal, stated that the landscaping and ecological aspect had to be considered, thus they had set back the units on the property, proposing a wall to enclose these unitss that they felt in this instance a large setback with a green belt gave a park-like appearance to people in that area; that they were surrounded on the east, west and south by single-family homes; that on the east there was a requirement of a 20-foot side yard, and in some instances their project encroached, but th~y were pro- pos9.ng one-story structures to side onto these homes; that the Report to the Commission indicated the proposal would have a density of 15 units per net acre, but his figures calculated this to be 11.2 units per gross acre; that in the matter of protection of the residents, they p~anned to provide entrances to the units from the garages for security purposes, while the patio would be in the front; that comments made regarding the noise factor facing the resi- dents of these units was considered, however, they proposed various types of masonry walls in front of the houses rather than in the rear, which could be considered as creating some type of a buff.er; that design-wise, they had not tried to get as many units as might be permitted by the zone since these units were planned to sell from $25,000 to S35,000, and because the price of the land was so high, it was necessary to get some other type of development there; and that they hoped to leave the area in a better condition than it was now. Mr. Bill hoonan, 2049 Eugene Street, appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion and stated his property abutted subject property on the east; that the resldents of the single-family tract to the east wanted to be assured that in the process of updating and adjusting the plan that the one-story height limitation was maintained and not waived; and that they were not particu2arly concerned with the setback along the south and west. The Commission noted that the plans still indicated single-story along the east property line for a distance of 150 feet. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1972 ~2-~24 ENVIRONM~NTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 23, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1345, AND TEI~TATIV~ MAP OF TRACT NO. 4001 (Continued) Mr. Noc+nan then inquired whether *hese structures would be set back 20 feet from the property line; whereupon the developer indicated the setback of the structures along the east property line. Mr. Noonan then inquired whether a 6-foot masonry wall would be constructed adjacent to his fence; whereupon Zoning Superv?sor Charles Roberts noted that Code would require a 6-foot wall which would have to be measured 6 feet from the highest finished grade level of either property. Mr. William Brown, 2043 Eugene Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated his concern was the type of wall that was proposed - did they plan slumpstone or an ordinary wall, and what size blocks was pro- posed to be used. In addition, what was planned to be done with the windbreak of eucalyptus trees which broke down during a wind storm• was it proposed to retain these or remove them, since they were between his property and subject property but were located on subject property. Mr. Don Corrigan, representing the architect, Morriss Lohrbach Associates, appeared before the Commission in rebuttal and stated that he did not see the Report to the Commission, but they proposed one-story along the east side of the property; that there would be a planted setback area along the east property line, but not all buildings would be 20 feet from the property line since there were three or four instances where the buildings were within 15 feet - then the landscape dropped back to several feet, for road access in some instances, within 5 feet of the property line, but they proposed the 6-foot wall, which would be brown slumpstone, 6 inches wide, and with that type of wall. it would seem somewhat nebulous to proceed with a straight 20- foot side landscape area to parallel that wall, therefore, they had undulated the planting area from 5 or 15 feet to as wide as 65 feet as a qreen belt abutting these properties; that the question regarding the eucal~~ptus trees' removal would be predicated on the size and life expectancy and its effect upon subject and neighboring propertiest that they would try to retain as many trees as possible; that on all ends of the buildings coming into the project, they proposed a planter area, and staff had indicated it would be difficult for trash and fire vehicles to get in, therefore, they had eliminated all but one and had added crosswalks of cobblestone throughout the project to reduce street traffic speed; that the project was joined with walkways, however the Report to the Commission made no mention of this; that they proposed to undulate the lan3scaping on both sides of all streets, and on the ends there would be one-story, stucco units with two-story over the garage; that they had tried to soften the effect of two streets coming in and out; that design of streets was predicated on trash, postmen, and cleaning people because they wanted an uninterrupted street, and this wa:. all designed to take this into consideration; that the standards were very rigid in the City of Anaheim as to vehicular traffic, although this •aould take away from the greenbelt the;;' proposed. Chairman pro tem Kaywood inquired whether it would be possible for pedestrians to walk to the recreation area without having to cross streets; whereupon Mr. Corrigan then indicated on the plot plan where people could walk without crossing streets, while in another area there would ue only private streets to cross. Commissioner Rowland observed that Mr. Buccola stated in deference to people living in these units the patios would be placed on the front, and the entrance would be from the garage, however, he could see only one that qualified as that, whiie the balance were like Brad£ord Place, principally with the entr<.nce on the front o£ the garage and patios were indicated on the plans on West Street, entering directly from the street, therefore, pedestrian access on West Street and Orangewood Avenue were nublic sidewalks. Mr. Corrigan stated that the manner in which it was proposed to gain entrance for guests would mean they would have to go tY~rough the patio, while residents would be able to gain entrance from the garage. Commissioner Rowland inquired whether the patios would be on the street side of Orangewood Avenue and Y7est Street; whereupon Mr. Corrigan replied affirma- tively. Commissioner Rowland then noted that these were principally glassed-in areas with bedrooms oriented to the front, and that the three-bedroom plan indicated orientacion to the court area; whereupon N.r. Corrigan stated that some bedrooms ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1972 ~a-~ss ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 23~ CONDITIONAL iJSE PERMTT N0. 1345~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 4001 (Continued) were oriented to the rear for light, air and ventilation, and that people living there wonld primari.ly arrive via their garage area, and guests would arrive on the opposite si3e where a greenbelt and walkways were provided to get there. Commissioner Rowland continued to xeview the plans with the architect regard- ing open space, circulation, guest parking, the patio areas which were the sole private area being used for entranceways to the units, and 80+t of the units were so designed. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated he would disagree with the architect's statement that there was a variable setback along the easterly Froperty line, which was the basic reason for not providing the minimum 20-foot landscaped setback, since it would appear that the plans i.ndicated an encroachment of a street into th~e side setback, which he did not cunsider a landscaped setback, and this was one area where property owners to the east had their homes and had been there for a long time, therefore, they were entitled to some protection from a 226- unit complex's vehicular circulation irom this many units, which would affect the living environment of the residents located only 5 feet from the street pro- posed along the east praperty line; that he would not consider this proposed variable setback as an acceptable alternative. Mr. Corrigan replied that no buildings were located nearer than 15 feet, and with the 6-foot high wall together with a landscaped area wfth ground cover and trees, he felt this would be more acceptable to the neighbors. Commissioner Herbst then stated that when a street was placed only 5 feet from the single-family homes' property line, the architect was not providing the privacy enjoyed previously by those residents, and that although he did not know who resided in those homes, he, for one, would not want to liva under such circumstances in an;~ of these homes. In addition, when the Commission reqL~sted the 20-foot side setback landscaped strip, this was required to provide the necessary amenities which these people had enjoyed for a number of years, and development as proposed would be encroaching upon this privacy. Mr. Corrigan replied that they were proposing one-story construction within 150 feet of the east property line, however, they could change this by cul- de-sacing the streets, thereby satisfying that need. Commissioner Herbst furthe~ noted that there appeared to be a 30-foot space between each garage door and inquired where the property line was, and what was the width of the alleyt Whereupon Mr. Corrigan stated the property line was 4 feet from the alley, however, he would prefer that the engineer answer those questions. Mr. Dick Aunsaker, engineer with VTN, appeared before the Commission and stated that the property line would be flush with the alley and the building set back 4 feet, and if it were a two-story structure, the overhang from the second floor would then be flush with the property line. However, this would be a common, private street on which the people would back onto from the garage. Commissioner Herbst then inquired whether automatic garage door apeners were proposed since it wa~ certain people would not park in the garage but in the alley; whereupon Mr. Buccola stated that they had been thinking about provid- ing automatic door openers. Commissioner Herbst observed that at least 20 feet was needed to back out of the garage, and if an automobile were parked parallel in the alley on the opposite side, then the person on the opposite side could not back out of his garage because the area was too narrow between the garages. Mr. Buccola replied this could be made a condition of approval since he fully understood the problem. 0 MINUTES, CITX,PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1972 ~Z'~26 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 23~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1345~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 4001 (Continued) Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that if these garages had doors open- ing into the common alley, then the developer's legal counsel would have to draft an easement for each and every garage to the common oanership to permit the garage door to open out into the common property from private ownership, and that this easement would have to be approved by the City Attorney'~ office. Commissioner Gauez noted that since these were private streets, the City streetsweeper would not provide this service. Mr. Hunsaker advised the Commission that since this was part of the common property, maintenance would be part of the CC&R's wherein both streets and landscaping would be maintained. Commissioner Gauer then reviewed the varying widths of the private streets and stated he could not understand 'now the developer arrived at 11 units per acre, while staff calculated 15 units per acre. Mr. Roberts noted that the density figure the developer referred to was £or the total amount of the land project, and the manner in which the staff computed the density was to take the net buildable area by subtracting all the private accessways of the project. Commi.ssioner Gauer observed that a number of people would have a very long walk to the recreation area, and small children would have little opportunity to Jo to the recreation area since it would appear there would be a number of small children because there were three-b~droom units proposed, therefore, the developer should provide additional playground area. Mr. Corrigan stated that the Commission was viewing the tract map, whereas the development plans indicated lots that were open space; that there were areas also designated as "tot lots" on the plans, and then indicated on the plan posted on the wall the areas proposed for zecreation for "tot lots", stating that these were just preliminary plans, and the "tot lots" could be placed in other green areas, however, there would be some children that would walk to the recreation area. Chairman pro tem Kaywood noted that as a rule the playground equipment was for school-age children, not for very small, pre-school childzen. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that there should be some revisions made to the plans before any action was taken by the Planning Commission, namely, streets should be widened and "tot lots" and recreation areas depicted on the plans as to each location. Chairman pro tem Kaywood inquired whether the developer intended to have only one swimming pool for 226 £amilies, since she had received complaints Erom people of other apartment complexes that the pools were too small, and they did not even attemp*_ to use it; whereupon Mr. Corrigan stated that they planned only one pool because they found that a swimming pool was not used that much, and children usually used it only on weekendst and that the pool would be much larger than the minimum requirements of FHA. Commissioner Allred inquired of Mr. Lowry what could the Commission do regard- ing the CC&R's as it pertained to the garage doors opening onto the common area; whereupon Mr. Lowry stated that the doors that would, in fact, open onto the common area and not on space owned by the owner of the unit would have to be filed before a subdivision could be approved, and the City would require an easement for all units encroaching into the common asea to allow this encroach- ment. Mr. Hunsaker stated that the width they proposed for the common, private drive- way was approximately 5 feet wider than the City's requirements, and this could be pulled out for turning radius, which would allow ti~e residents to swing out on his own property. Mr. Lowry stated the door to his garage protruded 3 feet into the driveway, therefore, thls left only 2 feet for any turning. s MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISS=ON, November 13, 1972 ~Z_,z~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 23~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1345~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 4001 (CC,ntinued) Mr. Hunsaker stated the streets were 5 feet wider than City standards, there- fore, they could reduce the width of the alleys. Commissioner Rowland noted that the engineer in describing the circulation element was establishing lecal boundaries, however, there still would be no change as it pertained to turning. Chairman pro tem Kaywood inquired how many trips per day could be expected from these 226 units; whereupon Office Engineer Jay Titus stated that the Traffic Engineer projected 8 trips per day per uni.t, or 1808 trips in all. Chairman pro tem Kaywood then inquired whether this figure also included the fact that most units would have two cars each. Mr. Roberts noted that the B trips per day encompassed all types of vehicles, i.e., trash, milkman, special delivery, individual automobiles to and from these units, etc. Chairman pro tem Kaywood then inquired whether the Environmental Impact Report indicated whether this number of vehicles per day would be of any significance since 94$ of the pollutant emission came from automobiles, and this should not be overlooked. Mr. Roberts noted that in the EIR item entitled "Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cou~d Not be Avoided or Substantially Minimized" mention was made of the additional traffic and possibility of including associated air pollution, but no specific mitigating proposals were included in the alternatives. Chairman pro tem Kaywood then inquired whether Commission Gauer had offered a motion to continue subject petitions for revised plans; whereupon Commissioner Gauer stated t}iat he did not feel the Commissian could or should take action this date because there were too many problems that had to be resolved, and if the Commission had viewed p.roblems from other developers that had occurred in the city, the Commission should require these problems to be solved before taking any action regarding street design, distance between homes to the east, a landscape buffer to the east, garage door encroachment into the common area, as well as automatic doors. Mr. Hunsaker then inquired whether the density was within zoning established for the property. Mr. Roberts stated that the density was acceptable for R-3, but the Planning Commission and City Council in the past felt that planned residential. develop- ments had different requirements than apartments and had established 12 or less units per acre as being acceptable or desirable. Commissioner Gauer noted that since these units would be sold for $25,000 to $35,000 and not rented, then it would be difficult to sell these units because of the problems that were now built into the development. Chairman pro tem Kaywood inquired whether a two-week continuance would be sufficient to take care of the problems expressed by the Commission; whereupon Mr. Hunsaker stated he thought that they had met all of the City's requirements with the plan presented. Commissioner Herbst noted that the engineer stated the proposal met all of the Code re~uirements, however, no mention was made as to living environment; that there were too many living units proposed, an_3 the development should be spxead out more because if the prospective purchasers were to spend the amount of money as indicated for the price range, then a better living Environment should be given them - this, then, would also reflect as a better living environment for the neighbors; that Code requi.rements as set forth were only minimums, and developers were now making them standards - ~treets only 20 feet wide, while vehicles needed more than 20 feet to be backed out of their garages, and as far as he a~as concerned, the engineers and the developers would have to answer this. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1972 ~2-~2s ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 23r CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1345. AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 4001 (Continued) Mr. Buccola then stated that it wonld appear the basic point of concern was the reducti~n in the number of units, and he felt the development was not only within Code requirements, but they had even tried to leave some more open space, and if that was the only point of contention, he could not see where a postponement would be helpful, particularly with the cost of the land. Chairman pro tem Kaywood inquired whether the developers had considered using the property for commercial-recreation purposas; whereupon Mr. Buccola stated that the owners of the property had restrictred them to residential use of the property and had advised him they did not ev~:n want to have a small grocery store on the corner, therefore, they had two methods of development, either apartments or condominiums; thak he did not feel the plan was crowding too many units on the property or that there would be insuf.Eicient recreational facilities, since most of the people purchasing these units would be "empty nesters". Commissioner Allred observed that the Commission had a project recently which had come before them several times and later was developed in the manner in which the Commission suggested, however, aftez having looked at pictures of other developments, the Commission wondered sometimes why they had approved some of the less-than-desirable developments. Furthermore, the developer who had finally developed in the manner which the Commission suggested had a very successful operation and had expressed his aopreciation to the Commission for remaining firm in the requirements for the development, therefore, if the developer maintained the 150-foot single-story height limitation from the R-1 to the east, provided pedestrian accessways so that children would not have to cross streets, recreational facilities be spread so that it would not be necessary to go distances to the recreational area, and wider streets be provided, then perhaps this could be a better development. Chairman pro tem Kaywood noted that the Commission had been discussing one item for over one hour, and a continuance had been suggested. Furthermore, the Commission in the past had never approved PRD's having a density greater than 12 dwelling units per net acre. Mr. Buccola noted that they could not develop subject property with the reduction of 45 units because of economics. Commissioner RoM'land noted that it would have to be reduced - even though the developer had purc:.~~=u a given number of acres, the Commission was greatly concerned with densities of PRD's; that the Commission had been thinking for some time of the possibility of changing the formula to reflect the gross acreage rather than net acreage, but there was one flaw in that it penalized bettar designers by giving a bonus to the less-gifted designer who did not take'into consideration the circulation element, even though the develope^ had planned adroitly, meeting the minimums, he did not feel the Commission would arrive at a desirable position where the Code would be written for every situation a developer's plans had with PRD's, however, it had been the experi- ence of the Commission that in order to have the acceptable environmental amenities, the density would have to be no more than 12 units per net acre, and the proposal was greater than the Commission had seen handled on property in the city; that the Commission did not feel the environment proposed was optimum; that every townhouse concept project that had been presented where the density was greater than the arbitrary 12 dwelling units - it was not an arbitrary figure any more - a developer could not do all of the things that were the City of Anaheim's community goals and still have a higher density, therefore, the develnper wauld have to live with the density which the Commission feit was 3esirable or this proposal would have to go to the City Council for final determination. Mr. Buccola stated that to meet the density of 12 units per acre would mean they would have to drop the project because of economics; that if this was the only problem regarding this development, namely, the reduction of the density, a continuance would not do much good for either the Commission or himself. Commissioner Herbst stated that he preferred that this petition be continued for two weeks to see whether the architect could arrive at a more equitable solution, because he persoaally did not want to deny this without exploring al? of the avenues; that in addition to the reduction in density, the developer ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 13, 1972 ~Z-~Z9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 23. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1345~ AND TENTATIVE MaP OF TRACT NO. 4001 (Continued) should design the plan so that there would be a 20-foot landscaped setback between any units in the project and the single-family homes to the east; that a better access design should be presented because from past experience if a developer made an attempt, the Commission had never seen a development where the design had not been improved after Commission suggestions; and that if the developer could present a better circulation pattern providing more privacy for the sinale-family homes to the east, eliminating the street pro- posed along the east property line, these could be major accomplishments. Mr. Corrigan advised the Commission that he was certain some of the concerns and suggestions made by the Commission could be resolved; that the 20-foot setback would be no problem, and the recreation area could be dispersed throughout the development, however, what Commissioner Herbst was talking about was different than what Commissioner Rowland spoke of regardinq density. Commissioner Herbst noted th.it if the architect _•olved the problems expressed by himself, the density would automatically be reduced. Commissioner Rowland inquired whether the Commission could take action on the Environmental Impact Report at this hearing. Mr. Roberts noted that the Commission should consider the EIR at the same time as action was taken on the conditional use permit and tract, how~~ver, he wanted to call to the Commission's attention that the EIR Review Committee indicated the report did not cover all of the areas as adequately as it could, for instance, the noise levels along West Street and Orangewood Avenue, aircondi-~ tioning options available - but the report did not indicate how the noise would be attenuated, and concern had been expressed by people who had purchased similar units in the city that the noise was uncomfortable and a nuisance. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether these would be individual units for air- conditioning; whereupon Mr. Buccola stated they would be inclividual units with the condenser located on the top of the garage. Mr. Roberts noted these additioiial areas should be given more thought and made a part of an addendum to the EIR, and that the Commission should make thei~ feelings known so that the developer could make some amendments to his report. Commissioner Rowland noted that statements made by Mr. Roberts were of great concern to the City and the residents of the tract but should not be part of the EIR but part of the site development standards since the statement as to the impact should be on the community at large and not on the immediate area, but findings regarding the impact upon the area should be made part of the Planning Commission resolution of the conditional use permit since they per- tained to site development standardst that the EIR as set forth by the Supreme Court was a political tool, howev~ar, it was also a design tool; and then in- quired of Mr. Lowry whether his interpretation was correct. Mr. Lowry advised the Commission that the City Attorney's office would agree with Commissioner Rowland's statement that the concern expressed in the EIR by the Committee was prior. to the opinion expressed by the City Attorney to the City Council of the proper scope, which was "what did the proposal do to the environment of the city", not what it did to the perimeter of the property, particularly the noise element which should be more properly considered in the conditional use permit, not in the EIR, except the noise created by the project. Commissioner Rowland noted that the noise would not be less than ambient, and it was a shortcoming in the EIR that did not state this, however, that was a matter of evaluation. Chairman pro tem Kaywood noted that the City Code established a maximum of 60 decibels, however, according to the EIR, it stated 70 decihels; whereupon Mr. Lowry noted that the Code maximum of 60 decibels referred to mechanical equipment. Commissioner Rowland noted that the design of the project would make tne out- door living environment on Orangewood Avenue and West Street a little difficult, however, again, this should not be a consideration of the EIR but of the conditional use permit. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1972 72-730 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 23~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1345~. AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 4001 (Continued) Chairman pro tem Kaywood then noted that the EIR stated that the maximum would be 35 to 40 decibels on the interior of the units, but little concern was given to the quality of outdoor living, and people Mere concerned with noise; whereupon Mr. Lowry again stated that this should b~ made part of the condi- tienal use permit. Chairman pro tem Kaywood then stated that she was becoming very unhappy with developments coming before the Commission with just minimum standards rather than being above minimum standards. Mr. Roberts then stated he could appreciate Commissioner Rowland's comments and knew what the City A±torney's ruling was, but perhaps a discussion o£ noise problen~s in this case would not be handled in the EIR, and if it has any mention at all, it should be discussed by the Planning Commission ar.d the applicant should give some thought as to what he would say to the Commission to minimize automobil~ noise along Orangewood Avenue and West Street. Chairman pro tem Kaywood observed that when there was a pedestrian and vehi- cular traffic conflict, people had a tendency to drive for the longer distances than walk as they would for shorter distances. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred to re- open the hearing and continue consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 23, Conditional Use Permit No. 1345, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 4001 to the meeting of November 27. 1972, to allow the architect time to resolve the areas of. concern expressed by the Planning Commission regarding a 20-foot landscaped buffer setback, dispersing the recreation area, increasing the width of the private streets, providing more private space between tfie opened garaqe doors and the private accesswa,ys, removal of the street along the east property line. Prior to a vote on the motion, Commissioner Rowland noted that he wanted his position clearly outlined in that he would not vote on the continuance if the developer did not take into consideration the density established in PRD's because this, in his estimation, was a very critical point. Mr. Buccola noted that they had been forewarned, however, they also had a deadline as to escrow, and Commissioner Rowland was very honest in his feeling regarding density, however, he felt the density proposed was the minimum they could provide, and under the circumstances, it might be better to have action taken this date xather than being tortured for two weeks and still wind up with the denial. On roll call the foreaoing motion passed by a vote of: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour. ENVZRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANCIS J. SCHILLER, ET AL, 9209 South REPORT NO. 19 Colima Road, Whittier, Californ;.a 90605, Owners; MOBILEASE CORPORATION, James B. Cooksey, Presidant, CONDITIONAL USE 11000 Wright Road, Lynwood, California 90262, Agent; PFRMIT NO. 1352 requesting permission to ESTABLISH A LARGE EQUIPMENT STORAGE OR RENTAL YARD WITH WAIVERS OF (a) PERMITTED OUTDOOR USES, (b) DEFINITION OF A BUILDING. (C) MINIMUM I FRONT SETBACK, AND (d) OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA SCREENING REQUIREMENT on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9 acres having a frontage of approximately 605 feet on the north side of La Jolla Street, havi.ng a maximum depth of approximately 640 feet, and being located approximately 663 feet west of the centerline of Kraemer Bovlevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. ~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1972 72-731 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT__REPORT N0. 19 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1352 (Continue Mr. James Cookse:+~, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and presented an outline of their operations, which were mobile office space of varying types for branch bank buildings to administrative office:• for Orange County Childrens' Hospital; that the offices were in sections and were combined to specifications of each client, which then could be used for either temporary or permanent office use; that 53$ of their business was in Orange County, and this was the reason for relocating the business, which would include their corporate offices and storage area; that they felt the Northeast Industrial Area was an ideal location for their company, and the proposed use would be in keeping with the environment of the area; and then presented an aerial photo- graph of the general location, together with the uses established in close proximity. Mr. Cooksey then noted that the units were assembled in the storage area in the manner in which they would be located on a given site, and this was the reason for asking for outdoor use waiver, to permit the assembly of these finished units which could range £rom a single unit 10 x 52 feet to an 8-unit combination measuring 80 x 52 feet, therefore, one could see it would be diffi- cult to assemble these units indoors; that they proposed mass screening; and then presented pictures of their present operation in Lynwood and noted these also appeared in the Environmental impact Report. Commissioner Allred inquired why the petitioner could not comply with the Code-required 25-foot building setback; whereupoa Mr. Cooksey stated they could coraply with this requirement, and he thought it might have been an error ir drawing the plans. Chairman pro tem Kaywood inquired whether the petitioner had any complaints regarding their operation in Lynwood since that operation was near residential uses; whereupon Mr. C^ ':sey replied in the negative anfi stated the City of Lynwood was unhappy t see them leave. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst noted that the ordinance required a 6-foot masonry wall or a chainlink fence with landscaping ar a slatted fence along the west side of subject property adjacer.t to the MWD easement, and since this use would be nrimarily outdoor, was there any reason why landscaping could not be provided along that portion of the fence for a reasonable distance because all of the landscapin~ appeared to be on the front, whiie both sides of the facility would be exposed and people would be viewing this outdoor use, and that if landscaping were provided for a distance, this wculd add to the aesthetics of the development while still hiding the outdoor use. Mr. Cooksey noted that there already was a chaialink fence adjacent to the MWD easement, however, the property to the east did not have a fence, and he had not seen a slatted fence. Commissioner Herbst stated he did not feel a masonry wall should be required, but a landscaped, slatted Eence should be provided because the petitioner was requesting the establishment of an outdoor use with working area, and the buildings proposed to be worked on would be 6 feet highJ that where outdoor storage was permitted, the City had required that the storage could be no higher than the height of the wall, and if a slatted chainlink fence were provided with some cypress trees, this would break up the appearance of these 10-foot high units beinq stored, which could be rather unsightly. Mr. Cooksey then stated he would rather provide a 2 x 2 x 10-foot high fence than a chainlink fence, and then in responee to questioning by Commissioner Herbst, stated that this would be 100 feet on either side of the front area where the 2 x 2 x 10-foot high fence was proposed, later tying into a chain- link fence. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts called the Commission's attention to a petition recently approved for a mobilehome manufacturer on the west side of Kraemer Boulevard about 200 feet south of Miraloma Avenue wherein they pro- posed to manufacture the units in the front building and store and test them in the rear, and the Commission approved waiver of the masonry wall but did r2quired redwood slats in the chainlink fence all around the storage area. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1972 ~2'~32 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 19 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1352 (Continue Mr. Cooksey, in response to Commission questior~ing, stated that they did not use air hammers or pawer tools but staple guns= that they did not exceed 65 dBA's from the property line; and that these were modular units which were torn down and rebuilt with models being of steel frame and were moved into place and connected. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-284 and moved for its passage and adoption to accept Environmental Impact Report No. 19 with a finding that the project as proposed did not have a significant impact on the area, and the Commission would recommend that no Environmental Impact Statement be made by the City Council. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour. Commissioner Herbst ~ffered Resolution No. PC72-285 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1352, in part, granting permitted outdoor uses, de£inition of a building, and outdoor screen- ing requirement, subject to a stipulation by the petitioner that a 10-foot high, 2 x 2 solid fence extending along the east and west property lines for the southerly 100 feet, with a chainlink fence for the balance of the property, and subject to standard conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolutio:z was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSZONERS: Farano, Seymour. RECESS - Commissioner Herbst moved for a ten-minute recess. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 3:53 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman pro tem Kaywood reconvened the meeting at 4:05 p.m.. Commissioners Farano and Seymour being absent. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. PHOENIX CLUB, Paul Guennemann, President, REP~RT NO. 15 1566 Douglas Road, Anaheim, California 92806, Owner; A. C. THEISEN, Colwell Properties, Inc., 1400 North CONDITIONAL USE Harbor Boulevard, Fullezton, California 92635, Agent; PERMIT NO. 1353 requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SERVICE CENTER WITH WAIVERS OF (a),PERMITTED OUTDOOR USES, (b) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK, (c) MINIMUM LANDSCAPING IN FRONT SETBACK AREA, (d) REQUIRED TREES IN PARKING AREA, AND (e) 6-FOOT HIGH, SOLID i1ASONRY WALL TO SCREEN OUTDOOR USES on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 179 feet on the east side of Douglas Road, having a maxi.mum depti- of approxi- mately 250 feet, and being located approximately 565 feet north of the center- line of Katella AvPnue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. A. C. Theisen, agent for the petitioner, indicated his presence to answer questions. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether the proposed use would be a permanent one or temporary; whereupon Mr. Theisen r~plied that it was planned for a period of two years with an option for an additional year, or until the Phoenix Club planned to enlarge their facilities, therefore, it was not planned to change the property in any way except to have the existing chainlink fence slatted, and the propert~ would be improved so that it would not be so unsightly. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1972 72-733 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 15 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1353 (Continued Commissioner Herbst inquired whether the petitioner would be agreeable to I granting of the use for two years; whereupon Mr. Theisen stated this would be acceptable. Commissioner Herbst then inquired what was planned for the rear portion of the property; whereupon Mr. Theisen stated this ~aas for additional parking for the club. Mr. Theisen, in response to questioning by Chairman pro tem Kaywood, stated that the storage portion was not visible from Katella Avenue; that there was high, dense shrubbery immediately adjacent to the Douglas Road frontage and a chainlink fence was proposed along the south and east property lines, but because there was already a dense growth of shrubbery along the north property line, it was felt this was adequate for screening from the north. Mr. Paul Guennemann, President of the Phoenix Club, 15671 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, appeared before the Commission and stated that they would prefer that some leeway be qiven as to the two-year use of the storage facility since they did not know when they would enlarge theiz facility, and he would prefer that there be some option to renew the use after the two years expired; whereupon the Commission stated that after the end of the two years the petitioner could request additional time for the use, and the Commission then would determine if the extension of time for the use should be granted. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-286 and moved for its passage and adoption to accept Environmental Impact Report No. 15 and recommend to the City Council that due to the insignificant impact of the request upon the environment that there was no need for an Environmental Impact Statement. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour. Commissioner Herbst of£ered Resolution No. PC72-287 and moved for its passage and adoption to grar.t Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1353 for a period of two years on the basis that the permit*ed outdonr uses and the vehicular storage landscaping would be for a limited peziod of time; that waiver of the minimum front setback was granted on the basis that the office structure already existed and was hidden from view from the street b~* dense landscapingt that waiver of the outdoor use screening requirement was granted on the basis that the petitioner was proposing an alternate method of screeninq the use which had been approved in the industrial area in the past, and the north property lina was already landscaped with dense iandscaping up to 8 feet in height, which was adequate to shield the use crom view; and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSZONERS: Farano, Seymour. ENVIRnNMENTAL ZMPACT - Property located on the east side of North State REPORT NO. 10 College Boulevard, approximately 510 feet south of Sycamore Street; filed in conjunction with previously- considered Conditional Use Permit No. 1341 far a carwash. Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the Review Committee's state- ments that the report did not follow the format established in the Interim Guidelines, and the Commission miqht wish to give further consideration to specific noise levels for the equipment which had not been included in the report, however, the Planning Commission might wish to determine if the speci- fic noise levels for the equipment which had not been included in the report but which were covered in a general way in the report, as well as durinq the hearing of the conditional use permit, and the applicant had stated he was ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1972 72-734 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 10 (Continued) familiar with the requ3rements of the City noise level ordinance and that the nuise would not exceed those levels. Furthermore, the establishment of an additional facili~cy Eor gasoline sales might contribute to the £ailure of other service stations, thereby adding to the already large number of unsightly vacant service stations, and the Commission determined at their consideration of the carwash when the conditional use permit was approved that the traffic problems and the noise problem had been very definitely pointed out to the petitioner, and he was made aware of the sound level requirements of no more than S above the ambient and the fact that a3jacent property owners had indicated their being in favor of the proposed development, there appeared to L•e no reason for providing this in£ormation in the Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-288 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the Ci~y Council acceptance of Environmental Impact Report No. 10 on the basis that the proposed use would have no detri- mental environmenta2 impact upon the area and to adopt said report as the Council's Environmental Impact Statement. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMZSSIONERS: Farano, Seymour. ENVIRONMENTAL IDiPACT - Property located at the northwes:: corner of Lincoln REPORT NO. 17 Avenue and Resh Stree~..; filed in conjunction with abandonment of the easterly portion of an east-west alley paralleling Lincoln Avenue between Citron and Resh Streets, which was a condition of approval of Variance No. 2376 for a greenhouse. The Commission reviewed the Review Co~mittee's report on Environmental Impact Report No. 17, noting that the Committee was of the opinion that this project would be trivial and cause no significant impact. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-289 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council acceptance of Environmental Impact Report No. 17 on the basis that due to the nature of the request made under the Variance No. 2376 and Abandonment No. 75-58, the impact upon the environment would be trivial and insignificant, therefore, there would be no need to make an Environmental Impact Statement. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSTONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - Property, consisting of approximately 10.5 acres, is REPORT NO. 18 located on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, approximately 330 feet east of Lakeview Avenue; filed in conjunction wit.h previous2y-considered Reclassifica- tion No. 71-72-53 proposal to subdivide the property into 52 RS-5000 zoned lots. Commissioner Herbst withd:E:w from comments on this item due to p.ssible conflict of interest. Chairman pro tem Kaywood noted that the Environmental Impact Report had been submitted prior to the establishment of intexim guidelines for the preparation of an environmental impact report, and the Environmental Impact Review Committee at its meeting felt that each area of the potential impact should have been covered in more depth and specifically expressed concern over any noise or odor which might result from adjacent operating o?1 wells. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that this, again, was a point in question to which Commissioner Rowland referred, this being a problem of the effect of the oil wells on subject propertyt that this report was done prior to the opinion submitted by the City Attorney an3 should have been something that was covered in the site development standards of the zoning action rather than making it a part of the Environmental Impact Report. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November l3, 1972 72-735 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 18 (Continued) Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the Commission could accept this EIR and make a recommendation to the City Council that this report be made their statement or consider this to be trivial. Commissioner Rowland inquired about the natural resources and the underlying qeographic characteristics since he was concerned with this entirely, and wouldn't there be some underlying gas and oil rights - wouldn'c. this affect the utilization of these homes - and would there be any adverse effect upon the dwelling units because of these natural reaourcea. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson stated that when oil companies were drilling for oil, they could slant their lines, which would be underlying subject property. Chairman pro tem Kaywood inquired whether or not an addendum could not be submitted covering the geological characteristicsj whereupon Mr. Thompson stated that the Planning Commission could accept the EIR and recommend to the City Council that the developer submit an addendum in written form to the City Council the manner in which natural resources would be affected and the mitiqating measure that would be taken to protect these natural resources. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-290 and moved for its passage and adoption to accept Environmental Impact Report No. 18 and recommend to the City Council that they adopt it as theii' statement only a£ter the developer submits an addendum covering the manner in which natural resources would be affected in the mitigating measures that will be taken to protect these natural resources. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - Property, consisting of approximately 31.4 acres, is REPORT NO. 37 located in Anaheim Hills at the southeast corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Anaheim Hills Road, immediately south of Anaheim Hflls Municipal Golf Course; filed in conjunction with previously-approved Reclassification No. 72-73-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1332, a proposal to develop a 162-unit planned residential development. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the conditional use permit had been acted on by the Planning Commission, however, the City Council was with- holding any action until the Environmental Impact Report had been submitted, and this would then be considered by the City Co~tncil on November 14. Mr. Roberts further noted that the report submitted was almost exactly the same as three other EIR's submitted, namely, Nos. 2. 3 and 4 for Anaheim Hills, with slight modificationa made for purposes of emphasis on the area of impact of the project regarding vehi.cular acceas into the area; that the EIR Review Committee had noted several major areas that might warrant further consideration regarding the street system proposed, which ahould be adequate to handle development in the area; that there was a slight problem because there was only one way in, and this was the s~me way out; that in the event o£ a catastrophe, it would be difficult for emergency vehicles to get into the area or residents to get out; that the statement should consider alternate accesses by requiring emergency accesses to be identified; and that Mr. 3ames Sarisic of Anaheim Hills had indicated there was other egress on the property. namely, dirt trails and ungraded roads. Mr. Horst Schor, engineer of Willdan Engineering Company, appeared before the Commission and stated that Anaheim Hills had made a study of the roads in Anaheim Hills and had a supplement to indicate the existing roads and graded roadways in case of an emergency; that there were a number of roads available to get in and out, ahich were 12 to 15 feet wide, and t~e~e„~ere.a,r,~w~~Ne~,~i that were put~~n the Southern California Edison Company, n$ fie'na riven all of these roads in a passenger car through Weir Canyon to Mohler Drive and ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November. 13, 1972 72-736 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 37 (Cuntinued) down into Orange; that they did not plan to have any units built prior to August or September of 1973, and by that time Nohl Ranch Road would be com- pleted to Anaheim Hills Road, providing another accesst that a copy oE the suppLement was made available to the City Council, which would indicate the road situation, as well as the school projections and locations on the map that relate to parks and recreation areas and mitiqating noise element. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson inquired whether any consideration was given to tying Serrano Avenue into the City of Orange; whereupon Mr. Schor stated that this proposal was presented to the City of Orange, and they had indicated their alternative, however, construction was considered to connect Serrano to Orange in 1974j and that the EIR was the same as presented to the City Council in EIR's 2, 3, and 4. Commissioner Rowland noted it was his understanding there were a number of supplements submitted that may or may not fit the requirements of an Environ- mental Impact Report; that k~e felt this was a farce in a sense that these rec~rts were prepared, and he did not want to make a mockery of these require- ments of the City Planning Commission. Chairman pro tem Kaywood noted that she did not feel it made sense to plan these units and then have to tear them up to provide emergency exits from the propertp - it should be taken care o£ before development occurred. Commissioaer Rowland noted that the addendum required previously for EIR's 2, 3, and 4 should have been presented to the City Council, however, the developer should have presented copies of this addendum to the Planning Commission if it applied to subject EIR for the Commission's perusal; that he did not know what the Commission could do, i£ anything, but the City Council would have to review this and make their determination since it was their prerogative, and all the Commission could do was state they had been made aware of the fact that an addendum was to be filed, but the Commission did not have access to it. Mr. Roberts noted that the Commission could receive the report and recommend to the City Council that it not be adopted until said addendum was submitted. Commissioner Rowland noted that the first EIR's had been submitted prior to the published guidelines established by the City of Anaheim. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that this was an EIR submitted, and if it was the opinion of the Commission that the report was deficient in several areas, then the Commission could receive the report and inform the City Council as to these deficiencies, and the City Council could receive these written statements and refer them back to the Planning Commission if they so desired, or adopt them as presenteii. Commissioner Rowland noted that he did not know where the report was deficient since this would take considerable time to review. Chairman pro tem Kaywood noted that the statement regarding air pollution was rather nonsensical since there ha3 been n~ local vehicles in the Hilis, there- fore, there was no fuel emission, bst when tr'. number of units groposed was developed, trere would be a significant amo~ .f air pollution to the area. Continued discussion was held by the Commissi~n regarding the areas of concern by the Commi.ssion and the fact that the addendum was not submitted to the Commission in tim~ for their consideration. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-291 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Environmental Impact Report No. 37 not be adopted as the Environmental Impact Statement until an addendum reviewing the concern regarding the delineation of tt.e specific location of school sites that were intended to serve this area was submitted; that state- ments regarding secondary vehicular circulation, public utilities, recreation facilities, including bicycle lanes for bicycles or electrical carts which might reduce the air pollution through non-use of automobiles to transport ~ MINUTES, C=TY PLANNING COMMISSION; November 13, 1972 ~2'~3~ ENV:[RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 37 (Continued) /Jx.p..t.'a..Ci -~-"" "/`-'~ ~~ ~o~.~ R/ha'~."'/ people to nearby areas,~ type of landscapin~ ~or slope areas to prevent erosion, and techniques to be used in grading of the slopes be submitted in written form to the City Council before adeption. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSFNT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS VARIANCE NO. 2397 - Request for termination - Property located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 175 feet west of Maqnolia Avenue, and currently zoned C-2. Assistant Zoninq Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proxi.mity, and the request approved for the creation of a parcel without public street frontaqe granted by the Planning Commission in Resolutian No. PC72-166 on July 24, 1972; that the petitioner was now requesting termination since he ha3 submitted a revised parcel map which eliminated the requirement for the variance. Chairman pro tem Kaywood inquired whether or not this termination would mean that the church school was acquiring this property; whereupon Mr. McDaniel stated he did not know. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-292 and moved for its passage und adoption to terminate all proceedings on Variance No. 2397, as requested by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour. ITEM N0. 2 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT property acquisition - North side of Sxnta Ana River, east of Imperial Highway - Request for City's determination as to is conformance with the adopted Anaheim General Plan. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that a letter from the Orange County Flood Control District indicated the intended use for the property was for maintaining open space; that the Anaheim Genaral Plan indicated that open spaces were intended along the north side of the river, therefore, it would appear the use proposed by the Flood Control District would be consistent with the land rae statement of the Anaheim General Plan. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-293 and moved for its passage and adoption to find and determine that the proposed acquisition by the Flood Control District was in conformance with the City's adopted Genezal Plan and would have no significant effect upon the environment. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoinq resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywo~d, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMtQISSION, November 13. 1972 72-738 ZTEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1268 - Request for an extension of time - Property located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, approximately 76 feet west of Onondaga Avenue. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject prope•rty, uses established in close proximity, previous time axtensions granted, the last expiring October 18, 1972, noting that none of the condi- tions of approval had been met, such as installation of street lights, pay- ment of street tree fees, provision of trash storage areas, provision for buffering and shielding of air-conditioning facilities, and that staff would recommend an extension of time bc: granted retroactive from October 18, 1972, to expire April 13, 1973. Commissioner Gauer. offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED, to grant a six-month extension of time for the completion of conditions, retroactive to October 18, 1972, said time extension to expire April 13, 1973. ZTEM NO. 4 CONDIT?ONAL USE PERMIT NU. 1109 - Request for termination. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, tho permit to have a heavy metals fabrication plant granted under said conditional use permit, and the request for termination since the petitioner no longer intended to develop the project, and release of the improvement bond; and that staff would recommend termination of said Conditional Use Permit No. 1104 and that the improvement bond be released. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-294 and moved for its passage and adoption to terminate all proceedings of Conditional Use Permit No. 1104 on the basis that the petitioner no longer intended to exercise said condi- tional use permit, and further recommends to the City Council approval of the release of the Aetna Casualty & Surety bond as requested by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foreqoing resolution was passed 'y the following vote: AYES: COMMZSSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: ~OMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour. ITEM NO. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1284 - Request for expansion - Property located at 1440 South State College Boulevard. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property to establisM a non-industrial training center in a portion of an existing building which was granted by the Planning Commission January 10, 1972, in Resolution No. PC72-2; that the request was now to expand a non-industrial use in a 1900-square foot unit adjacent to the present real estate school approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 1284, to conduct market research studies in connection with the real estate sales, and that the petitioner anticipated employing 15 persons in the new use. Mr. R~berts noted that at the present time there was a surplus of automobile parkii~q spaces on the site, given the preser.t occupancy oE the complex, there- fore, the parking demand for the new use could be accommod~ted, however, the questions were: Was this the type of commercial or office use that should be permitted in the industrial zone, and, if so, would this use fa12 within the intent of the Commission's approval of a"non-industrial training center". Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the request, and upon its conclusion, Commissioner Herbst noted that the ~etitionar should file a new cond.itional use permit in order Lhat the Coamission might analyze all of the ramifications as to the use and parkinq being affected. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direct staff to advise the petitioner by letter that a new conditional use permit would have to be filed in order that the Commission might analyze at a public hearing the ramifications of the commercial use proposed, as well as the problem of parking. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ MI:JUTE.`: CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1972 ~2'~39 ITEM NO. 6 TRACT NO. 7426 (L. A. Land Company) - Request for revision o£ conditions•- Property located between the Riverside Ereeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road ' east of Lakeview Avenue. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviek~d the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the request of the developer to delete the requirement of a 6-foot, deco::ative masonry wall to permit construction of a chainlink fence adjacent to the southerly tract boundary; that subject property was approved for subdivision into 36 R-1 lots in 1971, and a routine zevision, deleting conditions referr±ng to the Scenic Cor~idor Overlay Zone was also approved in 1971t that £ive of the lots on the southern portion of subject tract rear upon the irrigation company property, whiah was adjacent to Santa Ana Canyoa Road, and the pad elevations for these lots were 30 feet, more or less, above the grade level of the irrigation channel and 40 feet, more or less, below the qrade level of Santa Ana Canyon Road; that a field inspection indicated that the modified and natural slopes prov.ide only partial sound buffering and visual screening from the adjacent highway; and that said wall would provide environmental improvement along tYie southerly tract boundary. Mr. Gerald Klein,developer, L. A. County Land Company, appeared before the Commission and noted that the present irrigation channel was 30 feet directly below the pad elevation~; that he did not knaw how to build this wall because the only access would be across the channel a half-block away from this property in order to get materials into this area to erect the wall; that it would be considerably easier to erect a chainlink fence or living fence; that they had received letters from three of the five property owners involved, indicatingthey preferred that the wall be built; that they had no opposition to building the wall, but did not know how to get there to erect the wall, and there was still some question as to the value this wall would have to reduce any sound. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that a chainlink fence~slatted~with ~~,u.c.~ landscaping plans suitable to the Development Services Department coulu~ be provided since the slats would give privacy while the landscaping was growing. Commissioner Rowland noted that this would be giving the developer relief from something that was granted at a public hearing, and if this was going to be the pattern for residential uses, then the site development standards should be revised for Santa Ana Canyon to replace the masonry wall. with a chainlink fence and slats. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that there was a possi.bility there were several problems involved, nameSy, that this condition was established at a public hearing, and the Planning Commission did not have the power to waive a condition without a public hearing. Another consideration vras that this was possibly a requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance and not even the City Coancil had the power to waive a section of the Subdivision Ordinance short of amending the ordinance, therefore, it was his opinicn that subject request be continued until he had a chance to investigate the possibil'ity of requiring a public hearing, or whether this fell within the boundaries of the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether oleanders could be planted on the inside of the chainlink fence - then the property owners would be able to take care of this. Mr. Klein then reviewed the manner in which they would have to move materials to build the masonry wall, if required. Chairman pro tem Kaywood noted there was one person present in the Council Chamber who might Iike to speak on this. Mrs. Mavis Schutts, 4914 Gerda Drive, advised the Commission that prior to the time they moved into the house, they had agreed t.hat a chainlink fence would be sufficient, but since moving into the house, they felt they needed a block wall because of the junior high scho~l and grade school children traveling this way every day, which would deprive them of their privacy; that it would further assist in diminishing the noise element; that a block wall would also reduce the amount of dirt invulved when a Santa Ana wind blew in the canyon, while a chainlink fence would not do thist and that she realized that a 6-foot wall would not provi3e a visual buffer from Santa Ana Canyon Road because they were located too far below the right-of-way of Santa Ana Canyon Road. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 13, 1972 72-740 ITEM NO. 6 (Continued) Chairman pro tem Kaywood inquired what Mrs. Schutts thought of a chainlink fence with landscaping of bushes growing over 6 feet high - this would give more protection and would be fairly substantial landscapinq which would not give that walled-in look. Chairman pro tem Kaywood statzd that in addition to a masonry wall. the land- scapinq could a~sc be provided to relieve that walled-in look. Commissioner Herbst noted that the block wall would provide less security to the property owners than a chainlink fence. . Mzs. Schutts noted it was not necessarily security, but privacy, even with planting for the present the chainlink fence ~.~ould not provide the privacy they desired because people would be looking into their rear yard. Commissioner Gauer noted that since Mrs. Schutts was purchasing the property, it was her prerogative to require the wall. Commissioner Herbst noted that he had seen a whole section of a fi-foot wall fall dc+wn becau~e of the winds, and he was thinkinr, of the safety factor. ~j ~'+e noted that the channel was a dangerous place for C~ai~ ~~1Ii-7f~3~~A children because water was kept in there, and the City could request the school to keep the children of~ of that area. Mrs. Schutts noted that she was a school teacher and did not feel this require- mer.t could be enforced. Furthermore, she did not like oleanders because of their pot2ntial threat to her pets and children. Mr. McDaniel, in response to a requesr. bp the !'ommissior. as to the type of alternate landscaning that couid be provided, suggested small eucalyptus or acacia latifolia. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts notec] that the effect of this type of plant- ing could be noted on Nohl Ranch Road, and the large shrubs were acacia lati- folia. Mrs. Schutts noted she represented her next-door neighbor, who a.lso wanted a block wall because it meant more privacy to them, now, not two years fzom now when the landscaping was grown. At the conclusion of the discussion, it was determined to continue considera- tion of the request £or amendment of tne conditions of Tract No. 7426 until n2puty City Attorney Frank Lowry had obtained a ruling from the City Attorney as to whether the conditians had to be amended at a public hearing or not. Commissionez Gauer left tl~e Council Chamber at 5:29 p.m. Commissioner Row]and requested clarification of the questionnaire regarding Exemption Declaration Status, whictc was then reviewed with staff. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting a3journed at 5:40 p.m. Respectfully submi ted, ANN KREBS, Sec etary Anaheim City Planning Commission AK:hm 0 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERYICE, INC. ic~o;,~~ti.~~ ~~~o:~~:o An;~hr;,m. Gil~lurn~.~