Minutes-PC 1975/10/13Cl ~ C 0 MICROFIIn~!NG SE.RViCE, iNC.
~ ~ ~
City Hall
Annhnlm~ Cellfornla
October 13~ 1973
RE~~Ul.l11t MFET~NG 0~ TH~ ANAItE1M CITY PLANt~1~JG COMNISSION
REGULAR - A rcgul~r meeting af thc Annhcim City Plannincl Commissi~n was calted tu
MFETINf arder by Ctialrman Farano ~~t 1:3~ ~,m. In the Council Chamber~ r quorum
belnq present.
PRESEPIT - CMA I RMf1M : Fa raro
- C(1MMISSIb~IFRS: Rarner,, Nerbst, Johnson, King~ Morley~ Tolar
AQSENT - CQMt11SSI0NFRS: None
ALS(1 PRESFNT- Frank Lowrv Deputy City Attorney
Jay Titus Office Engineer
Paul Sin~er Triffic Enginesr
Ar~nfka Santalahtl Zoning Superv(sor
Al1an Daum Assistant Zoning Superv(sUr
Patr(cla Sc~nlan Planning Commission SPCretary
PLE~GE QF - Commiss(oncr Morley led In the Pledge of Ailegiance to the Flag of the
ALI.~. ~Il1~lCE Unitecl SCates of America.
/~PPROVf~L UF - Commissioner King offered a motion~ sec~ndecl ~y Commissioner Tolar and
THE MINUTFS MOTION C/1RRIEU~ that the minutes of the adJuurnecl rec~ular meeting uf the
P'anning Commission held on September 15, 1`.175, be and hereby are approved~
as submitted,
E~4VIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUE3LIC Hf.1RING. C. MICNAEL, INC.~ P. U. Box 278~
REPORT N0. 133 Mid.~ay Clty, Ca. 92655 (~wner); RAAR E BOYER ENGIPJFERING CO.~
1~~~~f~2. Beach Bou:evard, Sulte R~ Westminster, Ca. 92583 (Engineer).
VARIANCE N0. 2728 Property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel or land
consisting of approximately 18 acres located at the southeust
TEP~TA7IVE MAP OF curner ef Vermont Avenue and East Street, having approximate
7RACT N0. ~758 frontacles of 733 feet on the south side of Vermont Avenue ~nd
(REVISION N0. 2) 118~ feet on the east side ~f East Street. Property presently
classified RS-A-43~000 (P.ESIDEN71AL/AGRICULTURAL) ZQNE.
Vl1R1 ANCE REQUESI': k~A I VERS OF (A) RE~U I{tFMENT THAT ALL LOTS FRO~IT ON A PU~L I C STREET
AND (B) MINiMUM DIST~NCE SETWEEN BllILDINGS.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: 116-UNIT, 117-LOT, RM-4000 SUBDIVISIOPI
It was noted that the subJect items were continued from the meeting of August 4~ 1975, for
the submisslon of revlsed plans; fr~m the meetings af August 18 and Septem~er 3, 1975, at
tMe request of the petitioner•; and from the meeting of September 29~ 1975, for the
su~mission nf revisecl plans.
No one indlcated their presence in opposition to the subJect ltems.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commtssion dated October 13, 1975~ Was not read
at ~he public hearing, said Staff Report ls referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Mlke Doty~ r'epresenting the firm ~f Ph1111ps Brandt Reddick and the petitloner~
appeared before the Planning Commission to answer questions concerr.~ng the proposal.
Chalrman Farano recognized Mr. Doty for presentation of new evidencP conctrning the
proposal~ nc,ting ehat~ although the public he~ring had been closed he was aware that a
sl(de presentatlon had been prepared by the petit(oner which may or may not ret~te to the
problems dlacussed by the Planning :ommissioi7 in connectton v~ith the propos»1; and that
the petltionar reallzed the problems whicn invoived the fences~ buffer zone~ small lots,
narr~v straets~ parking~ etr_. Thereupon, Chairman Farano reques~ed that Mr. Doty address
the refercnted items.
75-4$2
• ~
^~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PIANNING COMM15510N~ October 13~ 1975 75'G83
E~IVIRONMEMTAL 1MPACT ftEPOR'~ N0. 133~ ~ARIANCE N0. 2720~ AN~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 8758
REVI S I ON N0. 2 SCont i nued) _,_,,,_,~
Mr, Doty mAde the slide ~resentatlon whlch Illustrated thrce proJects similar to the
proposal~ notin~ that althou9h the proJects we~e not identica) ta the proposal~ they
contalned some of the elements of the proposed pro~ect; that the tt~ree slmilar pro,)ects
were Tuuch Stone (n Garden (:r~ve hy Fredricks Development Company~ Stone Plne in
Fullerton~ and 7urtle Rock ln Irvlne; that approxlmntely 3A$ of the propos~d units would
have short drivaway aprons; and that the ather g(mllAr proJects had no evldence of
deterioration or dlveralve uses.
Chairman Farano noted th~t thc simflar proJects betng illustrated werc very beautiful from
autward appearances~ however~ thcy wera subst~ndard subdivisloris; and he suggested that a
reduced lielclht fence be constr~icted for the priv~Ce rear y~rd areas and r.hat at leaat 50~
of each yard be exposed. Commissloner HerbSt notzd that the indlviclual ,~roperty owners
mlght put up thelr own fences~ whereupon~ Commissioner Toiar sugc~ested that deed
restrictlons t~e utilized to control the constructlan of fences b•y the indivldu~l praperty
owners. Chairman Farano then noted that lie was definitely riot in favor of the proposed 6-
foot hlgh Pences and that he would favor walls approximately 30 inches In helght with
decorative l~ndscaping and w(th at least 5~$ of l•ho yards exposed, to meet the splrlt of
the z~ne and provide some feel(ng uf individual home ownership. Mr. Doty then stated the
developers wanted the single-family detached feelinc~~ and would provtde reducnd height
walls (n the front yard areas.
Commissioner Herbst then noteci that the developer wa~t~ed the single-family zone~ but did
not want to abide by the rules for sald type of development; thac tFiere wcre four areas on
tltie tract map where cars could park only on one side of the street because ~f the narrow
5treets proposed and~ therefore, tfie h~uses on hoth sides of the streets would not have
pt~rking In front of them; that, in his opinton, the homeowners would park in front ~f
their homes even if they had to park an the s'dewalks anci with the rolled curbs~ they
would certainly park on the siciewalks Commissioner Tolar made an observation that at
least f~ur fsol~ted c:ases ln the proposecl proJect had n~rrrn+ driveway aprons in addltlon
to having no parking on the side of the street ad~~cent t~ the front of the dwelling.
Commissioner Herbst noted that in the future the homeowners may wane to turn the streets
over to the Clty of Anaheim for maintenance~ especially when repatrs a~d other costly
malntenance were needecl and~ for tliat reason, he also had reservations ahout the streets
that were proposed, Mr. Doty stated that tFie open space and corrid4rs yained fram the
narrowing of lhe streets for the private streets versus standard public streets~
overshadowed the issue. Commissioner Tolar inquirsd how the homeowners would benefit from
tiie open space tn the proJect if they had to walk so far to get to it; whereupon~ Mr, Doty
stated the topography created ~some difficulty, however, the common recreattona) areas were
all within 200 feet of each dwellir,g unit proposed,
Chairman Farano noted that in the past few years there had been studies conducted wherein
the possibilittes of de~riation from narrow streets were explored to facilltate the garbage
tPUCks for turning corners in projects, and it was repulstve to have a soclety predicated
on the size of garbage trucks~ etc., that his mal~i concern with the propusal was :he
individual property ltnes creating a single°family residential concept when the
development had RM-~~000 lots; however~ if the de~~eloper took away the individual property
llnes and constructed walls that ~vere part oF tha decorative landscaping but preserving
the RM-4~Q0 zoning~ the proJect would be more favorable; and that he was fearfuf that the
develaper was cmasculating the RM-~-OQO Zone.
Mr. Doty then stated the developers felt they hacf complied with the spirit of the zoning;
that they had other layouts which more closely addressed the obJections of the Planning
Commission~ however, those layouts had higher densities rnd less oper spac~~ and provided
the 2.5 ~arkln~ spaces per dwelling unit; and khat the other layouts had far less paricing
and open space an~S were substandard compared tn the subJect proposal.
Chairman Farano noteri that (f a less desirable proJect would meet all the criteria of the
zone~ such a proJect should be presented for cflnsi~eration since he would ~Ikc~ an
alternative fr~m a practtcal standpoint which would be far better for the City and better
for the developer from an economical standpoint lf such a pro,ject would sell better; and
that he hoped there was no doubt in the mind of the developer which choice I~e wauld vote
for.
~ ~ ~
MINUYES~ CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ Qctober 1~, 1975
75-48N
E!~VIRONMENTAL IMP~CT REPORT ~~0, 13;i~ VARIANCE N0. 272A, AND TF.NTATIVf MAP OF TR11CT N0, a75~
(RCVISION N0. 2) (Continued~~ ~ ---
Cnmmiss~oner H~rhst fur~her roted that to rrw~et the spirit of cha zone~ a buffer xone
should be added~ the incllvtdual propcrty Iines should be climineted, and a planned
community developmont prnposed; Ehat the subJect prop~sol woulci b~e loflked upon as a
single•fam(ly resldential development and the future cxvnera would be purchASing an
IndlviduAl lot which they would treat as ~n RS°7200 lot; tl~at thc proposal was an "R-IJ
40d0" subdlvlston~ in his opinion~ with Clie develope~ wantinq tlie bast for himself and
not the futu~e residents in thG proJect; and that he was not ln fov~r of the pronosr~l.
In re~sponse to questloninc~ by Chairman Farano~ Mr, Doty r•equested tliat no further
con'tinuances be granted for the subJect prap~~sal and that an acefon be tAken at thls
meoting.
it was noted Lhat Environmental Impact Report No. 133 whicfi was submitted tn conJunctfon
with development of the subJect property was certifled by the City Council on October 1S~
191~~~ and stnce no new environmentAl Impacts were involved In the revfsed development
proposal~ the Planning Commissfon does hereby take no addttional act(on in connection wlth
sald EIR No. 133.
Commiss(onar lierbst offered Resolution No. PC75-203 and moved for its passage and
adoptlon~ that Petitian f~r Varlance No, 272£3 be and t~ereby Is denied on the basis that
the petitioner dld not demanstrate that a hardshlp would be created if the waivers were
not ,yranted; that the developmc~nt proposal is designed to combtne two zones (a single-
famtly zonc and a multiple-family zone) f~r the benefiC of the developer and not the
futura homeowners In the proJect, satd proposa) Including private rather than public
streets~ minima) l~t sizes which would be substandard RS-7~~~ lots, a lack of the
amenitles requlred for a planned community development~ includin~ the lack ~f true open
spacc due to the proposal Co have 6-foot fences encloging the prlvate recreation areas and
preventing access and visihility to the common open recreational spaces, said fences to
prov(de private yards typically associated with sin~le-fam'ly z~nes and not the R11-4Q00
Zone; and, furthermore~ that~ if developed, thc proJect would be detrimental to the City
of Anaheim in the future, (See Resolution Book)
Chairman Farano nQted that he would like to interJect seme explanation for consideration
of the Ctty Council~ bein~ that the Planni~g Commission might have considered otherwise if
the developer had abandoned the individual lat lines and the narrow streets~ more in
kceping with the RM~4000 Zone standards.
Commissloner Johnson noted that it appeared more waivPrs than those indicated could have
prohably been found in the proposal; whereupon, Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti
revlewed the Code requirements fc~r the RM-t~0~0 Zone versus the RS-7200 Zone~ noting that
the RM-4~)QO Zone was not spec(fic concerning lot sizes. etc. Chairman Fara~io noted t~iat
it appeared the RM-4~00 Zone needed some clartfication,
In re~ponse to questioning by Commissioner Y.ing~ Mr. Ooty stated the subJect proposa) was
noL associated in any way with the Fredricks Deveiopment Company.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CQMMISSI~NEP,S: BARNES~ HERBST~ JOHNSOM, KING~ MOR~EY~ TOLAR. FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIO~lERS: N~NE
ABSENT: CQMMISSIOPJERS: NONE
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Cortmissioner Marley and MOTION CARRIED~
that the Planninc~ Cammission does hereby disapprove Tentative Map of Tract No. ~3758
(Rev~slon No. 2) on the basis of the ffndings that the proposed map is not consistent with
~ppllcable general and speclfic plans; that tlie design of ~~~c subdivision or the type of
improvements Is 1(kely to cause serlous publlc health problems~ ~ubstantial environmental
damage~ or substantially and avaidably i~jure flsh or ~oildlife or their habitat; and~
furthermore~ the pr~posal does not meet the criteria for development in accordance with
the zoning on the sub.ject property.
~ • ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOPI~ Qctober 13~ 1975 75'~~a5
REQUF.ST FOa STUDY RF.: CnNTINUA~~CE OF RM-4~0~ ZONE ~ND OPT111N5 ~f1p SMA! LER SINGLE-FAMILY
LATS OR PROV I S 1 ANS F~R 07HF.R MnDF.S OF l. ( V I NG
Commissloner Horbst noted thnt It was F,ecoming apporent th~~t a nee~l existed far anokher
smell lot zone and thae the Clty Staff should c~nduct a stu~~y for some. ar to study the
possiblllty of reJucln~ the RM-400d ?one requirements or provfding thc aptl~n whereln a
smaller lat prop~sal~ if i•tiquestQ~1, could b~ considcreci by the Plannin~ Ccxmnission ~nd a
detorml~~at(o~i m~de in accordance with the findtngs of tl-e abovn-mencloned ~tudy.
Commissionor Nerhst crntinued hy noting that the davelopers were presently uslnci all ot
tha zones to come up wlth whax they wanted and if the current mArket requlred morn
optlons~ then the f,oda should p"ovlde them so that the developnr~ would be required to
m~et some crlterlb f~r a g~oA stendard devcloprtrnl.
Cc~mnis~laner Tolar notrd that he woul~ second a motlon tn the context of the foregotng
suggestlon for a study; that~ however~ he was not sure that he woul~l want to se.e single-
famlty devalopmencs with sMeller lqts than already provided f~r; thAt mc~st of the problems
and vlolatians being expertenced were relAted to the RM-~i0f1~ Zone; that~ perhaps~ the RM-
4Q~~ Zone should be stud(ed f~r posslhle elimir.~tion from the Code sincc no builders had
yeC come In to dev~lop In acGOrclance wtth the requfrements of sald zone.
CcMmissioner Ilerbst added that the study would determtne whether ~he RM-4f1(10 Zone wa3
stil) needed. Chalrman Farano noted that iF all of the differsnt modes of livtng were rrot
provid~d Por in the Code~ perhaps the study ahould r~cognize the needs ~f Che buying
pub 1 I c.
Commissioner Tolar noted that he had voted in favor of the new l~nAheim Shores proposal
since he liked what he saw~ whlch was not 6-f~~t walts and 4~~~•Square fuot lots.
Thereupon~ Mr. Doty, representinq the C. Mtchael~ Inc,~ proposal (Veriance No, ?.728),
appeared before the Planning Cummiss(on and stated thair proposal was nbt for ~-foot
masonry walls, but for decorative 6-foot wooden fences. The Pl~nning Commi~sl~n clarified
that th-ey F~ad been concerned about the height and not the building materlals used t~
construct the fences, C~mmissianer Nerbst nuted that the RS-SQOQ ~one ~~+as the most
flexible~ wlth so much square feet of lot area for ea~h bedroom, etc. ~ommtssioner
Johnson noted that, at th~ present time~ the questiun was whether individual~y-owned
(apartment) uniis should be m~de availahle as a new mode of living. Cha(rman Farano
further noted that impruvements to the existing residential zones might be able to provide
the variety of modcs of ltvtng that appeared to b~ neecled.
Commissloner Fierbst offered a motion, scconded by Commissioner Tolar and MATION CARRlED~
that the Planning Department be and hereby Is directed to proceed with a study of the
existing residentlal zones to determine whether all of the desirable modes of llving are
provtded for and to make recommend~~ions for amendments, deletions~ or additlons to the
existing zones, if desir~ble~ and whether any new zones should be created.
RECLASSIFICATION - COP~TINUFD PUBLIC HEARING. RAYMOND SPEHAR~ 913 Paloma Place~
N0~7,5-76-2 _ Fullerton~ Ca, 9263; (Owner); WILLIAM C. MC CULLO~K~ ~~320 Campus
Drive~ Newport Beach~ Ca, 9?660 (Agent). Property described as:
VARIANCE N0. 2733 An irregularly•shaped pa^cel of land consisting of approximately
11.1 acres located at the northeast corner of La ?Alma Avenue and
imperial Filghway, having approximate frontages of 208 feet on the
north side of La Palma Avenue and 365 feet on the east side of Imperial Highway~ and
having a rr~ximum depth of approximately 79j feet. Property pr~sently classtfied
RS-A-43~OOQ(SC) (RESIDE~dTIAL/AGRICULTURAL-SCEN!C CORRIDOR OVERLAY) 20NE.
REQUESTED CLASSIRICATION: CL!SC) (COMMERCIAL~ LIMt~ED ~ SCENIC CnRRIDOZ OVERLAY) ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (A) PERMITTED DISPLAY SURFACE~ (B) REQUIP,ED BUILDING
SFTBACK~ AND (C) PRQHIf31TED ROOF-MOUNTF.D EQUIPMENT, TO
CQNSTRUCT A COMIIERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER.
No one lndfcated their presence to renresent the petitioner or in opposition to the
subJect petitlon.
Although the Staff keport to the Planning Commission dated October 13. 1975~ was not read
at the meeting, sald Staff Report is referred to and made a part ~f the minutes.
t ~ •
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CON~MISSION~ October 13~ 1975 75-~~~6
RECIASSIFICATI~N NO 7~76-2 AND VARIANCE N0. 2~,'i~, (Contlnued)
It wos ndtnd thHt tho subJecr petltlons were continued from the Planning Ccxnmisslon
me~eting of Saptember 3~ 1`~l1- for the submission of adcfitional cnvlronmental imp~ct
information, and from ttie mactlnh of Septemhar 29~ 1915~ at the requcst of the pQtitionar.
It wes further nuted that An envlronmenta) Impact repart (Nu. 156) had been submittad for
an~lyzAtion by the E1R Revicw Committee on Gctaher 1~~~ 1q75~ ar~d would be submiL.ted far
Plartning Cormnissi~n consider~tion ~n Octob~r 2A~ 1q75; and, therefore~ Staff was
requestin~ th~t the puallc hearing and conslderation ~f the subject petitlons be fu~ther
c~ntinued to the Plannln~ Comrr~isslon meeting of October 29, 1q75, C~ be heard in
conJunctlan with Enviromm~ntA) Impc+ct Repor't No, 156.
Commissloner Morley offered a motion~ secondecf by Commissianer King and NOT1f1N CARRIED~
that the public heartng ancl consideratlon ~f Petltlons for Reclassiflcatlon No. 7~a'76-2
and Varlance No. 2733 be and herehy are contlnued to the Planning Commission meetinc~ of
Octoher 29~ 1975~ ~s requested.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUf3LIC HEARING. I~IITIl1TE0 BY THE ANAIiEIM CITY PLlIHNING COMMISSION~
NQ. 75'7~-~- 204 East LtnGOln Avenue, Anahelm~ Ca. A?.845; proposiny that property
'""-- dnscrihed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approrimate~y 2.5 acres h~v(ng a frontahe of approximately 2O0 feet
on the n~rth side of OrangPthorpe Avenue~ having a maxlmum depth of approximat~ly 620
feet~ and being loc~ted approximately 265 feec west of the centerllne of Imperial
Highway~ be reclassified from the COUNTY OF ORANGE A) (GENERAL AGRICULTURAL) OISTRICT
to thn RS-A-~+3~~0~ (RFSIDENTIALIAGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
No one indicated Chcir presence ln opposition to subJect petitlon.
Although the Staff Report to the Plannin~ Commission dated October 13~ 1975~ was not read
at tha publtc hearing~ said Staff Report Is ref~rred to and made ~+ part of the minutes.
It was noted that the proposed reclassification was initiated by the Planning eomron~slon
and would establish the City of ,>nahelm holding zone on the subject property p
finalizatlon of a development zone; that the proposed reclassificatlon was in conformance
with zhe Anahieim General Plan; and that the suhJecc property was annexed to the City o~
Anahelm under the "(`°angethorpe-Ntxon Free~.~ay Annexation."
T~IE t'I,RLiC FiEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Johnson offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Herbst ancl MOTION CARRiED~
that the Planning Commtssion does hereby recommend to the City Council that the subursuant
co~thetprovlsions of thehCalifornia Envitl nmantal QualityrAciental impact report~ p
Commissioner Johnson offered Resolution No, PC75-2~4 and moved for its passage and
adoptlon, that the Plenn(ng Commtssion does hereby recommenc! to ~'~e ~~~y Council that
Petltlon for Reclassification Na. 75-7h-1~ be approved~ based on the forego(ng findin~s.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call~ the f~regoing r~solution was passed by the follc~wing vote:
AYES: COMM15510NEP,S: SAr~NES~ HERBST, JOH~~50~1~ KING~ MORLEY~ TQLAk~ F~1RA~10
NAES: COMMISSIOPJFRS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
~o
~ ~ ~
I
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Octobr.r 13~ 1975 75°+ 7
~rIVIROFINF.NT~I IMPACT - PURLI(, ,1CARING. MORRIS J. CARROLL, 233~ W~st l.incoln Avenue~
~Ep~ ~~p. ~5~ ~ Anaheim~ Ca. 92~0~; DONALD F.~ EIIZ~AETII C., A~ID [LIZABF.TN
ANN RAI.ST(1~1~ 13R South Gllbert Strcot~ llnahelm~ Ca. 9284~~
RE'r.l.nSSIFICATln~1 ((lwners); RALPfIS GROCGRY COMPl11lY, A DIVISI~~I OF FEDERATF.D
N~~ ~_~~,_y DEPARTM[~IT STQR[S~ 3~+10 West Third Street~ Los Angcle~, Ca~,
"-'- 9~~2f1 (Agent); requesting that property described as: An
irrec~uiarly-Shaped p~~rcel of IAnd cansistinn oP apPr~ax~mately
7.0 acres located at the southeast co~ner of Linc~ln Avenue and Gl~bsrt Street~
haNing approximate fronta~es of 62!~ feet on the south sicle of Llnc~ln Avenue and
~it~7 feet on the east side af Gilhert Street, be reclasslfte<1 fr~m the FIS-A-~~3,GQ0
(RF.SIpEPlT111L/AGRICULTURl1L) Z~t~E to the CL (COMMERCIAL, LlMITCR) ZOPIE.
Fou~ persans indicated the(r presence In oppositfon to suhJect petition and~ upon fnqulry
by Ch~irman Far~no~ saici persons walved tl,e full readtn~ of tlie Staff Repurt.
Although the Staff Repcrt to the PlAnninq Commissiun d~-ted October 13~ 1975~ was not rnad
at tl~e public hearing, salcf Staff Rnport is refarred to and m~dc a~art of the minutes.
Mr. James A, Waud~ Ulce President of Ralphs Grocery CompanY, thc agent for the petitloncr,
appeared before the Planning Commission and made a slide pr~sentatlon to outllne the scope
of the proposal~ ~~~ting that the delivery trucks would enter the dock area along the west
side of thc property and that the plans had been revtsed to provlde one-way truck traffic
to the dock area which was a better circulation plen; that the landscaping berm was
definitely a part of the proposal; that the exterior 119hting wou1~1 be conststent wizh the
zoning standards nf the City~ being lowered and ~itrecce~i away from the adJacent streots;
that they were w,lling to waive the rlghts ko have a restaurant on the property; and that~
although the C~de requlreci a 2b-Foat buffer area adJacent to residential properties, they
were propostng to have 9 employee parlcing ~paces on th~ extreme sautheast portion of the
property wl~lch was a 25-foot wtde strip of lanci; and that tF~ey did not feel that sald
sma 11 pa rk 1 ng area wou 1 d create a proh I em for tf~e a~i J acent res i clences .
Mr. Dean Graham~ 133 South Gi~~ert 5treet~ Anaheim~ appeare~i before the Planning
Commisslon in opp~~ition and questioned whether the circulation pattern referred to in
paragraph 1~ of the Staff Report toak ~nto consideration the traffic circulatian entering
the subJect property or on the property itself, Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti
advised th~t the Traffic Engineer had considered both aspects of circulatlon.
Mr. Graham continued by stating thar.~ In general, Gilbert Street was a~i0-foot wide
street, that the residents on Gilbert Street presently found it difficult to get in and
uut of thely driveways; that there was hcavy traffic an Gilbert Street generate~ by the
three schools In the immediate area; that the ad~acent prop~rty owners were not opposGd to
dcvelopment of the subJect property~ per se~ however~ they were opposecl to any egress or
ingress to the subJect property from Gilbert Strect; that presently~ right anrl left-hand
turns on Gllbert Street were very d(fFicuYt; that he c~uld not speak concern3r~g the
effects of the ltc~hting from the proposed dev~loament whlr.h might occur to the home~wners
fn the area; and that the primary concern of the property owr~ers was the traffic flow on
Gilbert Street~ if there was any increase.
Mrs. Jane Oscid~ 237~ Mall Av~nue, Anaheim~ appeared before the Planning Commission in
opposition and stated the property owners in the area wsre concerned abour the residential
character ef the nelghborliood~ since the subJect property was surrounded by well-
malntained homes; that the three schools in the area were within walking dlstance of the
subJect property; that she was concerned abaut the noise from the traffic~ slnce she and
the other homeowners in the area had absorbed abaut as much noise as they could; and that
she was speaking In the bese interest of preservl~g a good neighborhood and keeping the
traffic off Gilbert Street, and she would requesY that the ingress and egress to th2
subJect property be from Lincoln Avenue only.
Commissioner Totar inqulred if Mrs. Oseid was not opposed to the commercial developme~t~
but to the traffic only; whereupon. Mrs. Oseid stated the homeowners wauld prefer
residentlal development of the properr,y~ naturallyo but tl~at thcy were simply requesting
that the subJect proposal be mndified in order to not deter•lorate the surroiinding
residenttal netghhorhood, with the additional traffic on Gilbert Streci.
Mr. James Ambler~ 134 South Land Lane~ Anah~lm, appeared before the Planning Commisslon in
opposition and stated his property abutted tht subject property to the south; that the
subJe~t propasal for development was very beauCiful, hovrever~ he was ca~cerned that there
would be an abundance of leaves blawinq nver the fence from thc subJect property into his
swimming Rool; the~efore, he was opposed to any tress ue{ng planted along the fence at the
subJect south property llne.
~
~ ~
MI NlITES. C I 7Y PLANN 1 PIG COMMI SS I~~•+ ~~)ctobar I 3~ 1975
ENVIRONMENTIIL IMPACT R[PORT NQ. 15~_AND RfCLASSIFiCATION Nn, 75'7b-~ (Continun.d)
75-~+t18
Mr. Fred Rull~cl;, 23~~`1 West Transit Avcn,. ~ Anaheim, appenreci bnfore the Plannln!~
Commisslon fn oppc~sitlon and stnte:d he also hnd a largo swimminq poo) ~dJ+~cent to the
yub~~ct south pl'ope~ty llna and wr+s cc~nc~rned ahout thc icaves blowlnq ov3r the fence into
hIs ~~ool; thne I~e owno:! the f~urth hous~ From Gilhert Strcet; and thnt he wos v~ry
carcnrnerl About the nolse from the proposed st~ras~ since his prapnrty ~butted tho subJect
pioperty.
Clinirman Farono expl~lnecf that there was ~i sep~ratlon betwe.en Mr. qullock's property and
the sub,ject property.
THE PUBL~C HEARING WAS CI~SED.
ChAlrmon Farano lnqulred~ (n vlew of the opp •itton's comments, whether the petftionr,r had
explored acce:ss poss Ih I 1( t Ies wi tli Gemc~ to ~, e~~st of sub,Ject ~roperty, ~nd to have
inc~ress and e,qre~s frcxr ~.fnr•o?n Avenu~ anly since it w~~uld be d~fficult to belleve that
eh~ delivery trucks wcu~ not use an access c~n Gtlber: Street ff an access was avallahle
on said strc~:t.
Mr. Waods replled that the appl(cants had explored access from the east with Gemco sevci.~l
months ano; Chn2 the proposed stores would be in competltior with Gemco and, froni the
prellminary discussions wfth them~ it appeare.d that Gemco dici not want to approvr. access
from the east; however~ the 3pplicants had no Oh~CCLIAn4 to cooper~~tinq with Gemr,o for khe
benefit of the coMmun!ty.
Commiss{oner Johnson nc~ted that the Plannin.; Commisslon's main ~~cern was t~ have the
truck dellveries from l.lncoln Avenue anly; a~tiereupon~ M~. Wo~ds st~ited he ha~.i been advlsEd
by his arch(tact that t:hr.re was a loacl 1(mlt on Gilbert Street which wo~ld protably
prohibit most of the trucl: dellverles from using the Gllnert Strer.t accesses.
~halrm~n Faranc noted that the parl<!n9 area proposed at the extremE southeasT corner of
the sub)ett pro~~erty created a difficult situatlon since. In spite of all the good
intentions of the devrloper. he doubted seriously that th~~ •mployees would use said
pa~rk(ng ~7rea and would be concerned about any female emplo,.:cs parking in that area after
dark. Thcreupon~ Mr. Woods stlpulated to eliminate the praposed 9-space park(ng lot arra
at. the southeast extremity of tiie suhJect property and to creatin~ a park-like area on
that portlon nf tlie property, to be fully landscaped w-th nu trees ahutting the fences
ad}acent to the residential lots unless the trees were of a non-shedding type and to have
decoratlve sidewalks~ etc, Mr. Ambler (ndicatecl that he dicl not obJect to trees~ as such~
but wauld prefer that any trees atutti,~~ his property were evergreen or other non-shzdding
type.
Cortmissloner Johnson inquired if the applicant would consider negotiatincl with :,emco to
seil the southeast ~:orner of the subject property to Gemco; whereupon~ Mr. Woods stated
they cou~d not sell the land since they were only leasin~ !t 4`or the subject development.
l:omm(ssfaner Y.Ing rioted that he had a savings account at Anaheim Savings and Loan and
inqulred if the City Attorney's t?ffica would consider that he had a conflict of int~rest
In votinc~ on the subJect p~tftlon; whereupon, Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowr;~ advised
that he would not corsider that a savings account would r,onstitute a conflict of interest
in the subJect rnatter.
The•Planning Commission entered tnto discuss(cn regarding the use of the proposed access
polnts nn Gilbert Street and on lin~oln Avenue, duri~g whlch it was noted that the trafflc
generated by the proposed use would probably be no greater th~r by a reside~~tial
devetopm~nt ~n the suhject property; that one of the proposecl drtveways on Gilbert Street
should be ellm(nated and the remalning driveway to bc used for egress only; and that there
were hazards Involved with trucks windfng around in a parking lot.
Commissioner Barnes ~oted that !he sub)ect F.IR document indicaxed the primary source of
noise generated by the proFased us~ would be :I:e heavy trucks delive~in~ goods to the
market, etc., and further inciicated that the delivery hours would be from 7:Ob a.m. to
lO:OQ p.m.
In respanse to qucstioning by the Planning Commission, Mr. Woods state~ there would only
be approximately two tractor trucks makin~ deliver(es each day and he stipulated that the
dellve:ries of inerchandise would be restricted to tlie I»urs between 7:G0 3.m, and 10:00
p,m,
• e ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLI1PlNING COMMISSI~iN~ Octobe+r 13~ 1975 ~S'~a9
ENVIRONMEN7Al lMPAC7 REPORT NO 1~5 AND RECLASSIFI_f.AT10N N0, 75-7G'S ~Contlnued)
_ __._._...-..- - -
Mr, Woods stated he cauld not qu~rantr.e that the delivery trucks would not ug~ the Gilbart
Sxreet a~cess, howmver~ they woulcl be happy to pAy any traPf(c vlolations in regards
thereto, f,halrmen Fareno su~gested that thc~ ~Ark(ne~ lot be redesigned with the accoss for
dollvery trucks belncl ~ str~lght line from Lln.oln Avenue t~ Che south en~1 of the p~operty
and r•eversing thc plan for in~ress to thr. well t'rom the ensk; whereupon~ Mr. Woods stated
the plon as proposed was In ~~reement with the Trafflc Enqineer's recommenclotlons relat(n~
to alignment wlth Belincla f,ircle. Cnmmissioner 7olar noted that the sou therly drlveway
proposed along Gllbcrt Street should be closed off~ since no heavy trucks wer~ permikted
on Gilbert Street t+nd there wa!,no need for two drlvcways on sald street; whereupon, Mr.
Woods so stlpulate~d with tlie ~r~visiun th~t continuous landscapinn would be provld~d
Across sbid drfveway npCniri~, Nr. Grah,~m st.~tecl chac both of the proposed dr(veways on
Gilhert Street could be cloaed ~ff slnce the pcople In the <~rea were alr eady accustomed to
goin~ onto Lincoln Avenue to ~et t~ Gemco~ and on Llncaln the cars could mnke c:nly right
turns, but on Gilbert the cars could m~ke ri~F~t anci left turns, creatin~ traffic hazards~
and the Increa~eci tr~fflc may he tc~o n~uch for the prn~erties aloncl Gi lbe~t Street to bear.
Chairmar~ Fbrano noted that fr~m t~ safety stondpoint he was apprehenslve about routing
trucks through and arouncl the shopping center; that by keepin~ ~nly thc northerly drivPway
on Gilb~rt Street, che truck traffic m~y not he able to enter th~re; ancl that. perhaps a
safe translt lane could he createrl to permlt the Crucks te travel around the periphery of
the site for safety reasons, sin.e he was certain that the applicant did noc want ta ~•isk
the ltves of the patrons. Commissloner Johnson stated that he shuddered at the
possibfl(ty of trucks passing t~y the front door~ of the stUres. Commis sioner hlorley noted
that an entrance and travel lane on the property for trucks only would p robably be Jammed
with other vehicles most of the tfine.
In respons~e to questiontny by Com,~iissioner Herbst~ Traftic Enqineer Paul Singer adv(sed
that if 15U multiple-famlly units were constructed on the subJect arope rty, the average
dafly traffic count a~ould be approximately 15~~ ca-•s. Commissioner Nerb st also noted that
there r~ould probably be more access points on Gllbert Street if the subject proparty was
developed resldentially; and that he would not want all of the access paint:s along Gi{bert
Street eliminated for the subiect prnposal. Thereupon, Mr. Woods reite rated his
stipulation that the southerly dr•iveway along Gilbett Street ~~ould be e~imir.ated~ etc.
Chairman Faran~ noted that he did not receive Envir~nmental Impact Repo ~t Plo, 155 for
review and since he had only read the Staff Report, he was reqaesting ad vice from the City
Attornay's Offlc~ as to aihether o~ not he s~iuuld vote on tfie subJect ma*ters. Deputy City
At:orney Frank lowry advlsed that voting on eithpr th~ EIR document or ths subJect
reclasslficatian would be based on informatian cont~-ined in the EIR doc+~ment. Thereupon,
Commissioner Farano stated he would abstai~~ from voting on the subJect matters.
Commissioner 7olar offered a mo:ion, seconded k~y Commissfoner Herbst an d MflTION CARRIED
~~ommissioner Farano abstaininc~). tf~at Environmental impact Report ~~o. 155 having been
consldered this date by tlie Planning Commission and evidence, both writ ten and oral~
having been pr•es~nted ko supplement said draft EIR No. 155, the Plannin y Commission
b~lleves that sald draft EIR No. 1S5 does conform to the City and State Guidel(nes and
the State of Callfornia Environmental Quality ~ct and, based upon such information~ does
hereby recammend to the City Council that they certify said EIR No. 15 S is in compliance
with said Environmental Quality Act.
Commissioner Tolar ~ffered Resolution No. PC75-Z~5 and moved fc~r 'ts pa ssage a~id adoptlon~
that the Planning Ccammfssion does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassiflcatlon No. 75-76-5 be appro~ed, subject to the ftnding that the proposed zuning
(s !n conformarce with the land use designation on the F+naheim Generai Flan; and subJzct
to the stipulatians of the petitioner and the Interdepartmental Commit tee recommendatlons.
(~ee Resolution Book)
On roll call, ~.he fore~oln~ resolution was passed by the following vote:
RYES: C~MMISSIONERS: BARNES~ HERBST. JONNSOtI, KING~ M!?RLEY, 1'OLAR
NOES: COMMISSIOrIERS: NnNF
P.BSENT: COMMI 551 ~tICRS : NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSION~RS: FARl1tl~
~
~
M I NUT~S ~ C 1 TY FLANN I N~ f,OMM I SS I ~N ~ Oc tober I 3~ ~ 975
~
~
75-490
Rf'CLASSIFiCATION - PUPI.IC HFARItlG. GOW/1Rl) R, MER~F.R~ ET Al.~ 12~'7 ~ast S~rlt'1 Anro 5trcet,
N(l. 75-'G-6 An~~holm~ Ca, ~2~Qh (4~rnor); E. J. CAMPE~EI.L 6 C~MPIINY~ 'J'I.Q ~ouCh
Euclld Strcct~ Sut te ~, An~hctm, CA, A?.I?~~~ (Agenti). Propcrky
VARIl1NCE N~. 273~ descrihed ns: !1n (rr~c~ulnrly-shipe.d pnr ~1 of land consisting of
~ approxlmately 1,Q rcrc, h~7ving a fron[agc of approximatcly 162 fo~t
on the s~uth side ca} Orange Avenuc, heving a maximum depth of
ap~raxlmately 29~ feet, hr.inq lac~Led approxlmately 113 feet en~t of the centerl ina
of Vailey Street, an<I fi~rther deserlhcd as 212Q West OrAn~e Avcnue, Pro~erty presently
class I f led as-n-~-3.~~~ (RESI DE1JT1 /1l/ARRICUI TUItP,~> zoN~.
REQUE51'F~ t;LASSIFI CATIQI~; RS-720n (R[SIDF.~I'CIAI., SINGI.E-FAMILY) 20~JE
REQUESTEII VARIANCE: WAIVF.ftS pF (r~) REQUIRCM~t~T T11AT ALL L~TS tiBUT A PUfiL!C S1'f~EET
AND (B) 1"i1~11MUF1 I.OT WIDTII, TO FSTADIISII FOUR I.OTS.
One pers~n Indir.nted hls ~resence in opposition to subJect petitlon, and fc,rt:hwith w~lr~ed
thc full reading of th~ Staff Report on the basis that hc: ha~1 alrcady read siiid report,
Although the Staff Repnrt to the Planning Commission dete.~1 October 13~ 1.i75~ was not re:ad
at the public he~~rl~y, said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes,
Mr. Rlchar~l l,utz~ representti~e~ th~ a~ent for the petitloner~ app~nred hePr~re khe Planntng
Commisslon and stat~d the proposal was ta develop one acre oP land on Eucltd Street InCo
faur RS-72q~ lots wlth homes; that they were requestln9 to have a private cul-de-sac
street to make the propaeed homes mo~e ap~eil ing and lncrease lhe value and i~ver al l
epp~arance ~f l•he area; and that each of the lots would comply wflh the req+ilrements ot'
the RS-7?~~ 7_one,
Mr. James Okazaki~ attorney~ 7.222 Martin, Irvine~ appeared before the Plannfng Commission
as representatlve for the own r(Mr, and Mrs. Archihald Ktndrat) of the aci_)acent
trregulariy-shaped "sllver" of lanci at the southeast corner of the sub.ject property, and
stated that he had submitted a lrtter to the Planninc~ Commfssfon request(ng that the
consideration of the subJect per.i tions be deferred until the parties had an opportunity to
determine whether or not the Kindrat's parcel couid he acquired for a reason~hle
consideratton; that accurdinc~ to his cl ients there had nev~r been any seric~us d!scussions
r•egarding the addi tlonal land; uncf that tl~e aclditional land could give access to the
subJecl property from another publ)c ,treet (Random Drive).
TNE PUBL~C HEARI~lG WAS CLOSED,
In response to questlon(ng by Cha irman Faranu, Mr. Lu~. ed there had been no
discuss~on between hls clients and the Ktndr'ats regarding ~he additional land, Mr.
Okazakt stated hfs cllent's property was an unreasonahle pie~e of land exce~~t ~r whatever
use the sub)ect petitioners could make of it; that the adJacent tract of hamas was
approximately 1$ years old anci hi s cl ient had owned the "sl iver" of land approximately 10
years.
Commissioner Nerbst noted that he would not lika for thE Planning Commisston to create a
problem wi th relationship to thP small piece of land,
Comm~ssioner flerbst noted that a private street would be far more expensive to the
property owners than ne~otiatiny 4,ith the owner of the "sltver" of land for a reasonabl~~
price. Commissioner Morley noted tl~at if a stre~t was put through the subject prop~rty
from Barn~dale Street anci Random Drive, the entire exlstin~ tract miglit use that ~treet
for ~ccess to Orange Avenue. C~mmi~sioner Herbst noted that the street need not go
Lhrough the property since the south halr of the subJect propPrty could front on Random
urive anri the north half could front on Orange Avenue,
Cummissioner Johnson nated that the Plannin~ Commission sf~ould not put the petitl:~n~r in
tlie position of hav(nq tc~ purchase the extra Qier.e of property.
Mr. l.ucz stated rhat hfs client had developecl a proposal and a deviation was virtually
in~poss(ble s(nce the cost of tF~e subJec*_ property was reasonable and any additional costs
may cause no developrtient to tike place, f,hatrman Farano noted that the Gommission was
trying to encourage tP~e two oart ies to negot(ate an sensible terms regarding the
additianal "sllver" of land.
~
~
MINU7ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 13, 197 S
RF.CL/15SIFICIITION N0. 75-76-h AN~ VARIANCE N0, 2739 ~Contlnucd)
w
s
75-a9i
hir. I.utz then stete~l the prlce of I:he "siiver" of lAn~1 had been quoted as $I~~(10Q;
wher~upon ~ Cha 1 rmen Fsrano i nqu I recl I f the pet i t io~er wou) d cons t d~r purchrs I ng the
addltlonal land at ,~ rent~nable price. Mr. Lutz r r_pllcd that the g~neral ~nd over ell
vlew of the propoaodhouses would be better, Ghalrrn~7n Faran~~ note~l, in his opinian~ thAt
kho proposal wos batter than ~peninn up co Rend~m Grivc.
Go~nmissloner Tolar m+9des an observation tl~r~t the ow~cr of the "sliv~~r" of lr~nd was asking
be' ~r.n $5Q0 an~f $6Q~~ per squ~re foot f~r the approximately 20 x 90-foot sCrip of lend;
th. ( t was un Fn 1 r to ~ianiper thc pc t f t i nn~er who wa ~ p rop~s I n~ a deve 1 opmen t i n excess of
the requlrements of the zone; ihnt the petitloner did not nccessat'Ily n~ed thc strlp af
land; that if Mr. Kin~irat wantn~i to keep tiie AdJ:~e.ent strip of land, he•_ sh~~uld be allrxvecl
to do so; and th~~t Che develc,pment prop~~al was ~~ good plan and hr~ favared che lot slzes.
Comm! ss loner Darne9 noted that she fa~~ored the devclopment as proposea and the pr i ce of
the addttlanal strip of lancl madr a blg diffrrenca rs to whether it should ev4n be
constdered for the subJect devcl~pment.
Mr. Okazakl sCated lye agreecl that S1Q,0~0 was certalnly an exhorhit~nt pri~e for the
"sl iver" of land; however, the only real vlahle us e of the strip of land was t~ be a p~rt
of the proposed plan af <levelopment.
Comnissloner Tolar noted that the asking price of the land was extremely unreasonable and
that tf the petitloncr was wllling to walt twa weeks to negot~ate t'or thc land~ a two-week
contlnuance woulci be considered; however~ he dicl ~ot wish to see the subJect development
hurt when the proJect prc-pnsed ~•~as except lonal ; and that Mr. Okazakt should make i t very
clear to hfs cllent Chat they should get ciown to the "nitty ~ritty." Thereupon~ Mr. Lutz
stated a l~~-o-week continuar.ce woulcl be acceptahle to him and his cl ient.
Commissioner Tolar o°fered a mc~tion, s~con~ied by Commissioner hbrley and MOTICPI CARRIED~
to r~open the publlc hearing and continue consideration of Petitior~s for Reclas~ificatlon
No. 75-7H'6 and Varlance No. 27:~9 t~ the ^lannin g Commission meeting of October 29, ~975,
in order ~For the petitioner to negotiate for the purchase of tf~e ad.~a~ent strip of land tu
th~: southeast of subJect property.
REC"cSS - At 3~3~ p.m.~ Chalrm~n Farano declared a recess.
RECOP~VEPIE - At 3~~+~ P•m•~ Chalrman Farano reconvened the meeting with all
'-""-"-" Commtssioners being present.
RECLASSIFICATIOP~ - PU4LIC FIEARING. INITI~7ED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANPIING COMMISSION,
NQ. 75-7h"7 2~~ East Lincoln Avenue~ Anah e im, Ca, 92805; proposiny ihat property
described as: An irregularly - shaped parc~l of land consistfng of
approximatAly 2.5 acres loca t ed southeasterly of the intersection of
Santa Ana Canyon Raad and Mohler Drive~ approximately 1000 feet east of 'the centerllne
nf hbhler Drlve, be ~eclassified from tha COUtJTY OF ORANGE 1QO~E4-20,000 (SI?ALL ESTATE)
DISTRICT to the RS-d1-43,~OQ(SC) (RESIDEFlTIAL1AGR1 CULTURAL - SCEIJIC CaRR100R) ZONE.
;~o one indicated their presence in oppos(ti~n to subjec petition.
Although the Staff Repor* to the Planning Commis sion dated October 13, 1975, was not read
at the public hear(ng~ said Staff Report ts refe rred to and made a part of the minutes.
It was noted that the proposed reclassification was initiated by the Planning Comrrlssion
and would establlsh the Ctty uf Anaheim holddng zone on the subJect prnperty pend(ng
finalizatlon of a development aone at a later d a te; that the propose~i re~lassificacfon was
ln conformance with the Anaheim General Plan; a n d that the subJect p ~operty was currantly
pending completlon af annexation to the City of Anahelm under the "Mohler nrlve No. 4
Arnexatlon."
TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLQSED.
Commisstoner Herbst offered a motinn~ secondeci b y Commissioner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED~
that the Planning Cortxnisslon does hereby recommend to the Clty Council that the subJect
proJect be exempt from the requi rement to prepa re ai~ envi ronmental impact report, pursuant
to the provistons of the California Envir~nment al Quality Act.
~
~s..
~
MINUTFS. CITY PIArlNING COMMISSIUN~ Qctober 1'i~ 1~7~
~
~
'!5-~~9z
RECi.ASSIFICl~TI0D1 N0. ~5-7~~_~, (Continued)
Corn~nissloner Tolar off~re~t ~lesolutlon No. PC7;-2Q~> nn~1 movecl for Its pdss~~c~e and adoptlon,
that thu Planninq Commission ~ioes her~l,y recommend to the City Council thnt Petltlon for
Rec ~~~ss I f i c~~t I on Ho. 75-7~- 7 be arprovr..~i ~ base~i on t!~e forego i n9 f I nd I ngs , StIE)] ec t to
cond';lons. (Sce Res~l~itfon baok)
On rall c,~ll, Lhc forec~olnq rns~lution was pa9sPd by thc followinn votc:
AYf.S: COMMISSIONF:ftS; ~AR1lES~ IIFRRST~ J011NSON~ KINf,, M~RLfY, TnLAR~ FARANp
NOLS : C(1MM1 SS I QNERS : lJ~~~E:
ABSl.NT: C~)11M) SS I f~NERS : N~NE
RF.CLASSIFIf,ATI~PI - PUnI.IC IIEARING. INITIATFD BY TIIE ANANEIM CITY PLANtJiN~~ COMMI~SION~
NQ. 75°76-A 2~~i EaSt Lin~oln Ave~ue~ Anahelm, Ca. 92805; proposing that properky
describecl is: An Irre~ularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
apprnximately 2.5 acres lacated southeast~rly of tl~e intersection of
Santa Ana Canyon Road and Mohler Drive~ approximately 100~ feet east of tFie centariine
of Mohlar Drive be reclassifled fr~m the RS-A-~+3.~~~(SC) (RE`iIDEPITIAL/AGf!ICUL7URAL -
SCE~IIC C~RRIDOR) ZQNE to the RS-HS-22,~On(SC) (RESIDENTIIIL~ SINGLF-Fl1PIIl.Y NILLSIUF. -
SC~NIC CORRIDOR) ZQNE.
No one lndlcated their presence in opposltlon to subject petition.
Aitl~ough the Staff Report tu thc Planning Commis~•~ir,ri dated October 13, 19')a~ was noC read
at the public heari~q~ ~aid Staff Report is refer~~d to and made a part o•P the minut:e3.
It was notecf that the proposed recla~sification was initiated by the Planning Commi!aslon
and was in c~nformancs v+ith the land use ~'esfgnation on the Anaheim General Plan.
TIIE PU~LIC HEARING IJAS CL~S[D.
Conxnissloner Morley offered a mc~tion, seconded by Cemmissioner Kin~ and H~1'IOM CARRIEQ~
that the Planning Commission dnes hereby recommend to the City Council tf~at the subJect
proJect be exempt From the requiremen[ to prepare an environmental impaci: repart~ pursuant
to the provisions of the California Environmenta) Qualfty Act.
Commissloner Morley offered Resolution No. PC75-2~7 and moved for its passage and
adoption~ that tl~e Planning Ccxnmisslon dues herehy recommend to the City Counctt that
Petition for Reclassification No. PC75-76-8 be approved, based or~ the foregoing findin~s~
and subJect to conciitlons. (See Resolution dook)
~n r~l) call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AY[S; CONMISSIONERS: BARNES~ NERRST~ JONNSOPI, KI~JG~ MORLEY~ TOLI\R, FARAN~
NOES: COMMiSSiQNERS: NONE
ABStt~T: CQMMISSIOP~ERS: NONE
RFCLASSIFICATIbM - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIP~G COMMISSIGN~
N0. 75-76'9 204 East L,incoln Avenue~ Anaheim~ Ca. 92~~5; Proposing that property
described as: An irregularly-shaped parcei of land consisting of
approximately 1 acre located at the southwest corner of Frontera
Street and Glassell Strset be reclassified from the CQU~lTY OF ORADIGE A1 (GENERAL
AGRICULTURAL) DISTRICT to the RS-A-43~~00 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTUP,AL) ZONE.
Nc one indicated thelr presence in opposition to subject petition.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commisslon dated October 13~ 1975~ was not read
at the public h~aring~ sald Staff Report is referred to a~d made a part of the minutes.
It was noted that the proposed reclassification was initiated by the Planning C~ammission
and would establish RS-A-43,Q00 zoning on the property (excepting the highway rights-of-
way) as a holding zo~e pending flnalization of a development zone at a later date; and
that the sub,~ect praperty is currentiy pending finalization of annex tion ta the City of
Anahetm under the "Frontera No. 2 Annexation."
THE PUBLIC HEARINr WAS CLOSEn.
~
~
MINUTF.S~ f.ITY PI.ANNIFIG COMM~SSIQN, Uctobcr 13~ 1975
RCCLAS'SIFICATION N0. 75-7~-9 (Contlnued)
~^w
~
)~~--i93
Conrnlssioncr Bernes affercd a rratiun~ ^,ccondc~l by Commisslonc~r Johnson and MbTION C1IRRILD~
thnt the Planning Cammission does hcresLy re~ortxn~n~t to thc Clty Council tlint ~.he subJect
pr~Ject hr exempt from the requirement t~ ~rapire ~n envlre:nmenC,il (mp~~cC report, pursuant
t~ the provlslons af thc Californli Envir~nmental Qua112y Act.
Commissinner Barnes ufferecl Rcsalirti~n P~o, PC75-7.~~ an~l move~l for its p~~ssage ~nd
edoptlnn~ that the Plannin~ Comm(sslon does her~~hy recommen~l to the City Councll th~~t
Petitlon for Raclr~sslflcaCion No. 75-76-9 be approvecl~ based on the fore~~alnq findings~
and wub.~ect to condltions. (See Res~lutlon Bonk)
4n roll call, lhe foreqoln~ rr.solution was pass~d hy the fallowin~ votc:
AYF.S: Cf1MMISSI~NERS: BARNES~ HFRRST~ JOHNSON, KING~ M~1Rl.EY, TQI.~R, F'ARI1~~0
N(IES: C~MMISSIONFZS: NONE
ARSE~~T: CQMMISSI~NFRS: NONE
VARIANCC Mfl, 273(i - PU~ILIC HCIIRING, ROflERY P. A~JD FR1I~JCINF E. NAMM~ 177G Nolbrook
' Street, An~helm, Ca. ~1?.~n~ (Owner); P~RAGf1~~ BUILbf'ftS, 22Q North
Brookhurst Strect, Anaheim~ Ca, q2~~)1 (~+9ent); -'equesting WAIVER
OF MAX ( Ml1M CUVF.RIIGF TO CO~JSTRUC7 A Hi)USE ADDI T I 0~1 on prope rty descr i hed as : A
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting ~f approxlmately 0.11 acre~ having a
frontage of approximat~ly 5~ feet on the south side af Holhrook Street, liaving a
maximum depth of approx(m~~r.ely 1Q~ f~et~ bcing locar,ecl e~proxiniately 73~ feet north-
east of the centerilne of Tanqlewood Avenue, and further described as 1776 Holbrook
Street. Property presently classi fiecl RS-5n~o (RESIDF~I1'I~L~ SI~JGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
No ai~e indicatad tl~eir presence in opposition to subject petition.
Alth~ugh `he Staff Report to the Planning Commisslon dated October 13, ~975, was not read
~t the public hearinc~~ sald Sta~f Report is referred to and made a part of the ~~~~,~~tes.
Mr, b1i111am McCrae, representing the agent for the petitloner, appeared befor~~ ~he
Planning Cortnnission and st<~tecl tha family of the petltioner had outgrown their home and
there was need for a bedroam addition~ as proposeci.
TNE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED.
Cortmissloner Kirc1 noted that he was interested to know if there was any opposition from
the ad~jacent property owners immecltately to the north ~ind south of the subject property;
whereupon~ Mr. McCrae stated there was no oppositlon from any of the neighbors,
Commisaioner Nerbst noted that at the time the new ordinance specifying S5~ maximum lot
coverage was adopted, there was discussion concernin~l the sub,ject 2ract and it was
generally felt at that time that the add-ons for the tract would be in the minor
percenttle; that the subject tract was originally de~~~loped with lot coverage of
approxtmatety 40~~ as permitted~ at thar. tlme; khat the additlon of a bedroom~ as
homeownerst~and~that~einfhiseopinlon,saZprecedenk~would no*_tbessetisince theePlannEng
Commtssiun had granted simllar requests in the past.
Commissioner Tolar n~tecf that with the addttion of the s~~n deck~ the privacy of the
neighbors would be affected~ and Commissic~rier Herbst noted that two-story residences were
permitted in the RS-500~ Zone.
~hairman Farano noted thar the RS-5000 Zone was esCabtished to give the builders mare
flexibility and, If they wanted a larger house~ al! they needed was a larger lot to
accommodate It~ etc.; and the sub;ect proposal v~as contrary to the zone requirements,
Commissioner Herbst noted that he agreed with the Chairman with respect to new tracts, and
he reiterated his prevlous comments that poten~tal adc~-onc in the subJect tract and lct
coverage~ etc.~ were discussed at the time the new orc~'nance was considered. CommisslonGr
Herbst further noteci thr roposed room acldition wa•: within 6~ of whaL was oriqtnally
approved for constructi~• : residence.
In response to guesttening u, he Plannincl ~ommission, Mr. McCrae stated the surrounding
property owners had all seen the proposed plans for the room addition and sun deck; that
~ ~ ~
MIPlUTiiS, fITY P~ANNI~~r. COMMISSEON~ OC!~~~)RI' r
13~ 1')7~ 7~"~~`.11~
vnainr~cr rio. 2~a (cG~ciR~ed)
the existinq clwellln~ limited the rec~e<~tlonal space; an~~ th~ic t~r a~~n ~Ir~ck would n~r.rloolc
the swlmmin~ pool.
Commissl~ncr Johnson note<1 thit he rit,l not favc~r the sun ~ieck p~rtlc~n ~f th~ proposal.
IC wns n~ted that the plreckor of the Plannin~7 Depirtment hri~i determinc~l th~it the propo~c~d
acCivlty fcll wf[hln the def(nltJon ~f Section 3.~1, Clas:. 1, of thc Clty of Anoh~~fm
Guldellnes to the Requ(remcnCs for r.n [:nvironn,rntal Im~act Rc~ort ancl was. therefore~
c~tegorically exempt fr•om thc requlrement t~~ file ~~n EIR,
Commissloner Nerbst offcred Resol~alion No. PC7;-20~ and m~ved for Its passage ancS
adoptlon~ that Petitlon f~r Variance Mo, 7_73£~ be and herehy is nrant~d, on the basis that
although the prese^t f:ode spe~lf(es tFiat thc m~~ximum lot cavcr~c~e in t'e RS-50~0 l.one
shall not excaed 35~ c~f the lot area ~'~r dwellin~ u~its with three hedronms or less, the
dwellln~ was oric~lnally constructed w~th approxlrr~tely ~+~$ lot coverage and the proposed
~ddltlon would Increase sald ~~t coverage only 6~ which fs herehy cietermined to be a
m~nlmal request; and, furthermoreo sim(lar requests have prevlously been granCed by the
~lanninc~ Commissl~n; subJect t.~ the condltlon that the subJect property sliall be developed
substantlally in accord,vnce with plans and speclfications on file witfi the CICy of Ar~aheim
marked Exhiblt No, 1. {See Rcsalution Boolc)
On roli callo the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ NER~ST~ KItJG, FIORLEY~ TOL/1R~ F~,RAPIQ
NOES ; C011H I SS I ONERS : JoHNSO-1
ABSENT: CQMMISSIQf1ERS: NOPIE
REP~RTS AND ~ ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATIQNS R C~11 ICATION N0. 74-75'2~- (REVI510~1 N0. 4) - Request
~ for approval of revtsed plans - Property consisttng of
approximately 7 acres located north and west af the north-
west cor~~er of La Palma Avenue and Statz College Boulevard,
having approximate frontages of 265 feet on the nurth s(de
nf La Palma Avenue and 7A3 feet on the west side ~f State
(:ollege Doulevard (vacant property}.
It was noted that the subJect rsquest was cuntinued from the Planning Commission meeting
~f September 29, 1~15, for the petitioner to submlt revised plans.
Although the Staff Report to Che Planning Commfssion dated October 13~ 1975~ was not read
at the meet(ng~ satd Staff Report (s referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Chairman Farano noted that the originally aporoved commercial development for the subject
property was for 9~~~~Q square feet of flcor area; that the revision submitted on
September 29~ 1975~ was for 1~7-1q0 square feet; and that the revision presently be(ng
cansidcred by the Planning Commission was for 105,4no square feet.
in response to questioniny by Commis~foner Herbst~ Ms. Oiana Kolodzielskl, the applicant~
appeared before the Planning Commissic~n and stated general retail and no restaurant was
proposed on the subJect property, since aciequate parking for a rest~urant could not be
provided.
In response to questioning by Chairman Farano, the petitloner stipulated that precise
landscaping plans shall be submitted tc the Planning Comm(sslon for revi~w and approval~
said plans to indicate the plant materials, size of plants~ and spacing~ etc.
Commissianer Herbst offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Tolar and MOTION CARRIEU~
that the Planning Commission does hereby recorrarend to the Clty Council that the subJect
request for approval of Revision No~ 4 for Reclassific~.tion No. 74-75~2<< be approved,
subject to the foregotng findings anci stipulations of the petitioner, said Revision No. 4
constituting pracise plans for development of the subJect property and being in
substantlal conformante with the original approval of Reclassification No. 74-75-24.
ITEM N0. 2
RK N- IEU FEE PROPOSAL - Parks and Recreation Commission
reques~t for Planning Commission review.
The Planning Commissinn generally concurred that the subJect requeqt be c~ntinurd to the
Planning Commission meeting of October 29~ 1375~ for further study.
~ ~ ~
,~1lNlfl'1~1;;, CT'I'Y i'IJ1D1f~ILiV(3 OU~;4viT~~~';T(~~', Uotobor '1:3, 1'~;'.; ~'~ •~`a~~
~1'-i;M TJU. 3
VAIiIANUf~; T1U. ~`.~9~: - I1~yueot to nmend t;our:~ ~~L' oPorc~tiun - l'rc~po~~l.y
q(lll:i~!1'r~ll~ ~1~ A~~I'OX~filEi'LffZY U.^ dOt'n;) ~.OOUI.HU Flt ~,f10 'tu11t,~1Wt131, ()UI'11Q1'
ul' 1,e l'o7.nu~ P,~ nt~~.io and l!1n.~i; ;;t~~oet ( 7-1~~14v~u Mn~•ko c 1.
7:t, wan no~c>d t,hai t.}ie !+{ipl.l~en~, (7'om WhiL~ng, Dl~t,rioi MnneKer of ^~„ii~hin~nd Cur,~oratiuti)
~:•~;~ i~~quo:~ting an nmondmc+iil, tc~ (10I1G~~.C~.QI1 N~~. 7.1. c~f I'io:~alui,l~~n No. 1'C74-73, to pei•mit; the
:;leveu ~,1ar•ket oi, '!ie :cub,}eoi; p,~ape-•t,y to ~•~~na1n opon ?_4 ho~.u^; e day; that prA~~ut1y t,tio
hour:: uf uper'atioti wc~re :~ppoifiod to Lo fi~om 7:UU a.m. tu miQniE~irt; ancl I,het ~.ho applicar.~
}ir~d indl.oatod i;hai, of ~,he e3g;it i-1~,7.evon ;itore~ in /lnaheim, tt;~ ~11Y)~FlOt ;~tora was i,h~~~ on7.y
ocio noi, open 24 t:oui•s a ctay .
~ommtcsloner Ilei~b;;t, noted i:hat he fol.~•, tl,er~ had be~n some proUlems wiLh :~o~~erel 01' Ltie
7-i7leven ei;oro~ ln Anahettn and if t,he hour3 were inore~ssc~d, pormission 3hoiild be for a
i;ompoi•Hry per•iod uf tlme tn order i;o determine, if' there wei•e eny oompleirite OOt109C't1~11E,T
noi.ae, e~,a. ; aiid that ho would ouggo:~1, a G-muntti period o1' tiate ba gre~nt~d f'or the roquoet.
Chai rman i~'~~•ano noted i:hei~ by granting a full yoar , a better yauge of th~ impaot oould be
u~tained, sinao there m~y be moro or loss oustomer~ during the difforent coasozis, i.e.,
3p~•in,;, ~un¢ner, fa11 and wir~ter. Some oar~aerri ~ 9~ expr~c~:~sed regcsrding mot~~royol~y traffio
at the sub,)eot type storeo dw•irig tho nigh~t hours of' uper~atiort.
Commissiorior Eler•bst offerc~d t3e~olution No. PC75-Z.'7_ and moved for 11;~ paeyege end adoptlon,
that ~Lhe Planning Cornmission doo:l hereby amend Condition No. 17. of Resolu~l;ion No. PCi4-~13
gc•anting Varianao No. 259U, to read: "11. That the hours oP opei~ation for i~tie ~roposc~cl
rei;~i~ f'~~od market shall Ue for~ 2~1 hour•s a day, said hour~ of' opex•ation being granted for
e period of one (1) year, sub,je~~t to roview and oonsideratioii for ext,enr3lon of ~tim~, upon
written request by the petitioner." (~~ee Resolution Book)
On roll oa17., the forogoing resolui;ion was passed by ~the following vote;
AYES: COrMAISSTONERS; BAFtNES, HERL'ST, JO~II~150N, KING, MORI.~Y~ TOLAR, FARANO
NOES ; CONQvIISSIONPRS ; NONE
ABSENT: CObRv1I5S:LOPIERS; NO ~~
TTGM N0. 4
VARTIWCE N0. ~5.19 - Request for extension of tioe - Property ounsisting
of approximately 3.1 acres, 1oae.tad at the northwest oorner of White Star
Avenue and Blue Gum Way.
It was noted that the applioant (John P. Tyler, Store Safe, Ino,) was requesting a one-yeer
extension of tlme £or Varianoe A1o, 2519 in order to oomplet•e the requirements set forth in
Rosolution No. PC73-139 granting said ve,rianos; th~.t the oonditions requiring (a) d.edioation
elong Blue GL1IT1 Way gnd White Star Avenue for stree~~-widoning pur~,oses, (b) posting of a bond
to guarante~ scr•eet engineering and lighting improvoments, and (a) the reoordation of a
par~oel map, .~ad iiot k,een met; that i;he subject varianoe w8a granted on June 25, 1973; and
that no previous extensions of i,ime had been rsquested or grented for the subject vat~ianoe,
The Plgnriing Cowmission entared into disous~ion regai•dtng the sub,jeat request and an ~
appropriate amount of time ~Hhioh should Ue granted for ~the oomplotion of the above-went;ioned
aonditions, following whiah Commissioner• Moriey offered a motion, seoonded bY Commissioner
Kin~ and MOTION CARRIED, that an extension of ti~._ be and hereby is grs~nted f.or~ Variar~ae No.
2519, said extension of time to be retreaoi;ive to Tune 25, 19'14 and t~o oxpire on June 25,
1976,
~ ~ ~
t~1L~~tr['}~;;;, C:CI"! {'f,APIPiI'ifii Qi)P,1Mf:;;;;Tcli1, 1~a1,ob~i~ 1:3, 7.')7';
~~~_q y6
r. rrr~i r~o , ~;
i~ll.li t~D~~'i 'Tt`JP~ 3>I~~CId1ft11'1`7'~)PJ Rl~~l~lTl~;;1`I' - l~'r~i~ t,,i•rsding p~t'mit, 1'oi• ~~At•1; ~t'l.te
rio~~i:V~eo;lt: ,~1' t,tie iiiter•st-ai;iori u1' Tmpdr~lal Iligliwey arid Null:l li~no}~ E~oad.
T1, wac~ nute~i t,h.ti1, l,ha ~h•anga Unifi~d 3ohoul 1)i.sti~i~t wa:~ pro~uolnp to onn:~l.ruot e,~~ elemont~ry
90~IOUa. TIOI•Lhon:~t ot' i~ho inter~oot.ion of Imporinl Eli.ghwe-y and Notil finnoh Ror~d; thei; a oii,y
park :~i1.o oi' t-pproxir~~ctoly 4.Q e,oi'b:l we~ luoatod ec~:~i; ol' the 3ohool ai.~e; i~hat durlnq sr•nding
o(' 1;he ::ohool sii,e, t;tie :ioiiool Dist~~loL wen pr~opo~i.ng to move spproxicnately S~,UUU oubio yard~
ui' exoe~s mni,orla.l to ~.he perk ~i~-e; thet tY~c~re we,~ e hill on the park 3ito whioh rope
approximat,ely H; fHOi; nbove the 1owe:~t poi~it oti the :iito; 1;tiet tiie i;op of i;he c~ofor•enoed h11].
wo~ald be remc~v~d end the mat~rial fi~on, t;h~~ hi11, to~etY;er with the exoesa tnaterial Yrom i~hu
~ohoo7 yJ.to, woul.d bo used 1,0 oraato ~, 1evo1 pai~k area; tha~ an evaluation of the environ-
mAnLa7. imp~cl, ui' gradin~3 -st the ~ub,juot locetion was requirod under tho provl.sionn of' the
Califo-~nict Lnvir•onm~rit~l '.,uatity Aoc r~nd th~, St~tte L~TfI Guido7.ines beosuse the pro~eot wna
loaateci in thE :;ooni.~ Corridor an1 the slope oi tne land was grAC~tor ~Lhan 1.U;G; and ttie~t a
~tudy of' the proposed ~3r•adin~ by tho F~Jngineering Divi~ion an~l Lhe P].anning Uepa-~Ln~ent
indineted tha~t; it would t~ave no ~ignii'ioant onvlronmental impa~~i„
C~mmisyi~ner King offered a motion, se~oonded b.y C;ommis~ioner• Mor•].ey aiid MO'I'ION CARRII?D, tha~
the Plentii.ng G^~.ti~~i~~ion dpos her~iby reoonunend i;o the City Couxio~]. ~tlia+; the nubject pro,}oot
be ~xempl; from the requ:Lr`OWbTIt tu prepar•e 4n environmentr~l impao~t repor•i~, pursuarii; i:o the
pro~rie:tona of the Cc~lii'ornie 1~7m~ironmeni;al ~luallty Aot.
I'I`EM N0. 6
CONDITIODfAI~ U`~r; F'ENMIT N0. 1'L12 - fteque~t for tArminal;lan - 1'r•opAri;y
ac~nsisting ~~' c+pp~~oximately O.f3 aoros, having e trontags of approximRte'ly
130 feet on the ee,st ~ide of arookhurst 3treet, buing looatod appr~ox-
imat~ly 195 fee~; soutti of the oenterline o~ 'BY~oadway, and fut•~ther
desor9.bed as 314 ~"iGUtll Brookhuryt Streot.
It wds noted i:hat on Novombor 3G, 1970, the Planning CouGUi:: ~i.on grented Conditional Use
Permit No. 1212 in i~esolution Nc~. PC70-213, to establish on-salo beer and wine in an
existing Y•es~taurant on the s~.ib~oot property; that, aubsequent to thA appt•oval of ~;Y~e
subJoot use permit, the aommeroiel building at the sub,jeot locai;ion was lioens~d foi~ a
use other i;han a resi;aurant with un-sale beer e~nd wiiie, and when the appiloant (Thomas A.
Dobbie, owner) sought •to re-est,ablish said use, a new oonditional ~zse permit (No. 1563) was
filed and approved bV the Planning Commission on September 15, 1975; and +.hai; the applioesnt
had submitted a wri•tton request 1;o terwinate Conditional Use Permit No. 1212, in oomp~.ianoe
with the P~.anning Commission reoommondai;ions adopted in aonneotion with the approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 1563.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC75-210 and moved for its psssage and adopi;ion,
that the Planning Commissior~ does hereby terminate a.ll proaeedings of Conditional Use
Permit No. 1212 oii the basis of the foregoing findings. (See Resolt~t,ion Book)
On roll oali, Lhe foregoing rasolution was passed by the following vote;
AY~S; CUMMSSSIONERS: BARI~IES, I-IERBST, ;l'OHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR~ PARANO
NOES: r,OluL~,iISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NODJE
~ ~ ~
tdrMTl'1;:;, CI'1'Y r~1~ANDITI~ COp,1MIS;,.l'~DI, Ootober ].:3, ]~)'75 75-49%
J.T~;M N0. 7
, l N ~'Al.~ TMPACT f2fLPOR'1' N0. 1>2 and COND~1'IONAL U;i}?; PI~fiMTP N0. ].~G2 -
Iten~.tir~mation of eppi•ovel perte~iniii~ to the propo~al ta O~JT13tI•uot a
publin oqueatrlan oanter~ on pr•oporty o<~nnisting of appc•oximatoly 6.U
aore~ loaated at 1,he soutsh~rly oorner of' S~rrano Avenuo and Hidden Cdn~on
Road.
Mc•. Jol~n Mil.l~lok, Vioe Presidenl; of A-za},~im F1i113, Ino. , appoared beforo tho Plsrining
Cummis~ion end a~al~ed thr-t iri v:tow ut the roquiT•od :3U-day revlew period fol.].owing rolea~e of
F~~I:R No. 1.52, and i,tie premni,ure Qoi;ion taken by the Planni.ng Commi~eion theroon, a lett~; had
beon eixbmitted bo the Ci+~y Clerk of the ~ity requesting thet the City Qounoil rr~.for Conditlori
iJfle Yermlt No. 15G?. end L'ITR No. 152 baok to tlio Planning Caromts~ion f'or ron['f.Lrma~~OTI i'ollow-
ing the requir~d l.ugal time for tha ETR to be roviewod by the genere~l ~urlio.
Couu~~issionor ~,for~ley o~fered a motion, 9eootided by Commi;~oioner Herb:~t and tv1CYi`:ION cnRRT~D~
Lhat thc. Plannlt~g Oc~.resion doe,s hereby reaffirm its aol~ions i,aken on Sop•tembflr ].5 ~nd 29,
1~)75, that ~;nvir~runentsl T.u~paot l~opori~ No, 152 and Addendum thsro~Lo (;3upplement:irig ma:~ter
r;~R No. 8U ), having beeti o~r~s idered by tho Anehbi.m Planning Copunl~eion and evidenoe ~ both
written t~nd orr~l, ht~virig been presented to suppl.ement said dre~fi~ 1±~ZR No. 1:;? and Addendttm,
1•,he Plenning Comuii~sion bolieves thet; :~aid draft ~7..~ Nu, 152 Rnd Addendum ~on~orm to tl~e
Cii;y and ~~tate Guideli.nes ancl the S~tate of California Environmon~ta'1 'lua:L'_t,y Aot and, b~~ed
~ipon suoh information, doe~ l~.erebf reoou~mend i;o the C~.ty Counoil that +.hey oerti.fy yaicl
E:CR No. 15'L and Addendum are in oompli.en~e with said Fnv:S.ronmental Qualit; Aot.
Couumi~stor.er Morley oft'er~d Resollz~.ion No. PC~5-211 and ~novod for its p998s~9 ar~~ auoptlon,
that the Plo,nning Commission do~s heiaby reaffirm its sotion tcsken on Septembor 15, 1975,
grani~ing Petitlon for Conditional TJse Permit No. 15F2, stil,,joct to i;he findings and oondil;ions
se~ :forth in Rosoluti.on No, PC75-].89. (Seo Resolution Dook)
On roll oall, the ioi•egoing resolution was passed by tho following voto;
AyEg: COivIIufISSION~RS; DARNES, I~;RBST, KL'dG, MORI,E+~Y, TOLAR, FARANO
N0~3s CONL"AZSSIONERS; JOHNSON
~1BSE;NT: C0;'dICSIONERS: NON~
ADJOUitNIv~NT - There being no further b~zyineos to disous3, Coa~isstoner Johnson oPferad
~-' ~ a motion, seoonded by Comm3ssioner King, and MOTIGN CARRTED, to adjourn
i~he meeting.
The meeting ad,journed at 4:15 p.m.
Rospeotfully submitted,
~~~~,~~
Patrioia B. Soarilan, 5eoretar~y
Anaheim ~ity Planning Commissi.on