Minutes-PC 1985/07/08/
ltRGU[~AR MEETING OE TNE ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULJ~R MBETING The regular meer,ing of ~he Aneheim City P1Anning
Commiaeion wa~ celled eo order Gy Chairmnn HecbFt at
L0:00 a.m ., Jul.y 8, 1985, in the Councf 1 ChAmber, a
quorum being pr~sent, and the Commie~fon reviewed
plans of the itoma on todoy'n agenda.
R~:CESS: t1:30 a.m.
R~CONVENE L; 1: 30 p.m.
PRESBNT Chairman: Hecbst
Commissionera: Boua~, Bushore, Kry, King, La C~aire,
Mc E3urney
AFiSF.NT: Commiseioner ; None
ALSU PRES~NT Annika Santalahl:i
hlalcolm S laughter
Jay Titus
Paul Singer
Pat Whitaket
Kend[a Morries
Edith Har rib
Assiatr-nk Uirector for Zoning
Aeputy City ~~ korney
Office Engineer
r.ity Traffic Engineer
Neighburhood Resto~ation Speciallat
Aasistant Plar~ner
Planning Commi saion Secretaty
APPRUVAL UC• MINUTE5; Commissioner King offeced a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Bouas and MO:ION CkItRIED (Commissioners Fry and La Claice
abstaining), that the minutes of the meeting ot ,1une 24, 1:fII5, be approved
as submitted.
ITEM t+O, 1. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER UF CODE REQU2REMENT AND
CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT N0. 2689
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GRAY S. AND PAULA S. KILMER, c/o C-21 L.~urel,
607 S. Hacbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: MARY VERDONCK, c/o
C-21 Laurel, 6U7 S. Harbor Btvd., Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described
as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land cansisting of apptoximately 0.43
acre located at the southeast co[ner of Cypress Street and Olive Street,
~2U and 224 N. Olive Street.
To permit a 24-unit senior c itizens apartment complex with waive[s of (a;
maximum fence height, (b) petmitted encroachments into required yards, (c)
mini.mum building si~e area and (d) minimum struckural setback.
Continued frnm the meetings of May 13, June 10, June 24, 1985.
ACTtOl~: Commissioner King oflered a motion, seconded by Commissinner
Souas and MOTION CARRIED that subject petition be wtthc3rawz~ at the request
~f the petitioner,
85-359 7/8/85
i`
8r5".360
MINUTES. ANAHEI M CITY ~LANNING CUMMi~9lON~ JULY 8_, 198V,5 _
ITEM NQ._2. E I R NEGATIVE DECLARATION AN~ CONDITIONAL USE PBRMIT N0. 2697
PUF3LIC NEARING. OWNERS: APF CENTER, ATTN: JACK HORQWITZ, P. 0. Box 27163r
Loe~ Anyeles, C A 90027. Proparty desccibed as an irregulerly-ohaped pArcel oE
land consistin g oE appcoxim~tely 4.1 AcceR located at the aouthweat corner of
Ocanyethoc~re Av enue and Placentia Avenue, and further describ~ed ao lF3l North
Placentia Aven u et Units A, B, G, G. ~r P~ R~ S~ and T.
To retain sev e n automobile repair and automotive related businesaes.
Cont.inued f.rom the meetinga of June 10, and 24, 19~5.
pCTION; Comtr~i ssioner King uCfer.ed a moti.on- seconded by Commin~ioner McBurney
and MOTIQN CARRIED that con~idecation oE the aforementioned matter be
continued ta t he reguiarly-•scheduled meeting of July 22, 1985, at the request
of the petitioner in ordec tu submit additional inf.ormation as cequeated by
Planning staf f .
ITEM N0. 3. EIk N~CATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. d4-85-37 AND
VARIANCE Nu. 3486 ,
PUbL:C HEARING. UWNERS: RAC.PH W. AtJU VIRGINIA G, MAAS, c/o WILLIAM R.
Fcoeberg, 355 3 Camino Miru Costa, Su~te F, san Clemente, CA 92672. ACENT:
RICK l.ES1~IE, 4246 Greenbush Avenue, Sherman Oaka, CA 91423. Pco~ecty
described as a rectangularly-~haped parcel oE land coneisting of. approximately
11,360 square feet located at the southwest corner of Vermont Avenue and
Harbor Boulev ard, 901. South Harbor Boulevard.
Waiver oF mi nimum s~ructural setback to conskruct a commereial shopping centec.
Continu^d fr om the meeting of ,Iune 24, 19~5.
ACTIUN: Commissionec McE3urney of[Pred a motion, seeonded by Commissioner King
and MOTION C ARRIEll that consideration oL- the afaremen~.ioned matter be
continued to the cegularly-scheduled meeting o£ July 22, 1985, at the request
of the petitioner.
ITEM NU. 4. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3492
PUBLIC H~AR I NG. OWNE~RS: ROY M. K~YANO, 1474-1/2 Allison Avenue, Los Angeles,
CA 9UU26. AGENT: ALCOM INC., 800 S. Srookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92804,
ATTN: MARG E KATO. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consis t in9 of approximately 0.43 ac~re, 3423 West Orange Avenue.
WAiver of ma ximum buil~ing height to construct a 2-~tory 10-unz*. apactment
complex.
Continued f r om rhe meeting of June 24, 1985.
There was n o one indicating their presence in opposition to aubject request
and althou g h thP staff repprt was not read, it is ref erred to and made a part
of the minutes.
7/8/85
MINUTES, ANAN~IM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIONy JULY d, 1985 85-]61
Art salee, Alc~m Architects, stated there was an egreement with the property
ownec to the eaat ta lower the s~~~ewalk gr.:+de And ~leo the pr.operty will be
cleared oE existing problems by the e~d of Che week.
TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS~ti.
Responding to CommisAionec Kiny, Mr. Sales explAined the agreement between the
properL•y owners wAa that the yrade level uf the oidewalks would be iowered ao
tt~ere would not be a problem with the walls on the east sid~ of the ptoperty.
AC7'IUN: Commis~i~ner Buahore offered ~ motion, seconded by Commisaioner
McBurney and MoTION CARR't,D that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion has
reviewed the pr~posal to construct a 2-atory, 10-unit apartment complex with
waivec of maximum building height on a rectangularly-ahaped parcel oE tand
consisting of approximal•ely 0.43 acre, heving a Erontage of approximately 66
feet on Che north aide ot Ocange Avenue and further 9eacribed aa 3423 W.
Urangp Avenue= and does herek,y a~prove the Negativ~ Declaration u~:un finding
that it haa considere~ the I~egative Declaration toqether with any camments
received during the public ceview procesa and fucther finding on the bA~is of
the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantiAl
evidence that the projeck will have a significant eFfect on the environment.
Commiaeioner Bushoce otfered Fteso?ution No. PC85-107 and moved f~r its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3492 on the basis that there are special circumstances ~pplicable
to the ~roperty such as size, shape, (lony and narrow) topography, location
and surcoundings a~hich do not apply ~o other idenkic:.lly zoned property in the
same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the
property oP privileges enjoyed hy othec propertie5 in the identl~cal zone and
classification in khe vicinitv and subject to Znterdepartrnental Committee
cecommendations including an ,~dditlonal condition requicing that the grade
will not be raised above the existing grade level.
On roll call, the faregoing resolution was pa~sed by the following vote
AY~S: BOUAS, BUSHORE, E'RY, HERBST, KING, LA CL?~IRE, MC BUP.NEY
NUES: NUN~
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, pcesented the written right to appeal
the Planniny Commission's der_ision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 5. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIUN. RECLASSIEICATION N0. 84-85-41__AND
VARIANCE NC~. 3496
PUBLIC HEAR7NG. UWNERS: BARL NELLESBN, 1533 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92801. Propetty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consi.sting
of approximately 0.72 ecre, having approximate fronkages of 134 feet on the
south szde of Willow Street and 134 feet o~ the r.o^.-th side of Santa Ana
5treet, approximately 350 feet east uf the cer.t~.i.).~ne of Bond Street.
RS-A-43,U00 t~ RS-7U00 or a less intense aone. 'ti~r~i.vers of minimum lot area
and minimum lot width ancl frontage to estab;ir~h ~?, 3-lot RS-7200 single-family
subciiviaion.
7/8/85
MINUTES ~,ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING 40MMISSION, JULY 8_,_1985 85'362
'rhere was one pecnon indicati.ng her presence in oppoeiti.on to aubject request
end although the ~taff r.eE~ort waa not read, it is refecred to and made a part
of the minute8.
Earl Nellesen, owner~ explained the two addiCional unita will be on Willow
stroet.
Mrs. Pelcak, 16U6 E. Santa Ana Skreet, stated the notice indicates that this
action will ~fEect their prope[ty and asked iL this a~~uld c~use their
~roperties to have s~nall~r lots in the Euture. She stated she knowa a lot of
people can not come to A day meet~ng.
CF~airman Hecbst stated the lots affected will be on Willow Stc~et And ihe lot
facing Santa Ana S~reet rert~nina the sartie.
Mrs. Pelcak slated they would not oppose thc request as long as it does not
aEfect their pr.operty in the future because the area ia overccowded enough aA
it is.
THE PUBLIC HF.ARING WAS CLUSLD.
ACTIUN: Conunissioner King offered a motion, secondFd by Ccmmissioner Fry and
MOTIUN CAFRIED that 4he Anaheim City Planning Commiasion has reviewed the
proposal to reclassify subject pro~erty from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential,
Singls-Family) Zone to the RS-7200 (Residential, Sinyle-Family) or a less
intense zone to establish a 3-lot RS-7209 (Si.ngle-E~mily) subdivision with
waivers of minimum lot area and minimum lot width and frontage on a
rectangularly-shaped pacc:el of land conaisting of approximately 0.72 acre,
having approxim~te frontages of 134 f~et on the aouth sid~~ of Willow Street
and 134 feet c~n the north side of Santa Ana Stceet; and does hereby approve
the Negative Declaration upon findfn~ that it haa consiclered the Negative
Ueclar~tion tuqether with any comments received during the public review
process an~ further finding on the basis of khe initial Study and any comments
received that thece ~s no xubstantial evid~nce khat the pcoject will have a
signiEican~ effect on the environment.
Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC85-168 and moved for itE passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hereby grant
Reclassification No. 84-85-41 subject to Interdepartmental Cammittee
recommendations.
Un roll ca11, the foreg4in9 reaolution was passed by thE following vote:
AyES; BUUAS, BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST~ KING, LA CLAtRE, MC BURNEY
NOf:S: NUNE
ABSENT: NONE
Commissio~er Kino of~ered Resolution No. PC85-169 and moved for i.ts passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3496 on the basis that ttiere are special circumstances epplicable
to the property such as size, shape, tapography, location and surroundings
h~,~ich do not apply to other identicaily zoned property in the same vicinity;
r,nd that strict application of the Zoning C4de deprives the property af
7/8/85
;
MINUT~S, ANAt~EIM CITY PL~NNING COMMISSTON,~ JUI.Y 8, 1985 A5-363
privilegea enjoyed by othec properties in the identical zone and
classiEication in the vi.cinity ~and subject to IntecdepArtmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll ctrll, the foregoing reaolur.ion was paAaed by the follawing vote:
AYES; EiUUAS~ BUSHURE~ FRY, H~RHST, KING~ LA CLAIRE~ MC 6URNEX
NUES: NUNE
ABSeNT: NUNE
~lalcolm Slaughter, De~uty City Attocney, preoented the written right to apptAl
the Planniny Co~~-mission's deciaion within 22 days to the City Cauncil.
ITEM N0. 6. EIk NEGATIV~ DECGARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-40, VARIANCF.
NU. 3495 AND WAIVER UF COUNCIL POLICY NU. 543
PUBLIC:tiEARING. UWNERS: ROGER R. UITTMANN, 1270 E. La Palrt~a Avenue, Anaheim,
CA ~2d05. AGENT: YOL~ASH DEVELUPMENT, 4341 E. Chapmar, Avenue, t214, Orange,
CA 92669, ATTN: MOEiAMMAll REZAZADEH. PrQperty describcd as an
icregulacly-shnped ~.~arcel ot land conaiat•fng of appcoximately 0.32 acce, 1262
East La Palma Avenue.
RM-120U to RM-3UU0 or a lesa intense zone. Waivers of ninimum number of
parking spaces, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, mAxi.mum site coverage,
minimum front setback and minimum recreational-leisure area to construct a
7-uniG aftordable condominium complex.
There was no one indicating their presence ln opposition to subject request
a~d although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Mr. Mdssoud, 1524 Victoria Way, Placentia, stated they are proposing seven
condominiums at 1262 ~. La Palma Avenue which is adjacent to an 8-unit
condominium project tliey are cucrently constructing at 1260 E. La Palma. He
added he has contacted most of the neighbors. He explained he has never
pro~osed apactments, but a permit was taken out for an apartment because nf
paper work which was not ready for the subdivision, but khey were ready to
build. He stated they did meet with the Zoning and Building staff so ttiat
everyone understood that the pr~ject is condominiums and the ~ees were paid
for condominiums, but there is some paper wock not finished and he expects the
tract map to b~ filed in about two weeks.
Leo lt. Coda, 712 Poplac Place, Anaheim, stated he is objecting to all the
vaciances requested and is upset with what is happening along La Palma Avenue
with all the vaciances areating smaller units; and that he felt it would
escalate as the developments occur t•o the east. He stated he thought the
Planning Commission should put a ato~ to it and make sure the developments
agree with the zoning.
Mr. Massoud stated he did n~t understand where Mr. Coda lives because he d~~l
talk to most of the surrounding property owners. He stated this property has
t>een zoned RM-1200 for apactments and the,y are prapoeing to increase the
zoning from RM-120d to RM-30U0 with less units. He statad the easement should
7/8/85
MINUTES ANAtiEIM CITY RLANNING CAMMISSION JULY 6 1985 SS-364
be taken into consideration raL•her L•han A driveway und they are only
~equQating a variance foc one parking apace and tnat 3 unita will be
afEordable,
Rudolph Alanchard, 1515 Centucy Drive, joint ownec of the property at 1280
East La Palma Avenue, stated in the past 25 yeara he has seen the houainy
being reduced and with this nEw develapment, the tone has been set for better
housing for young families and he would ask the Planning Commission to approv~
this request.
THE PUFiLIC H~'ARING WAS CLUSEU.
Responding to c;ommisaione~ La ClAir.e, Mr. Ma~soud stated the affordable unfts
wi~l sell for $97,OOU. Commissioner La Claice ~sked what they will do if they
can not sell these units. She stated the pri.ces of the otlier units will be
hiyher indicating concern that the uniCs will be cented as apartments if they
can not be ~old and stated theca are a lot of existing vacant units which
can't be sold at the present time. Mr. Massoud stated if they can not sell
the units, they would have to r~duc~ the ~:rices. Ne stated these unlra will
be priced l~wer and i.nterest catc~s are down and he thought the units would be
sold.
ReapoT~ding ro c~mmissioner eushore, Paul Sinyer, 'Praffic Engine~c, explained
the tcash trucks would not have to enter the property becau~e they could load
and unload in the front, but lt~e fire trucks woul~ require access if the
propecty is deeper than 150 fept and no fire kruck turn-around is provided
since ~arking is shown on the hammer--head.
Mr. Ma~soud explained this project will be ~eparatF from the one they are
curcently constructiny to the wes~t and thece would be two different owners
with one associAtion. He stated he has developed 6.3ifferent condominium
projects and rhis is the first afforda~ile project.
C4mmiasioner 8ushore stated he does not think r.his area would be conducive to
selling condominiums because of lhe apartments next doot and the ptice, etc.
He stated allowing more and more variances is not good plannir~ and he thought
this i~ just overbuilding the property.
Mr. Massoud stated he i:. a civil pngineer and hxs done more than Z00 projects
and will be the developc~r/builder of this 7-unit project. He st~ted they have
satisfied the Fire Departtnent's requirement.
Chairman Herbst stated he did n~t think the Planning Commission has the
authority l•o grant over 25~ density bonuses; however, the City Council does
have that prerogative ar.d that the previous project for 8 units was deni.ed by
the Planning Commissi.on and subsequently approved by the City ~ouncil. He
added he thought this project is ovecbuilding the property with moce and more
requests for variances.
Commissionec Pry stated 5 variancea requested is a good indication that the
project is too much for the property.
7/8!85
MINUTBS, ANAHEiM CITY PI,ANNING_COMMISSIUN. JULY 8, 1905 85-365
Mr. CodA stated th~ petitiun~r indir_ated he had tAlked to the neighbore and he
knowa of one neighb~c he did talk to, buC he did ~~ot diacuas ~hQ project with
him and unuther neighbor and they are the closeat neighUora. Ne atated trucks
can nnt be parked in the gar~ge and people wiCh pick-up trucks will park next
to the common drivewAy ana fire trucka could not ~et in.
Conunissionec La Clafre atated ~he thought Clieae units would end up being
cented as apartments becauae they could not be sold and it would be a less
dense project tl~an apartments. She staCed :~he seev ~roblems with the project,
pacticularly as a condominium projeck, and a-ine has to be dr~wn somewhere
because the Cnmmiesion has a duty to -nake sure the units are a quality
development ao that the ownere would have tiie npportunity to resale them.
Chaicman Iferbs~ asked 1E the petit.ianer would like lo redesign the project and
Mr. Massoud stated he would like a vote on the pro~ect as presenCed.
ACTIUN: Commisaioner La Claire of.fered a motion, ser.onded by Commissioner
McBucney and MQTION CARR2~U that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
ceviewed the proposal tu reclassify subject property frnm the RM-12U0
(Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone Co the RM-3000 (Reaidential,
Multiple-Family) or a less intense zone to constcuct a 7-unit affordable
condominium prajeck wikh waxvers of minimum number of ~arking spacea, minimum
lut area per dwclling unit, maximum site coverage, minimum front yard setback,
and minimum recreational-leisure area on a ~ectai~yularly-shaped parcel of land
con~isting of ap~roximately 0.32 acre, tiaving a frontage of approximately GO
feet on the Eouth side of La palrna Avenue and fucther described as 1252 ~ast
La Pa1ma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Neyative DeclarAtion upon Eindiny
that it has considered tt~e Nec3ative Ucclaration together with any commenks
received duriny the public review proce~~ and further Einding on the basis of
thp Initial Study and any comments r~ceived that there i~ no substantial
evidence that the p[oject will have a~ignificant eft~ct on the environment.
Commissionec La Claire o£fered Resolution No. PC85-170 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Rec~assification No. 84-85-40 subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resoluriun was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHGRE~ FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NUES: NONE
AES~NT: NONE
Commissioner La Claire offered Re~olution No. PC&5-171 and moved for its
passage and ad~ptian thak the Ar~aheim City Planning Cnmmission does hereby
deny Variance No. 3495 on the babis that th~re are no special circumstances
applicable to the propecty such as size, shape, topogtaphy, location and
surroun~ings which do not apply to othsr identically zoned property in the
same vicinity; and that sktict application of th~ 2oning Code does not deptive
the prope~ty of pcivileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zonP
and classification in the vicinity.
7/8/85
i
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JULY 8. 1985 85-~36G
Un roll call, the Eoregoiny reaolution was pa~aed by the following vote:
AY~S: BUUHS~ tiUSliOR~~ FRY~ HFRBST, KING~ I~A CLAIkt,, Mc: BURNEY
NU~S: NONE;
ABSBNT: NUNE
Commissioner La Claire ofEered a mokion, seconded by Commi,esioner Br~uAg and
MOTIUN CARRIED that the Anaheim C:ity Planning Commiosion does herebv recommend
to the City Council that the cequcst for waiver oE Council Policy No. 543 be
denied on the basis that the variance was denied on the basis that the
Commission fel~ the project would be over.building the pc~perty.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, preaented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Cauncil.
ITEM N0. 7. ~NVIRONMENTAL IMPACI' REPORT t~0. 235 (PRF.V. CBRTIF~ED), VARIANCE
N0. 3494 AND REQUST FUR APPRUVAL OF R~VISED ~PECIFIC PI,ANS (R~V. NO. 1)
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ANAHEIM tIILLS D~VEI~OPMENT CORP., 6507 Se[rano
Avenue, 'fs', Anaheim, CA 92d07. AGENT: CAMINO GRANDE VILLAS, INC., 70 S.
Lake, Suite 750, Pasadena, CA 911U1, ATTN; JONN JAMESON. PGOperty is
described as an ircegularly-shape~ paccel of land conaisting of approximately
35.4 acres, Tentative 'rract Na. 10967 (R~vi~ion No. 2) (Area 19 - Analiei,m
Hills).
Waiver oE mxnimum side yard setbacl; to construct a 49-lot, 49-unit attached
condominium subdivision.
There was no one in~icating theic presence in opposition to subject request
and although khe staff report was not r.ead, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Leonard Stiles, 22U96 S. Gcand, Suite A, SanCa Ana, 92705, representing the
engf.neering ficm, waa present to answer questions.
THE PUBLIC EIEAkING WAS CLOSEU.
Responc3ing to Commissioner La Claire, Mc. Stiles stated the sideyard setback
is needed because of rhe topography of the property and noted between l•he
units there is a 5-foat wide greenbelt area.
It waa noted Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was previously certified by
the City Councfl on March 4, 1980.
ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC85-.172 and moved for
its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Variance No. 3494 on the basis that there ere special circumstances
applicAble to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and
surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the
same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code de~rives the
property of privileges enjoyed by oth~er properties in the identical zone and
classificatfon in the vicfnfty a~.3 subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendatians.
7/8/85
MINU'rES. ANAH~IM CITY P'LANNING COMMISSIQN. JULX 8, 1985 85-367
On coll call, the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AXES: HUUAS, BUSHORF., ~RY, FIERBST, KINC, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNF.Y
NOES: NON~
AHSENT: NONE
Commissionet La Claice o[fered a mation, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTIUN CARRIEU that the Anaheim City Planning commission does her~by a;~prove
cevised specific pl~n~ (Revision No. 1) for Tenkative Tract Map No. 109G7
(Revision No. 2).
Malcolm slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, pre~ented the writCen right to appeal
~he Planniny Commission'~ ~ecision within 22 days l•o the City Council.
ITBM N0. 0. EIR NEGATIVE UECLAR~ITTON ~ND VARIANCF N0. 3497
PUDLIC N~ARING. UWN~RS: RUQERZ' A. FERRANZ~E, 2171 Campus Orive, Irvine, ~A
92715. ~GENT: MICHAEL K. FRA2IER, 4712 Tucana, Yorba Linda, CA 92686.
Property described as an irreyularly-shaped paccel of land con~isting of
approximately S acres located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road
and ImpErial Nighway, 5565 t~ 559~ East Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Waivers of minimum number of parki.ng spac.es and minimum landecaped setback to
expand an existi.ng commercial center.
There was no one indicatinq their pre~ence in oppo~ition to su~ject request
and althouyh the ataff repart was not cead, it is referred to and made a part
~f khe minutes.
Michael Frazier, architect, explained Phaae 1 wa~ approved a couple ~f months
ayo for this pzoject whicti was an addition to the existing commercial bu±lding
adding a second story; that the,y are requestiny permissian in this phase to
construct a facility between the existing structure and the restaurant for a
2-story office structure complementary and in conj~nction with the redesign of
the site. He fitated thece are a couple of waivers khat seem to be necessary
and one is minimum number of parking 3paces. He explained a patking study was
done by Weston Pringle and was submitted and has beer~ re~iewed and the staff
report indicates it •as an adeyuate study and Mr. Singer ha~ Keviewed it. He
added the ttaffic c-port indicates the total site has more than adequate
parkiny spaces in ~actual practice and because of that, they feel iF. is within
the Planning Co~nmission's authority to grant ttie waiver since the actuai
ukilizal-ion cF the parking spaces is below wF-a: Code would indic~te is
necessary and also tlie mix of uses will cumple~nent each other with over-lapped
parking.
Mr. Frozier stated when they started working on Phase 2, they made r~n
applicatioii for the use of old Santa Ana Canyon Road which is immediat~ly
adjacent to the noctherly praperty line. He explained that 500-£oot skrip of
Santa Ana Canyan Road was left over becAUSe the serviceability of the street
is only to the ahopping centec and that it acts as a dciveway. He stated the
cecommendation from staff was that the parking in that atea ahould be handled
with an encroachment permit procedure; and then they were notiEied that was
not the proper way to handle it and some other agreement needed to be made in
7/8/85
'~MISSION JULY 8 1985 85-368
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C~.
arder to use that roa~way and he undorstanda b new agreement ia being drefted
b;/ the City Attorney's Office. Ne atated they would like thc ability to park
on thaC at[eet= however, it is not aGso.lutely necessary, but would fa<:Hei~ate
site distributian and better ut.ilizakion of the site parking ~pAC@6.
stated this would inco[porate a new 10-foot landscaped sttip between the
reaidencea to the north and the pArking on the roadway, as it now exises, and
the ownec plane to put in large trees for viaual screening.
Chairman~bleband~sugges~ledt1~ltgthetmntkers~need torbesresolve1d before the
question
Planning Cortimission votea on Che request.
'rHC PUBI~IC HEARIP~G WAS CLOSED.
Chairman fierbst stated he lives in that area and knows what is happening with
the new post office going in which will chAnge the area with the amAUnt of
increased traffic and Will havF quite an effect an that entirE area.
Commissioner La Claire stated she Erequents this shopping center t~•~ or thcee
times a week and is very familiax with the Access problems and th~r.e are some
definite bottlenecks. She stated she has a lot of doubts abuut the acceast
and that the public street secves a function to get to Aven'tda MaCqatita to
the traffic signal. 5tie stated she remembers when this project fitst came in
and the fight the Commission had to qet Che lanc~scaping and now there ace
parking spaces where the landscaping used to be and she has considered calling
the owner. about that recently. She stated the homeowners on the weat side of
Don ~Jose's came in to complain about the traffic, noise and light~ and tt~e
developer p~omised to landscape that are~ very well, but evecything is dying
and tl~e owner has not fulfilled his obligation and askec3 how the Commission
could have faith that he would do anythiny in the future.
Mr. F'razier stated the propert~y t~as just recently changed hands in the past
six months and the new owners are very intent to upgrade the landscaping and
khe entire facility. He stated the p~arking •spaces near the intersection of
Santa l+na ~aia°ntooincreasehthe landscap ngaandtto enhancedtheeentiregfconte
added they p
Commissioner La Claice stated she did nat want to crettte a parking problem and
felt they should get the agreements wotked out be~Wn~=IIpownvhalf~ofhthe street
project. She added she undeCStands the property
and they wi11 have to work that out with those property owners. She stated
with the Pasno~tthinkcamparking~waivereshouldhbeegcantedeatnthis$time~affic
and she di
Chaicman Herbst stated a third phase is envisioned with another 6,00f:-•square
feet of office space. Mr. Frazier stated based on the traffic study rrhich
indicated tt~e parking 'was more than adequate, they decided L•o qo ahe~~ with
the third phase.
Chaicman tierbst sttlted the Commission wou?d disagree with that tcaf!'.c Atudy
and it is possible the ttaffic coRSUltant did not know this would be a major
post office brinying in a lot of additional traffic.
7/8/85
_ ,.1
MINUTES. ANI~IIEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMI5SION, JUL1 8, 1985 85-369
Commissionec I.a Claice asked to see the mailing list of the property ownecs
~otitied. commieaioner Bushore atated he thoughk this is ~ unique way to
solve the ~~cvblem, but he would not approve it based on contingPncies that tnay
happ~n in the future. He staked each project sliould stand ~n iL•a o~n and
streEt parking has nevec been counted on any other project. He otated the
peki~ioner et~ould work tt~e agceement~ out with the property owners, or they
cuuld purchase th~ propecty.
Commissioner La Claire atated ahe did not think the property ownecs were
notified that this proposal would affect their propertyJ and that she doea not
appreciate what the develo~er is trying to do and thought all the plans chould
be presented at one time. She ntated st~e did not think r.he property ownera
were propPrly informe~.
Malcolm Slaugtiter, Deputy City Attorney, stated the agreem~nt, as contemplated
by the City Attarney's Uffice when they objected to the encroachment process
which they felt was not the praper ~~ehicle to accomplish what is needed, is an
agreement whereby the City would agree ~o allow hocixontal parking spaces to
be changed into 90 degree parkiny rpaceg at the developer's expen~e and wikh
the devel~per. paying for the modification of the Atreet to permit gublic
packing on a public street and these wi11 not be private parking spaces. He
stated nocma.lly p~opecty owners are not notified when parking spaces on a
public street are modified.
Commx~sioner La Clair.e stated this is not satisf~ctory to l~er because the
plans show a cul-de-sac and that would definitely affect the people in the
area. Malcolm Slaughter stated he thought the line on the map is the property
line ar~d where the present City street exists.
Commissioner La Claice stated peoE~!e in the area have not been notified as to
the effect this will have on them and they should be and she wauld not vote on
this u~til those people know what is going on in their neighbochood.
Chairman Nerbst stated since the street ia a driveway to ttie shopping center,
maybe it should be abandoned. Malcolm Slaughter stated the City Attorney's
Office suggested abandonment might be appropriate, but the developer did not
wish to pursue that avenue.
Chairman Herbst stated even though they have an agreement ~ith the property
~wner to allow public parking on the street, it can nat be included in the
parking count for this development.
Malcolm Slaughter stated the staff report indicates that the 87 spaces which
are to be provided ur~der this p~an axe not counted toward the required
parking. Chairman Hecbst stat•~ by realigning th~ parking, the applicant will
assume they have the ciyht to uae all those spaces.
Malcolm Siaughter stated any menber of the public coming to the area can park
in those spaces and the owner of the c~nter can not te11 them to move.
Chairman Herbst stated those can not be considered as parking for the
expansion. Malcolm Slaugi;ter stated he prepared a memorandum suggesting a
condition that the developer record a covenant in favor of the City which
would pcovide that tt~ey have to provide H7 parking spaces and one method would
7/8/85
MINUTE5. ANAHBIM CITY PL~NNING CUMMISSION~ JU~Y 8. ~965 __ _ 85-370
be public parkiny spac~a alang ~ld Santa Ana ~anyon l~oad and tht City may
terminatK that agceement at any timc! it aeos fit.
Chalrman Nerbat staLed the easieut thing uould be the aba~donment of the
atreet and Cummi~~ioner ~~ Claice ~tAted thc• c:ity should not be obligated to
take cace oE the s~reet foc the Ur~:~~it of the ahopping center ana it `C is
not ne~ded f:or a~ublic street, the developer sh~uld purch•~se it and impcove
iC and maintain it.
Mac 5laughter st.ated thece ma,y be pe~ple who do not want tA aelt theic
property. Mr. krazier ~tatpd the owner did counael with Real Proper~y
lliviaion of thQ Ctty and they advioed them to epply E~r An encroachment permit
and they wece advised tt~ere was a 30-day cancFllation cause un t}~t+t
enccoachmei~t per:ni~. Cti+iirman H~rbet pointed out the TraE:ic Engineer did not
a~prove the traffic study.
Mr. Frazier requested a 4-week conlinuance.
ACTIqN: Commi~sioner McBurney oEfered a motion, secnnd~d by Commissionec King
And MClTION CARRIE~ tt~at consideration of the aforementi.oned matter be
continued to the reyulacly-achec3uled tneeting ot Auyust 5, 1985, at the requeo~
of the petitionec.
RECESS~U: 2:45 p.m.
RECUNVENED: 2:.5 p.m.
I2Etd NO. 9. E:IR NEGATIVE DF.CLAR_ATIUN, W1+iVEIt UF CODE F.EQUIR~:MENT AND
CONDIZ'SONAL USE P~RMIT NU. 2696
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: THRIETY OIL Cb., 1U00U ',akewood Blvd., Downey, CA
9U240, ATTN: A. W. JC~HNSCIN, JR. Propecty de~cribed as a rectangularly-~haped
parcel of land conaisting of appruximately 0.7 acre locatecl at the northeant
corner of La Palma Avenue and Kraemer BoulPVard, 3101 Eaat T~~ Palsaa Avenue
(Thrifty Uil).
Z'o permit a convenience r~acket with gasoline salea and off-sale beec and wine
with waiver of minimum landscape•: setback.
Thece were thsee persons indicating theic preaence in oppoaition to subjFCt
request and although the staff report was not read, it is refecred to and made
a part of the mfnutes.
Commissioner Mc6urney declaced a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim
City Planning Cummias9.on Reaolution No. PC76-157 adoptinq a conflict of
Inteceat Code for the Planninq Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et
seq., in tha.t hfa employec ha.. a industrial interest in nearby property and
pursuant to the provisiona of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that
he wa3 wittidrawing :rom the hearing in conneckion with Conuitional Use Permit
No. 2696, and would not take part in either thE discussion ~r the voting
*.he:eon and had not discuFSed this mt~tt~r with any me~:ber of the Planning
Commission. Thereupon Co~nmissionec McBurney lefG the Council Chamber.
7/8/85
85-371
MINUTES AN~HEIM GITY PLANNING CUMMI:;SION JULY 6 1985
A1 Johnsan, Constructiun Coordin a L•or foc Thrifty Uit, etated they ar~
pcoposing a mini-market to secve the immediAte induatrial are~ and thc peopte
working in the areA. Ne added t h ey would have grocery item~~ enack items,
beveragea and alcoholic bevecage s in the form oE beer and wine.
Richacd Renna, representing Cerl Karcher Enterprises, 1200 N. Hatboc B1vd.,
Anaheim~ was present.
ia opposed to
Commisaionec Buehore intecrupted and atated kt~at if CArl'8 Jr.
thi;~ project, he would abat~in b~cauoe he iu prejudiced against the sale of
beec and win~ in ~asoline statio ng anyway and even though it is not a legul
cor~Elict, hc would not take pact in this discussion.
Mr. Renna atated they recent:; r eyuested A conditional use parmit for
expansion of. their exieting CArl'R Jr. r~ntaur~~~ concerns atcti st timeswecee
street at 311U ~:. L~ Palma and t wo oF the bigy
loiteciny by young p~oF~le on week-ends and ti~e ~~notint oE titter g~neraked~
much of wtiict~ was alcoholic beverage containera wliicti had ko have come in from
other arcAa. He stated the pet i~ion was ultimateiy Approved by the City
Council wi.th the condit:ons tha t they pr ~~de security guacdc to monitor the
y o u n y ~eo plc on w~ek-ends and a lso that ~~ey police induatribl pcopec~Y
complex adjacent to theic prope rty to khe eas c. H e s t a t e d t h e a v a i l a b i t it y of
a l c o h o l w ith so many young peo p le in the a~ca is t~ great conce[n and they
would cequest the Commission to take that inta aer ioua cans i d e r a t i o n i n k h e i r
findinys.
Katl Satar, S6S Inves`ment, ~t ated their offices ace ~t 315U os~8~thetrequest
directly acroso the strEnt from subject p~operty: tea~Ehbusiness is needed in
because they do not tt~ink a minx-macket or this tYP one-yuactec milE
thia industrial zone; and that there is ~lenty ~t ahoppiny
away in either dicection. t~e stated they have a unique problem on weekends
witt~ youny peop.le and on Monda ys they have r.o clean up beer botr.les and trash
wt~ich is left there by the you ng people and they wocld be uppo$ed on thAt
basis.
Mr. Johnson stated there is a n existiny condition in '.hat ~area and as L~r as
lilLer is concetned, they hav e alway~ maintained theic pro~erty and would
continue to maintein it at th i s~o~ation. He stated they have not had any
problems with the Alcoholic Be verage Control t3oard WeOhleewhonfrequent atlat
their other Locaticn~; and th at they have security p P
their sites and would itequen t this site and they also have a supervisor on
the site at a:l times, as wel ~ as the macket managec.
THE 1'U$LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED _
Commissioner I•a Claire stated the Planning Commi~bion ha~ not ap .o~.•rd any
requesks for a mini-market w i th the sale of be~r and wine in ~onjunction with
the sale of gasoline becauae the~ feel the[e is a problem in t.hi.s co~~ntry with
alcoholism, espec:ally among the youth, and it is on the increase and they ace
tryfng to disco-~cagP the uae ~i alcohol and driving and the Commission does
not feel it is reasonable to sell beer and wine~in conjunctiAn with tha sate
~f gasoline. She stated ina;~y ciLies, according t~ ~nt newspapQr articles,
are looking at t:~e problem ar:d are now aetablishing or~~nances to pr~hibit the
7/8/85
~
MINUTES AN1~k1~IM CITY PLANNING (:UMMI5SION JULY 8 1985 85-372
aale of beer and wine oc alcohol aE any kind with qaooline sulea an~a though
thQ Nt+tionol Cauncil oE Alcoholiam does not heve any data as yet, tha.e ore
some pcivate ~nstit~tiona doiny aome reaearch nnd are fi.nding tt~at thia ia
whore a lot of youny people obtain their Alcohol. She stated if the ABC
licenee ia loat, it does not mean thc ~n~ of their buainess ao thAy are not as
car~ful as a liyuoc atore would be. She stt-ter! thiA is not th~ place to sell
beer and wine becnuse it is not conducive to the industriAl area and there are
service stations in thia areA mt+kiny good money with Cheir setvice bays. She
added aelling beer ~nd wine at these gtations juat makes it too convenient.
Chairman NerbbL f)tAh.Cd he did not see what: service a mini.-markel• could give to
an induatrial area. t!e stated he would not want to see besr and wir,e sold
accosa the atreet. from his induntri~l plant and then have the workere come
back to work on machinery.
Ac:TIUN: Commibsionec La Claire oEfered a motion seconded by CommiseionPr Fry
and MUTIUN CARRIED (Commic~sioners Bu~hoc~ and Mcl3ucney abaent) that Lhe
Anaheim City Planniny Commi~sion has reviewe~ the pcopusal to pe~mit a
convenience in~~ck~t with gaxoline salea and off-sale be~r and wine with waiver
of minimum landscaped setback on a rectangularly-shaped paccel of. lAnd
conaistiny oE appcoximar,cly 0.7 acrea located a! the northeast corner of La
Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard and further described as 3101 E:ast La Palma
Avenue (~hri~ty Uil); and does h~reby appruve the Negative Declacation upan
f.inding that it has considered the ~tegative Decla~akion together with any
comments received durinq the public review process and furtt~er finding on the
basis ~f t:~e Initial Study artd any comments ceceived that there is no
sut~stantial evidence that the proj~ct will have a siynificant effect on Ghe
enviconment.
Commi:eioner La Claice uEFFred a motion seconded by Commissione~ eouas and
MUTIOh CAkitIED ~Commissioners Bush~re and McE3urney absent) that the Anaheirt~
City Planni.ng Commissian cioe~ hereby deny the request for waiver of Code
require;nent on the basis there are r.o special circumstances applicable to the
property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do
not ap~ly t~ othec identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that
strict application of the Eoning Code d~es nc~t depr.ives the property of
privileges enjoyed by other prope~ties in the identical 2one p~~d
classifiaation ia the vicinity.
Commissicner La Claire ofPered Resol.ution No. PC85-173 and moved fo[ its
pas~age and adop~ion that the Anaheim City Planning ~.ummission does hereby
deny Conditio~al Use Permit No. 2696 pur.suanr, to AnahAim t7unici~al Code
Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.U30.030.035 on the b~sis ttiat thN use, as
propoaed, coulc~ contcibute ta the problem of dciving and drinkir.g alcoholic
beverages and advecsely affect the health, safety, and generai welfar.e of the
citizens of the City o: Ant~heim.
On roll ca11, the faregoing resolutior. was passed by the fottowing vote:
AYES: BUUAS~ FRY, NERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE
I~OES: NONE
ABSENT: BUSHORE~ MCBURNEY
Malcol:n Slaughter, Dzputy City Attorney, prQSented the written right to appeal
the Planning Coaunission's decisi•n within 'l2 da~~., to the City Council.
7/S/BS
MINUT~Sr ANAHkIt+~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN. JULY 8, a985 ___ 85-373
Commissioner Fr y atatod he thaught the Commiesion ehould consider auggesting
thAk the City C ounc~l eliminate the aAle of beec and wine at th~ee aervice
stations~. He a tat~d he haa no ~bjection to khe mini-mackets, but is
vehemently opposed to Che sale ok beer and wine and the numbec Lhat has been
cequeated recen t ly.
ACTION: Co;nmissionet Fcy oEfered a motion, seconded by Chafrman Nerbat and
MO~ION CARltIGD <Commiaeio~era Bushuce and McButney absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning C:ommiasien doea herEby recommend to the City Council that th~y
give serious coneideration to adopting an ordinance within the city of Anuheim
prohibiting the c~ale oE alcohalic beverages on beer and ~:ne in any
mini-market in cunjunction witt~ the sale of gasc,lineJ anu that they also
consider requir ing the aAle of Ueer an~l wine in al.l ~xisti~~ aperations with
be eliminated w ithin a reasonable time of the adrpti.on of the ordinance.
Chairman Herbs t suqgeated the City Attorn~ey's Ufftce detecmine th~ pr.oper
amc~rtizakion t i me required to eliminate tY~e sale of beer in these exisking
atat•ions.
Commissioner8 Sushore and McBurney returned to the Council Charnber.
ITEF1 NO. 10. EIR N~GATIVE DECLARATIOy (PREV. APPRUVED) AND CON~ITIONAL 'JSE
PERMIT N0. 222 1 (R£ADVERTISED)
PUBI~IC HEARING FOR EXTENSIGN OF TIME. OWNERS: JONN TIEFEN7~HAI.ER, 200 W, 8a11
Road, Anaheim, CA 928U5. Prc~erty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcet
of land con~is ting of approxim~tely 6,336 squace ~eet, 200 West Ball Road.
Request for a two-year (1-month retroactive) extension of time or deletion of
Provfaion ~o. 2 ~f Res~lution Nu. PC81-123 pertaining to required extensions
of time to re t ain a lawnmower cepair and saw sharpening shop.
Thece wae no o ne indicating tiieic presence in opposition to ~ubject request
and altt-ough tk~e st~fF repork w~s not read, it is referced to and made a part
of the minutes .
John Tie=entl,aler, owner, was present to answer any questions.
Chairman Herbst stated the ori;:'. ~ [~ermit was approved for a two•-year peri.od
and this acti on is to either deler_e or g rint a~other time extenaion.
THE PUBLIC HEARIiVG WA~ CLUSED.
Ac:TION: Comm issioner King off~ced Resolution No. PC85~174 and moved for its
pas~age and a doption that ehe Anaheirt: City Planning CoruniESion does hereby
delete Condit ion No. i of RESOlution No. PC81-123 pertair~ing to require~
extensions ~f tim~ ko retain a lawnmower repair and saw sk,arpening shop on the
basis that t h~ uae is ising exerci~ed in a manner nut detrimental to the
pacticular ar ea and surrounding land uses nor to the public's peace, health,
safety and g e neral welfare and that th~ deletion of such time limit is
ne~essary to permit reasonable opezation undes khe permit or varianc~s granted.
7/8/65
_.__,...., _.~
MINUTEG, ANAH~IM CI7Y PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 8, 1985 85-374
On roll cell, the furegoing reaolution w$s pasaed by the following vote:
AYE5: BOUAS~ BUSIIOR~. ERY~ HERpST~ KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURN6X
NUES: NON~
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm Slau9hter, Deputy City At~orney, ex~lained between thL time the
ori91na1 pecmit was granted and this request Eor time extenaion, this City has
adop~ed an ordinance requiring a fee for advertising these time extensiona for
public hearing.
ITBM NG. 11. REPORTS AND [tF:CUMMENpATlONS:
A. TENTATIVE MAP~ uF TRACT NUS. 10967 and 10968 (REV. N0. 2) - RequesL From
GeoryP Mason, Gunston Hall Compnny, Inc., for a one-year extension of
time Eor Tentative Maps of Tract Nos. 109G7 and 10969 (Reviaion No. 2),
properl:y ia upproximat;ely 46.6 acres, havir~y a frontage o[ approximately
32(1 feet on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road, approximately 2300 feet
eas~ of Canyon Rim Fioad.
ACZ'IUN: CummissSonec Kiny oftered a motton, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Cammiesion
do~s hereby grant a one year. e~ttension of time for Tent:ative Tract Nos.
1U967 and 1096t1 to expire r.yust 22, 1986.
B. CUND1'PION~IL US~ PERMIT N0. 2615 - kequest ftom Richacd Igram, E~resident,
Trinity Luthecan Church fnr review and appraval of tevised ptans (Rev.
No. 1) for Conditional Use Perrnit No. ?.615, pcopecty located at 4101 East
Nohl Ranch Road.
AL"TIUN: Commissioner Kin~ offered a mc~+_ion, seconded t~y Commisaioner
i~lcBurney and MOTION CARRIEU that the An~iheim City Planning Commission
does hereby grant approval of cevised plans (Revision No. t, Gxhfbit Nos.
1, 2 and 3 for Cor~ditional Use Permit No. 2615.
OTHEH UISCUSSIONS:
(A) Commissionec Fry explained to Commissioners Bushore ancl Mceurney that he
had offered a motion at the end of Item No. 9 cecommendinq that the City
Council seciously consider adopting an ordinance to ptahibit the sale o£
alcoholic beveragQS or beer and wine in any mini-market in conjunction
wiLh the sale of gasoline and further considex giving a time period
whereby those in existence would be eliminated.
CommiIISioners 8ushore and McBurney indicated they would like to vote yes
on that mation.
Commissioner Bushore suggested that the Planning Commission send a coFy
of the newspaper article pert~ining to this issue to the City Cauncil
wi~.h this recommendation.
7/8/8S
,:~
MINUTBS. ~NAHEIM CITY PLAMNIN;~ COMMISSION JULY 0 1985 85-375
(B) Commissioner Bushore asked Ch~- the Cude Enforcem~nt Officera check into
the ~roperty around 21UU Wesk Ball Road because it appe~rs there are A
lot af violations.
(C) Kendra Morriea explained the Indu~trial Uevelopment Aa~rd requested a
joint work sesaion at the next morning work A888~On on July 22r 1985, in
ocder to explain their ,yoals and o~~ectives to the P1Anning Commiasion.
CommiBSioner Fxy oEfered a motion, eeconded by CammissionPC Mc~ucney and
MOTIUN CARRIED that inasmuch as the City Council has not reappointed the
Commissionera, that the pcesent Chairman and Pro Tempore Chairwoman
remain in office the same until those reappointments have been made.
A~JUURN~D: Commiasioner Fry ofteced a motion, ueconded by Commiasioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the meeting be adjourned.
The meetiny was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
.~
~%~ ,~`~ ~;~~~..~.~
Edith L. t~acris, Seecetery
Anaheim Ci~ty Planning Commission
ELH:lm
0124m
7/8/8S