The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1979/07/16~ \} Cf ty H~11 Anehe I m, C+~ I i fo ~n 1 a July 1G, 1~79 RtGULAa MEETING OF THE At~AHEIN CITY P~ANNING GOMMISSION REGULAk - Thc reyular meeting of the A~ehcim City Planntng Gommfssian was called to ME~TINC or~ier by Ghairman Hcrbst ot 1;3t1 p,m.~ July 16~ 1979~ In the Councll Chember~ a quorum being present. PRESEt~T • Cheirman: ~ierbst Conxnlssdoners: Harnes, Hushore~ Uavid~ F'ry~ King, Tolar AL50 PRCSENT - Jack Nhltc Peputy Ctty Atccrney Jay Titus Offlce Engineer An~tka Sentalahtl Assistant Director far Zontng Robert Flenntnger Asslstant Planncr Edith Narrts Planninc~ Commisston Sr.cretary PLE:DGE OF - The Fledye of Ailegiance to the ~l.~g was led by Lqnanission~r Oev(d. ALLEGI !\NCE ~TE~, M N~~. 1 CONTIt1UED PUHLIG HEARINf,. DEVELOPER: BURF~ETT EIR HEGA1'IVE OCCI.ARATION DEVELOPMCNT CO.~ 1t;~~2 Hillcrest Avenue, Villa ENT IVE P,AC Park, CA 92E~67. ENGINEEa: NORRIS ~NGiNEERiNG~ N0. 9~~4 (REVISI~N N0. 1) 17291 Irvl~e 8oulevt~rd~ Sutte 312, Tustin~ CA. 3268n. Subject p~o~arty. des~rtbed as an (rrcgula~rly-shAped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11.~ acres having a fron[age af approxtmatcly 590 feet on the east side of Henning Way~ hevtng a maxirnum deNth uf approximately 1i70 feet, And being located approxf- mately 350 feet south of tht uentcrline of Art,oretum Road~ ls praposed as a 10-LOT~ RS-WS- 22.~000(SC) (R~.SIDENTIA~, SINGLE-~FAMILY t{~L~SIDE-SCENIC CORFIIDOR OVERLAY) ZOIiE SI,I6DIVISION. Subjett tract was torttnued fr~~m the meetings of March 26. April 23~ MAy 21~ and June 1$~ 1'j79~ at the reque~t of the pet(tior~er. It waa notea the petiLloner had rr.quested a two-werk contlnuance. ACTIOH: Lanmisstoner Osvid offere:i a matlon~ seconded by Commixs(oner King and MOTION ~t~~D~ that constderatior~ of TQntative Map of Tract No. 9544 be continued to the regulsrly-scheduled mreting of Che Plenning Commissto~ on July 3Q~ 197?~~ at the request of th~ petlcloner. )9-521 7/ 16/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 16~ 1979 79~522 ITEM N0. 2 CONTINUEO PUBLIC NEARING. 04NCRs SOUTIiERN PACIFIC ~~Jn"E~RICAI. EXEMPTION-CLASS 8 RAILROAD CU.~ h1~ South Main Strcet, Los A~geles~ 0 U . CA ~~OOIh. AGENTS; WESSELN CONSTaUCTION CO.~ INC., ` -~ Welt T~ylor Lumber Co.~ 1717 West Linculn Avenue~ Anaheim~ CA 92d~11 end TAIT 6 ASSOCIATE:S~ INC., ~ox 442>~ Anahetm~ GA 92$U3. The City of Anahe(m proposes to REVOKE SUaJECT CONDITIONAL USE PEkM1T FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITII Tt1E CONDITIONS OF APPROVAI.. Property described as an trregulsrly-shaped parce) oF land conslsting of approxlmetely ;~.2 acres having approxi- mate fronteges af 1k0 feet on the north side of Ellsworth Strect~ 1+U5 feet on the south side af Santa Ana St~eet~ 150 feet on the east s(dc of Cleudine St~eet~ and 13~1 fe~t on the west side ~f Olive Strect. Propcrty prasently classifieci ML (I~IOUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. SubJect petttlon ..;tis continued from the meetiny af June 4~ 1~7~ at the regu~st of the p~titloner. There was no one indic~tfng their presence In oppositlan to subJect request~ and elthough the steff report to tha Plann(ng Comm(sslon dated July 16, 1'~79 ~~as not ~cad at the public hear(ng, It ls referred to and made a part af the minutes. Vtnc:ent Tock~ representing T~it b Associates~ aqent for Wesseln Constructlon Company~ was present to answer any questions. THE PUE3LIC N~ARlNG 11A5 ClOSED. Commisslon~r Bushore asked if the landscaped are.~s wcre sprinklered~ polnting out there were two trees whicr, appear to be dying, and wondcred if the sprinkler system is being used. Mr. Tock statmd chc sprinklers are bcing useci and indicated he had Rattced the sam~e two t rees and s tated they wau 1;f t ry t~ ~ev i ve thcm o r wou 1 d rep I an t them, I~ was notcd thc Planning Uirector ~r his eutt~orized ~epresentative has deter~lned that the proposed proJect falls withtn the definition of Catagorlcal Exemptions, Class 8. as defined In paragraph 2 of the City of Anahei;n E~viromr.~~t+~l Im~,act Repert GutdGlines and ts, therefore, cacegorically excmpt from tlie requiremen[ to prepare ~n EtR. It was noted ttie Zoninq Enforcement Off(cer h.as inspec[ed the subJatt proNerty a~d finds it to be In confo~mance wich Conditional Use. Pern~lt N~. i874 with respect to requircm~nts for fencing and landscaping~ and the other condltlons of approval hav~ now bee~ met. ACTIatl: tanmissioner King offered a mation~ sccondad by Commisstoc~er Barn~s and MOSION ~~D that the proccedinc~s to revoke Conditiona! Use Pe nnit No. 1(3J4 be terminated on the basis that the condtttons af aRproval h~sve been met. ITEM N0. 3 CONTINUEO PUBLIC NEARING. NOLA T. AND NOEL ~~~,~VE DE(:LARATION f. l1ATL:1~ 2510 Wsst ara~ge Avenue~ Anahelm~ CA N E E. 0. tgg6 92804. Petitlone~ requests permission to EXPANO " r'~'-~ -- AN EX151"iNG PRF.SCNQOL on ~roperYy descrtbed as a rsctanguiariy-shap~~1 parcel of tsnd consistir+g of approxi~pstely O.ts ecre having a fro~tage of approxirnately 'S1 feet on the south side of Orange Av~nua~ havl~g • msximum cicpth of approxtmntely 215 feee~ betng loc.eted approxi- nwtely 1032 feGt east of the ccnterline of Megnolia Avanue, and furthe~ descrlbed as 2510 West 0~nge Aven~~e. ~roperty presently cl~ssifled RS-A-43~000 (RESIOEMTIAL/AGRICUlTURAL) ZONE. 7/~6/79 MINUTLS~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 16, 1~79 79-523 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONOITIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. 1996 (wntinued) .._...~..~_..._ SubJect petitlon Nas conttnued from thc meeting of July 2~ 1979 ak the rQquest of the petltloncr. Therc wcre two persons (ndlcating thelr presRnce In opposition to subJect rQquest, and although the staff repArt tn the Plenntng Commtsslon dated July 1G~ 1979 wes not reed et the publlc hearing~ it is referrcd to and macle a part of the m(nutes. Com~I~sioner Tolar declared a c:onflict of int~rest as deflned by Anahetm f,l;y Planniny Cortimission Resolution No. PC76-1~J~ adoptfng a Lonflict of Interest C~~ie for the Planning Commisslon~ and G~vernmcnt Co~1e Sectlon 3G2!~ et seq.~ in that hc ts an agent for sdle of ad)oini~g property a~d. pursuant to thc provlsions of tFic above codes~ declared to the Chalrman that he was withdr~winy from the liearing 'n connectlon with ConditionAl Use Permic No. 19)F, a~d would not take part in eithcr the dlscussion or thc votinc~ thereon~ and h~s not ~iiscussed this mattcr with any mcmt~er of the Planning Cc~+rn(ssion. THEREUPON~ COMMISSIO~~EP, TOLAR LEFT THE COU'~CIL CNAMktER. Nola ilatch~ petitioncr~ stated plans for parkfnq havc heen revfsed to provicle A total ~f nine spaces far A tot~~) c~f ten empl~:y~es when tl-e capacity ~s increased; that three tr~es wi 11 bo removed, leavlny twn l~~rye [rccY; on~i thAt pv. ents and teechrrs wl I 1 not be parking at Lhe samc tlme. Concerning the fence on the west property 1{ne, she stated they had discussed the ~roposal ~f a chainltnk fence wlth Mr. Clsrk and he Is egreeable to leaviny hts qrapCStaG.e fence~ and tlioy wa~ld instoll e cheinllnk fence Interw~ven with plastic strips on subJect Nr~,perty. She SCAi~d they would like ~ waive.r of the rr,quired tree planting In the parbvay bccause it would bc a safety hazard fu~ ihe parents dropping off and pick(ny up tt~~ chil~ren~ and felc there wil! be sufficient greenery with the trees on the property. Robcrt Ilenninycr~ A~sistant Planner~ expla(ned Lo~dition fJo, 2 requires that the fee be patd for trec planting~ but dars not mean tllc trecs wlll be plantcd in fro~t of the structuro anJ tf~c pctitioncr could request that they not bc plantcd in front :~f her proaerty~ but that the fee goes into a ycncral fund which provldes trec planting in parkways for the entire city and each property ~+vner contributes to ti~e fund atcordfng to thrtr fron[aqc along a public strc~t. Karcn Vanderwoudc~ rcpresencing her parents who livr dt !~17 South tiampton Street~ Anaheim. resd a Ietter from her parents as folia.rs: "Folla-viny an ~arlicr Counc!1 hear(ng on chis mattcr~ tt~c p~titioner personally visited variaus residential neighbors in close proxim(ty ta thc locetion of subject preschoel for che purpose of solicitlnc~ support for the solut(an of che parkiny and traffic problems curren~ and anticip~ted undcr the praposed expansiUn. This solution~ to our shock~ con~isted of cutting down [wo ancicnt~ magnif(cent trees on the south sidc of Orar,ge Avenue and pevtng [he araa to crcdte three parktng spaces. These tw~ t~ees form a spectacular~ rustlc backdrop at the south end af Nampton Street~ befltting the imege of the fine tiomes situated u~ that strect. alonq wtth several others en Orange llvenuc~ and do~ indecd~ enhance the beauty of tl~e vcry property upon which the shameful defacement (s propased. The prese~ce of thls comrnercla) enterprise whose location amid a yroup of single-fom(ly residences unduly imposes upo~ the integrity~ the tranquiltty arid the privacy of resid~nt famtlles and to further en~hasize the appearance of the comn~erciality of this ane rrisfit would be ~anth(nkable. In tts current mode of aper~tlon thls preschool has crr~ated an alre,ady grave Craffic hezard ond an inc~ease br, enroll~nent with its proportlonate incraase in t~afftc wauld te~d tu agg~avete the traffic p~oblems to an (ntotersble level. There does not eppear to be any feasible and acceptable basls 7/16/79 S~ .~~ MINUTES~ AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, JULY 16~ tg79 79'524 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1996 (oontlnued) for this preschool to accompltsh thelr growth obJective at its present locatlon~ and we resp~:ctfully urge the Councfl to deny the petltlon." M~. Vanderwoude explatned they have been watching the traffic on the street for the pest few weekY. and althougl~ Mrs. Hatch has ..~ade an effort to help the probl~m somewhat and thcre are fewer cars ai Hampton~ thore is an everag~ of four to five cers on the street every dsy and she had counted fiv~ ca~s on Hanipton this morning~ with only four in the parking lot at the preschool~ a~d two of those belnng to the Ndtches. She felt If the eKpansion ts app roved~ there is no way to be sure the ert+ployacs alll use the paved portlon far parking. She stated they ne;ed assurance thot thr.y wlll be able to get in and out of thel r own streec. Chatrman Herbst explalned the Planning Gommission has thc power to revc~ke the conditlona) use permit after it has becn ~ranced if the petitioner docs not live up to the condltions impospd. Ms, Vand~rwoude conitnued that tliere were five cars on the street this mor~ing witl7 four at the preschool at ap~roximately 9:45 a.m.~ and tliere w~ere no vehtcles parked c~ Orange Avenue. She stated she does not rec~gnlze the prascliool employees' vehicles and could not say whether or not any uf then are parking on Baker Strcet. Sh~ felt IC is rldl:,ulous to reduce the number of cars on her street by tw~~ adding th~ee employ~es and making one giant~ ugly~ long driveway on the property whtch wil) nevcr be used. Craiy Jones, 2~32 West Orangc Avenue~ Anahr(m, indicated he has doubts thet the parGing will bc used by the preschool emplayees~ and pointed out ther~ has been a car perked in frunt of hls father's property eve ry day for the past week and it ~bstructs the view coming o~~t of his drivew~y, and that no one has parked in front of the preschool. Mrs. flatch stated the vehlcles beiny d(scussed by tt~e opposition are not vehicles of her emplcyees because she had checked. Sh~ stated she haG assurt~ d at the previous ^+eeting her employees were parlcing there; that there are apartr+~~ts right next cioor and it i, possiblE the vehfcles balony to thc apnrtment cfwellcrs. She stated she doES not know who they belo~y to~ but ooes not like to Lake the blamc for something not due her; that Lhcy have bcen park(ng tn a 150-foot area on the eASt side af Hampton Street Nhere. no house exists this past weel:~ end there were seven cars psrked in the preschool p~rking lot. She explained they have two pcrsonal vehicles and when theY rrove~ trro addittonal cr~ployees wha wiil be cominy to the school when the expanston is approved w(11 take those spacts. TNE PURLIC NEAR11~!; 4IA5 CLOSEn. Commissioner Bushure state:d he wuuld offer a:+rotion for approval on a one•year basis, subJect to revl~w~ and felt this would accamplish getting the cxtra parking spaces for the increesed capacfcY of the preschool~ and if it does not wark out or the employees do nnt us~ the parking spaces des t gnatecJ on-s 1 te ~ tt,e permi t can be rev~ked, !~e stated ( f the use does create s problesm and nine parking s~aces are not cnough~ the capacity could be decreased ancf sdditional pt+rking spaces which are needed will be available. Mrs, liatch ~vas conce rned there would be a problem determining whose vehlcles are betng parkod in front of thetr nelghbors' property. Gortmissioe~er eughore statcd before any actfon is taken~ the facts would be r~tabltshsd and thcre would be anothcr public heari~g. He stated he assun-~d it would never cane to that polnt because Mrs. Hatch (s a business woman and as a good neighbor would see that the p ro~lem dAes not occur. 7/ 16/79 t MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUIY 16~ 1979 79•525 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA'TION ANO CONCIITIOHAL USE PEaMIT N0. 1996 (continued) _~~ Chairman fierbst explained if the permit ts granted for a one-year period, subJect to revtew~ it will be reviewed autometlcally unless the conditlons ore not being complted wlth e~d then there would be another public heartng. Commissioner Bushore asked about the chalnlink f~~~ce propased~ polntEny out Condit(on No. 4 raqulres that a G-foat hlyh mason ry wall be conslructed along the west property line. Mrs. 1!n[ch explafned Mr. Clark~ the ~etql~~or~ had said he would be agrec~ble to havin~ a 6-fc~ot high~ chainltnk fence Interwoven with plastic strips ~nd would leave hls grapestAke fonce. Mr. Jones indlcated from tlie audience that h~ ha~1 spokr.n with Mr. Clark and hr. had Indicate~ to hirn he would nnt be aqreeeble to thP chainlink fence because it would he creating o problem with the two fencss ed,)acent 'o each other. Coor,iixsloner tiarnes stated in every ~ther conmerciai venture, a block wall has been requl~ed on all three std~s when they arc: adJacent [o residential neiqhborhoads~ and she wes conterneJ about the nolse probiem and was not sure Mr. Clark waulcl be agreeable to the fence as praposcd. Commissioner Herbsc felt a chainlink f~nce would be better around che schooi yard then a block wal) and p~~inted out chalnlink fenctng is ~sed around all our schouis throughout the clty. He th~u<~ht a mason ry wall would block off t-;e air and cfrculatlon. Mrs. Hatch Inulcated she had dlscusseJ the fencr wlth Mr. Clar6c on 5undiy afternoon e~d had told him they hopeJ to purcF~~se his propr_rty If it becomes available and that thev would noL want to remave a E~-foot tiigh block wall. She s~ated Nr. Cla;k had indlcAted he would not want to Nart(clpate in thc cost of the blor~ well and that they would be paytng the entire cast for the chalnlfnk frn:inc~, She st~ted they would be Htiling t~ get something ln writing from Mr. Clark that hels agreeahle to the chainlink fence. Jacl: uhite~ Ueputy City Attorney~ expl.~ined if the pernit rs granted ~ubJect to the c4ndition Chat a cha{nlink fen~e be cc>nstructed along the west property line and the neighbor Is not egrreable, it would be consi<iered a rnisrepresentation e~nd the pe~rmtt could be rcvoked. Commisslone~ Harnes pointed out she wou1~J not be in favor of any future expansfan of the preschool~ allawiny rnore children~ end Mrs. Natr.h indicated they would be buying Mr. Clark's propertw to be used as a residencc. ACT{ON; Lommissio~er Bust~ore offered a motion~ seconded by Com-nissioner Kir-g ai~d MOTION ~D~ that the Mahelm City Plann(ng Cormiisslo~ F'~as rcvlewed thc proposal ta expand an existtng p~eschool on a rectangularly•shaped pnrcel of land consisting of approxima!Mly 0.8 a~.r~ heviny a frantage of approximately 1;1 fcct on the souch sid~ Qf Oranye Avenue~ having a rr-~xlR~~x-+ de~th of approxir~ately 21; feat. and bainy loca;ed apFroxtmetely 1032 feet east of the centerline of Meynolia Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Detlaratio~ fro~;ti the requirement to prepare an environmental imprct report on che basis that the~e would be ~o signiflcant indivfdual or cumulrtive adverse envlronmental impact duc tU the approval of this llegatiye Detlaratlor~ since the Anaheim General Pla~ designates the subJect property fo~ low-~mediun ciensity residentlai land uses comriensurat~ with the pruposal; tha~ no sensi tive env! ranrrierstat irnpacts are tnvolvacf in the pmposal ; that the (nltiel Study s~ebmitted by the pctitloner lndicates no signifir,snt indivldual or cumulative adverse environmcntal impacts; and that the -~agatlv~ Declaration substan~tating ~the fo~egotng f(nd(ng~ is on file in tlie Clty of AnaheiR~ Plennin~ Oepartment. 1/16/19 ~ MINII'tE:, AHNIEIM CIT7 PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 16~ 1979 79-526 ~IR N~f,l1'CI'~E DECLIIRATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NQ. 1996 (ccnCinued) P,~r~wnlsRlo~er Aushore offered Reso~utton No. PC79-142 and maved for Its passage and ~M~ptir,n~ tfiet the An~heim CICy Planning Commission doas hereby grant Petitlon for ~,r,n~liti~n41 Usa Permlt No. 1996 for a one-yeer perlod, sub,Ject to review by the Plan~ing ~.~+a~-uls~i~n to determine whetner or not the use has had a detr~mental effect on the n~lqhborhoad for p~ssiblc extensions of tlme; and subJect to the petittoner's stipulation th~t tha n+~ximun number of employees shal! be ten and that the employees shall be inetruct~d ta park in off-street parking speces provided on-slte; and subJect to the Sr.lpul~r.(on thet a 6-foot hiyh~ chainllnk fen~e tnterwoven with slats wlil be constructed ~~ ch~ vrest property Ilne; and subJr.ct to Interdepartmente) Commlttee recommendations. bn roll call~ tha fot:going resolution was pessed by the following vote: AYE~; COMNISSIONERS: BARNES~ BUSHORE, UAVIt~~ FRY~ NERBST, KING MOE~: COMNISSIONL'RS: NONE A3SENT: COMMISSIO~IERS: TOLAR Mrs. Hatc~ explalned that there ts onc parking space in front ~f the trash erea~ but tP~at the tr~sh (s ~oll~cted onc day a week end it would be ve ry s(mplc for someone to park fn t!~at spot. Coavnissioner t3arnes pofnted out it t~ possible that somc of the cars park(ng (n front of the nelghbors' property are fr~m o[her places; however~ the nelghbors cb not think so, a~d s~sggested thet they get tt~e license nurrbera and f(nd out wF-o the cars belong to, Mrs. Hitch explatned she had been tnformed by a mem~er of the Planning staff that a new ordtnance is L-eing proposed pertatn(ng to preschnols~ and stat~d loeding areas for preschouls are nPVer allowed because of the safety of thc children, end tha~ the par~nts need a place to stop an~ the drivewsys are nut like thnse at public schools. Robert Henninger explain~~d in two waeks the Planning Commission wili sec a propased sn~t~dment to the par~(ng r~yufrc;men[s which makes a porktng s~tandard for preschools requiring one space pcr employee and reQuirtnq an rppropriate area far dropping off and picking up chlidren. He stated therc arc no specific design standa~ds in the ordinance for the drop-off area. Jac;k Whlte, peputy C(ty Attorney~ presented the written r(ghc to appeal the Plan~ing ~o~a+~dsston'~ decis(on within 27, unys to the Gtty Council t~ anyone not set(sfied with the Planning Cormission's decislon, CO~tW1155IOt~ER TOLAR RETURt~EO TO TH~ COUNGIL CNAMB~R. 1/t6{79 ~ ' ~~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JULY lf,~ 1979 17EN N0. ~i ,.__•.__.~ t IV I RO~IMEN7AL I MPACT R~PORT NU. 2A3 ADUENUUM N0. 2 N . -$ -- .. VARIANCE N0. 3~ EN E AP OF TRACT N0. ti11G REVIS101~ N0. A) ~EN~ MA • RAG NU. 8117 RCVISI0~1 N0. 3~ R QE~~UE:S'~ L M IJ N OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVCQ MAPS A~~D RkVI51QIlS F~R T[NTATIVE TMGT NOS, ot16 !-r~D '~117 ~ 79-527 PU~L I C HEARI NG. OWNc:R: TEXIICO-ANAl1E I M H I LL5 ~ 112C. ~ 3a0 Anahelm Hi11s Road~ AnAhetm~ CA 97.H07. ENGINEER: LIND b HILLLRUD~ INC.~ 2065 Nunt(ngton Drive~ San Marino~ CA 9110Q. P~operty descrlbed as Po~tl~n A- an ir~eyularly-shaped parcel of lend con~isting of approxlmatsly 12.7 acres heving e frontage of approxi- mately 295 feet on the south slcf~ of t~~hl aanch Road~ havfng a maxtmum depth af approximately 6~0 fest, end belnq located approxtmat~ly 143 fcet west of the c~nterltne of Old Bucket Road; and Portlon B- en trregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approx(mately ?1.~ acres hev(ny a frontage of approxi- ~~~a ~~ ~ r havtn9 being locatcd approximately 3129 fect west of prosently classifie~ RS-HS-t~~n,»(SC) (RESIDE'~ OVERLAY) ZONC ;f'ORTIOt~ l1) ANp RS-A-43~00~(SC) OVCRLAY) Iq~t~ (PURTI O!~ B) . ~~,~~~ ~~c~ vn ~r~c ~~,uu~ a~uc ~i nvni nnnc.n nvna~ a maximum deptli of appraximately 829 feet~ and the centerline of Royal Oak Road. Property ~lTIAL~ SINGI.E-FAHILY NILlSIOE-5CENIC CORRIDOa (RESIDENTIAL/Af,RICULTURAL-SCENIC CORRIDOR aECLASSIFICATIOri RLQU~ST; RM-3~~0(SC) (~ESIGEI;T~AL~ MULTIPLE-FANILY-SCENIC COaRIDOR OVERLAY) ZOt~E (PORTION D). VARIANCE RE~UEST: MlAIVf_R OF MAXIt1UM STRUCTURAL -iLIG117 (PORTION (3). TEiITATIVE 7-+ACT REQUESTS: NU. 311f. (REV. N0, r+) ~ NC. 811) (REV. N0, 3? ~ ther~ was no one inc~cating their presence~ in opp~ thc staff rcport to the Planning Commisston ~iated hearing. it is refcrred ;o and madc a part of thc • 35-I.o'f ~ RS-HS- t~ ~(1~~ (SC) SUQQI VI51 Q~~. • 9)-UNIT~ RM-3')00(SC) CONDOI~INIUM SUUUIVISION. ~sixion to subJect rr.qucst~ a~d although July 16 ~~'+79 was not read at the pub 1 1 c minutes. pan Salccda, rePresentDng Anahclm tiills~ ~nc,, c~wncr. statcd they are proposing a revlsion to a tract wl~fch has been approved previously by the Planning Commission r~s RS-NS-10~000 lots to RM-3006; that there see~~d to be a significant concern at the June 4th hearing as to whether or not the Coimission wouid be looklny at a multitude of reYised tentativc t~act maps. Fle presented the mndel ta shaw the yradiny in terms of co~version to attached housinc,~ and explaineJ (f the i.omnisslon approves this rev(sion~ i[ would require that only 5~000 yards of dlrt be moved ip e~nverc thete 99 ~LCa~hed units~ wt~ich Is 5~ yards per unlt. Fle potnicd out the five lots Nhich r~e nut a part of Te~tatlve Map of Tract No. 8117. because conversion would r~qufre a large amounc ef gtading and the amount of work does not merit the revisic~n, He staced thhy have studied the SO acres which were bcfore Che Commission in ~ugust of 1y77 and reyuest thOs revtslon because of tt~-e danands of tht community in terms c-~ housing needs~ which ts b~st evidenced by the r~sident consumer attitudes rr~rket study conductrd by Ken Agaic and the responses werc overwhelming that Anahetm Hills does need a becter housing mix; that presentty 85$ of the housi~g stock is single-family, dctached housing; end that they frscl by providing a bel~nce~ they will be able to attract the first-generation hc~me b.~yers~ t~e young coupies~ and the mnre mature couptes. Ne expl~insd the density for the ove~ail community is 2.G7 and 4.6 for this particuler tract~ which well confo rms to the Gr.neral Plan; thac they have 3.8 spaces per untt for park(ng, which Is w~ll abave code requirernents. and not including the streets an~ pads~ thz cluster cnncept allarrs for 4000 square Feet of open space per unit. He stated T~act No. 8117 !s Ideally sufted as an atteched houstng uonplex hacause it abuts tlohi ft~nch Road and Maats Avenue~ which are batl~ artertal streets~ and are buffers for .he Ivwer-~density ~esidential units directly co tt-e sa~th~ east and west. Ne ~•~~rer: tn~:se i~''•"'~':~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 16~ 1979 79-5?.8 EIR N0. 203 (ADDEN~Uk N0. 1)~ RECLASSIFICATION ~~0. 79-~'S~ VARIANCE N0. 3105~ AND TENTATIVE MAP O~F T_RACT NOS. 8116 (REV_ NO_4~ AND $117 SREV. N0. 3) ,S~ontlnued) units t~ Singlny Wood HI ll with 2~~+0 square feet per unif ancl Oak Knnll with 22Q0 square fect per uni t. Tllk PUULIC IIEARING WAS CLOSED. Chat~man Nerb~t statecl he has no querrcl wtth the huu4(ng mtx, but dc~es not eyree wtth the way traFfic Is requ(red to ~,~o through A condomin~um d~veloprrKnt tn order to get to the single-family, detached development. Ne pointed out tha I~tersection of Falrfleld nnd Meats which wlll empty traffic throuyh the condomtnium developrrn:nt Into Yorbe Street and out onto I~ohl Ranch Road~ and stat~d he is drastically opaosed ta that circulatlon because the (ncreesed traffic from the incrcesed develoornPnt wiil have ta be relfeved tn some manner. ~le raferred ta Shannan Street and the fact it does not intersect Old aucket Road and felt that would h~vc to be a four-corner intersectlon because Nohl Rench Road is too speedlly traveled to permff tf~e left•turn lanes~ according to the Traffic Englneer. He stated there Is a bad prob,_~:~ already whcrc Royal Oak Road lntnrs~cts wlth Nohl Ranch Road NI th a s top s i gn one b I oc' away and tli t s w~u 1 d be Jeve ~~~~ i ng the semc typ~ prob 1 em. Ne stated eventually tlier~; probebly woul.l bc stynals at Meats Avenue. tle sta[ed proferably tlure shoul~l t~c a fuur-wey corner et Olci Hucket Road, or the road would have to be widened to allow two~ Icft-turn lanes in ond out of cither o~e ~f thc strcets. Mr. Salceda statescl it fs alweys preferable ;o have intersect(ons al(gned, but durln~ the last thre:e ycars when the Gommisslon appraved th~ Lusk developmcnt anJ the Anahetm Hil1s, Inc. developr~ent~ che oftset tntersect(on des(yn was accept~ble; that subseyuen[ to tha[~ Anahetm Nills~ Inc. nnd the Ctty wcnt to imn~c,~,~r..ble expe,~se to widen Nohl Ranch Road and to create tf~e Intersection of Sha~non end Noh) Ranch Road~ and to suggest that intersectlon ayciin be Constructed at a different place woulJ bring addttianal expenses. He stated he understood thc Traff(c Fngineer's r~port was that that particular intersectlon alignment could be rrsolved by p~E~Cluding ti~e left-turn lane at Shann~n. Ne stated he th~ught ~hr. pr~po~clerate amc~ur,t of traff(c wi I1 go to Meats Avenue because it wlll t~ave ~ siynal; that lie he did not envision the intersection bcing o majur prob~em~ simply because there fs an easily-accessible alternative, tie stated thpy do have two ingress and ~:gress points to the tract (Shannon an~ Meats) and fclt thc bulk of the treffic would bc on Meats~ so Nould not be going through [he entire tract. Comnissioncr Tol~r stated Shannon was approveti as an c;ffsrt intersectlon wi[h 46 iess unl ts praposed (n the area. Ile stated as far os hc Is cor,:~rned, Shanno~ and Old ~Cket Road sfiould be aliyned~ an~1 the Traffic Englncer 5ays thefc v+tll be a problem and staCed he cauld not support the proposal unless the ctrcula:ion arc~blems are resolved. Chairr~an Flnrbst Guestloned the "no left-hand turn" frar. Shannon and po(nted out tf people could rot make a l~ft turn, they would have to go ta Meats~ making a U-turn and return to go to Orenye~ or thcy v+ould hav~ to go u~~ tl~rouqf~ the condominium tract to get out on[o Meats Avenue. Hr. Salceda stated he suppores the Traffic Engineer'~ recammendation and would opi for the "no left turn" an~+ iceep the alignmenc as i[ is. He stated Nohl Ranch Road is being cxtended i~to csseneially a five-lane ar;eri~l and felt eve~ if tlie streets were aligned~ i! would be difficult to mak~ a Icft turn sefely onto Nohl Ranch Road gal~g ln a westerly directic~n. Chair*nan Nerbst stat~d aliynment would solve the problem because ~t coufd be properly signalfzeJ~ even wtth th~ stop slyn in thc be~inning~ t~ut when the streets are offsct~ it Is impossib{c. 7/16/79 t ~. MINUTkS~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAHNING COMMISSION~ JULY 16~ 1979 79•529 EIR N0. 203 (~ DD"cNDUM N0. 2)~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 79'80•5~ VARIANCE N0. 31~5~ AND TENTAIIVE MI1P OF TFtACT NOS. 6116 (REV. N0. 4) AND 8117 (REV. N~3L (continued) Commiss~~ner Tolar stated tl~ero w) l l be a lot more trip counts wl th 4E~ more units In the area~ and Mr. Salce ~a stated the Environme~tal Msnagement Agency hss indlcatad Nohl Rench Road wlll be able to take up to j~000 t~~ps per dey~ nn~i right nc~w tt (s up t~ 2~~00 trips per day~ end a lot o' problRms are prndicared on the facc thot there are only two lanes; that thare (s a stg ~ficant amount of construction ~,ping on and to look beyond that to when thc road ls widene d~ hc dld not think Noh) Ranch Road would be overburdened. Comm(ssioner Tol.~r stated lie Is reminded that once a pr•~Ject Is gradPd It can be convertad to hiyher ciensi ty w ith minimum graJing. and suc~gested i t wi 11 not be long before the trlp count (s ~~~~~ trips per day. lie state~l the tract approved approximately onQ month ago, by the ~leveloper's own admfs`(on~ was the only tract wh(ct~ could casily be convcrted at thai time an~ na+ a~other onc is beiny, proposed, and fc)t with grading~ a lot more could be canverted, Commissioner Uarries stated she dr~e~s rot have any obJections to the condominium proJect~ but is concernecJ about the traffic clrculatinn and fclt it cc~uld be improved. She stated tlie etrculatlon was ~ccept~ble when tl~e original trects werc proposed~ but this is a c~nciominium pro~ett with more trnffic, She felt Old Bucket RoAd ~nd Shannon Street should be real iyned ar everyonc ln Anal~afm liit Is wi I I be penal lxed. She also felt the circulation insidc the pr~Ject Itself cr,~rld ba Irr.~,rove~. Commtsslun~:r Tolar was conccrne~ ahout tlie yuest parking sltuation~ realizing 3.~ spaces per unlt are proposed~ and pointed out all tt~e ~arkiny spaccs arc proposed on-site for each unic except for 9 additianal spaccs. M~. Salcz~a repl ieci that th~ coJe requi res 3.5 spaces per uni t and they have provided 3.8~ whlch Is wel 1 abov~ tt~p ~AG~ ~ and fclt people wi th yuests would park thei r vehicles f n thcir yarayes and the yuests coul~i use the driveways. Ghalrman Hdrbst poir~teJ out onc area w+th 7~~nits and only G parking spaces~ and polnted out thosa uniks' drlvcways do not havc adeyurce dcNth, He fclt guest parkiny shculd be provided within s ~easa~iabte distance of each c~mplex. Commissioner Bushore cxplained hc fclt thc~e are s~~rne parking problems beiny created because there fs double occuunting for che ~equired parking spaces. Ne ayked (f there is a developer for thts project onJ what the estim~tPd cost of the units would be. Nr. Selceda repli~:d ~hat they are hoping thc units wl1~ be pric~d at 5125~000 to S14p.000~ retognizlr~g lt wi t 1 be next July beforc tleey can be rnark~eted, end Fotnted out the average square footaye (s approximatrly 1840 syua~c fect. Gommissioner ~~shvre refcrrad to the terri fic fi re liazard wf th Meats Avenue going nowhere~ mnd asked if it is pussible that It could be closed to nrever.t people trom parking st the end and cre~tiny a flre ha:ard with their ci~arette butts~ etc., and Mr, 5alceda stated they own thc land irr~me~itcely soutli ~f the extensian of hkats Avenue snd w( 11 take ti-at responsibtllty. Mr. Selceda asked for a continuance In o~der to revl~w the pro)ect arod resolve the problems, Me ref~rred to real (gmm~nt of Old Bucket Road and Shanno~ Street and re- emphasizod the faet that a lot of maney hes alreaay been spent ~n that Intersectlon, en~t explained tt see+n~d in the Trafflc Engineer's report that if there ls a"no left turn" f~om Shannon~ it would go a long way tavard resolving the problem. He stated ihe uttlities are in ~d chere is a 1(i~inch pipeline which servlce; a great part of the ~+estern section ef California located at tt~at intersection and he did not knaw if it would be ~conant cal iy poss ibl ~ to move tha i ntersection. 7/16/79 ~.. F1INUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION~ JULY 16~ lg~g 19-530 EIR N0. 203 (~UDENDUN Np. 2}~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7~•80-5~ YARIANCE N0. 310y~ AND TE-ITATIVE hAP OF TRl1CT NOS. 8116 (REV. NA. 4) AND ~117 (REV. N0. 3) (continued) Chalrrnen tlerbat su~.ac~e~,ted en easement or a cul-de-sac in th~ condominlum cornplex wlth all the t~afflc flowlny out ta Meats Avcnus. Ne st.ited hc woul~i prefer isolating the eoncbminlum p roJeet and not haviny tr~ffie flvw chrc~ugh it. AGTIOf~; Gornm(ssioncr Barnes offereJ a moti~n~ secondr.d by Cormisslo,~cr David and MQTION C~IRK~EU~ that cons(~leretlon of thP .~fc,reme~ntlr~ned Item be continued to thr. reyularly- scheduleJ moctinca af the Planning Cammission un Juiy 3~, 1'+7~~ at thr r~quest of thc petitl~ncr, tn or~ler to rre5ent r~vtse<1 ~>l~yns. Commisslaner Davic~ re~ueated tha[ a rnember of the lilll and Conyon Mun(c.lpe) Advisory Committee (NAGMAC) be pres~nt ta expl~in their re:asons f~,r rec~mmending denial of proJects such as thic since t~~~ Ci ty Gouncl 1 cfoes feel thry serve an i~o~t~nt functlon, and he d(d nox fe~l thc rcasons stateJ were ac!equatcly cxpresse~l and ncc~i further discusslon. IT~M NQ. ~i TT~~TT~VE DECLARA71;~!I REGL 51 n ac~ -v0.~~ 8c~-4 VARIEiNCC N0. 3107 north s(de of lincoln P,venuc~ haviny a located approxlr,a[ely 9h3 feet west of desG~ibed a, 3311 41est Lincoln Avenue. (RE_SIDCNTIAL/AGRICUI.TURAL) ZO'~L. PUIiLIC HEAkIt~G. OWNErS; BLANCHE IIANANA'J ANI~ UAi.TER F.. LA FORCE~ P.O, (tox E,2n~~ Annhclm~ cn 92Rn~~. ARE'IT; JGIIN F. SW111T~ JQ) 41~:,t North Street, Anaheim~ CA 92t~5. Propcrty d~~scrihed as o rect~+ngularly-shaped parcel of land consist(nq of approximat~ly 1.2 acres having a Fror~tagc af a~prox(nately iC7 feet on ehe r~aximurn depth of epprr~xin-ately 3or, fect, being thc centerllne of '~lestcrn Avenue~ and further Pr4perty presently classified RS-A-~43~Q~'~ RECLASSIFICATt;)r~ R~QUEST; RM-30~0 (RESIDE-~TIAL~ MULTIhLt-FANILY) ZOr~C. kEQUESTED VAKIANCE:: WAIVER OF (A'} NI~~IMUN IiUIL~JING SITE: Af~EA PCR DuEI.LING Ur~IT A-~D (fi) N~xI~SUN STRUC ~~,~c. -IEIGNT TC COr1~TRUCT A 14-UNIT CONU~MINIUM. There was no one indicatiny thnir presrnce in ~pposition tu ~~~bjc:r.t request~ and alt-:ough the staff rcpor[ '~ thc Planning Commisslon doteci July lE~ 1;i;9 was not rcAd at tha public hcaring~ it (s referred to ancl macic a part of the mtnuics. Walter La Force~ owncr, was presenc Co answer any questions. 71~E PU~LIC t1EARING M1A5 Ci05ED. ACTtOt~: Commissioner King affered a rnotion~ seconded by Cormissioner David anJ NOTION ~T~D~ that tii~ Anaheim City Plan~lnc~ Commission has reviewcd the pro~osal to reclassify subJect property from the RS-A-43~000 (Rcsidentiol/Agrlcultural) Zone to the RM-3~00 (Resldentlal, Multiple-Famlly) Zone to construct a 14-unlt condominium compiCx w(th waivers of minim~.m bullding stte area per ciwelling unic and mar,i;ium structural he(ght on a rectangulerly-shaped Qarcel of land co~isisting of apprnximately 1.2 acreS having a frontaye af epp roximately 167 fGet on the nortli side of Llncoln Avenue~ havl~ig ~ maxirnum depth of approx(mately ;00 fe~t~ and 'oeiny loceted approximately 963 feet west of the centerline af western Avenue; and does hereby approve the Nogative Geclarat(on from the reguirament co prepere an environmental impact report on the basts that there would be no signtficant individual or cumulative a~iverse ersvironmencal impact du~ to t!~e approval of this Neyative Declaratfon slnce ths Anahelm Genera) P1an dexignates the subJett property for luw-medtum density residential l~nd uses commcnsurate wich the proposdl; that no sansitive envlronmental irnpaccs are tnvolved in the proposal; that the Inltial Study 7/16l79 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISS I ON~ JULY lfi~ 1979 79-530 EIR I~O. 203 (AUDENDUM N0. 2)~ aECLASSIF ILATION N0. 79-80-5~ VARIANCE N0. ~1~5~ AND TENTATIVE f1AP OF TMCT NOS. 8116 (REV. NQ. 4) AND 0117 (REY. N0. 3) (co~tl~ued) Chetrmen 1lerbst suygested an eosement or a cul-de-sec In the cc~ndominlum corrplex with all tl~e trafflc flowln~~ out ta Meats Avcnu~. He st~~tod he woul~l prcfer (solating the eondominlum prc~)ect and nut havinq traffie flaw throuyt~ lt. ACTION; Cor~missipncr Berncs offered a mnt(on, seconded by Commissl~ncr Davfd and h1~TI0N Att ED~ chat constckration of th~ ~foremcntioned Item be ccxitinued to lhe rcgularly- achcdulod mes~tiny of the Plenning Commi ssion on July 30~ 1~7~~ at the request of the pet(t(oner~ in order to present rev(sc~i pl~~ns. Commtssioncr Davld reyuested that a membe~ of thc lilll and Genyon Munlclpal 1ldvisory Commlttec (NACMAC) be present to explnin their rcasons fa~ ~ccommendinn d~n(,) of proJects such as this s~nce the C(ty Council ciocs feol they serve an irr~ortant functl~n, and h~ dld not fee) the reasons statcJ were adequately expressed and need further dtscusslon. ITLM N0. 5 ~~~TTUE DECLARATION (.L s A ori No. 73-fi~-4 VAR ANCE N0. 3102 north stde of Llncoln llvenue~ haviny a loeatea epproxtmatefy 963 f~:et wcst of described as 3311 1Jest Lincoln ltven„e. (RE:SIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE. PUBLIC IIEARING, 01~INCRS; BLANCHE ilAl~ANA~I ANU ~lALTER E. LA FORCE ~ P.O. Eiox G2~0, Annhe t m~ C,A 92806. Ar,CNT : JOtIN F, SW I ~1T, 707 ~cs t Nartl~ 5 t rcet ~ An~he i m~ CA 928(1y. f'roperty descrlbsd as a rect+-nyularly-shaped parcel of lanc! consistlny of Approximntcly 1.2 acrfs having a frontagc of approx(mately 1G7 feet on th~ maximum depth of approximately 300 fCet, being the centerllne af Westr.rn Avenue, and further P~opcrty presently ctassificd RS-A-~+3~Q00 RCCLASSIFICATION REQUEST: RM-3000 (RE~ IDENTIAI,, MULTIPLE-FAMIIY) ZOf1E. RE~,UESTED VARIA1vCE: WAIVER OF (A) MIN tMUM BUILUING SITE AREA PER OWELLING UNIT AND (Ci) MAXIMUM 5TRUCTUML HL'IGHT 70 COta57RUCT A 14-UN17 CO~dUOMINIUN. There was no one indicatinq their pres ~nce In opposl;ion to subJect requese, and although tlte ~taff report to the Planning Commi ssion doted ,luly 16~ 1979 was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of thc minutes. Walter La Force~ owner, was presenc tc~ answer any questions. Tk1E PUtiLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTIO!~: C~mmissioner Ktng offered a motion, secondcd by Commissioner Davtd and M0710N ~D~ that the Anaheim City Plannin g Commission has reviewed the prop~sbl to reclasslf~ sub)ect pro~erty from the RS-l1-43~000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RM-300Q (Res(dert(al~ Multipl~-Family) Zone to construtl a 14-unit co~dominium complex with waivers ~f minlmum buliding stte area per dwclling unit and maximum structural heTght on a rectangulerly-shaped parce) of land co~sisting of approximately 1.2 acres havtng a frontaga of app roximately 167 feet on the nurth side of ~fncoln Avenue. hsving a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet~ and b eing located approximately 9h3 feet west of the centerline of Wastern Avenue; and doe s hereby approvG the Negative Declaratlon from the requirement to prepare an environment a 1(mpbct report on the basis that thern would be no siy^iftea~t individual or cumulative a dversp onvironmental impar_t due to the approva! of this Negative D~claration slnce the An aheim General Plan designates the subJect p~operty for lar-med t um ~ens i ty res i dent i a 1 1 an d uses cvrm~ensurate wi th the proposal ; that no sensitive en~~ironmental impacts are in volved In the proposal; that the initial Study 7/t6/79 ~ a P ~~ MINUTES~ ANAFi~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 16~ 19y9 79~53) EIR NECATIVE DEC~ARATIpN~ RECLASSIFICATION NO 79-80-4 AtID VAFiIANCE N0. ;102 (cantlnued) - .._.._ submltted by the peti;laner Indicates no slgntficunt lndtvidua) or tumulet(ve adverse enviro~ment~l ~mpacts; and thet the Negatlve Oeclaratio~ substantiattng the foregoing findings is on file In tl~e Ctty ~f An~heim Planning Depertment. Ccxnmisstoner King offered Resolution No. PC7~-1~~3 and r~oved for Its passage and adoptlon. that the Mdheim Ctty Planning Commisslon does her~by ~~rent Petitlon for Reclassiftcatlon No. 7~-80-4~ subJect t~ Interd~partmentel ConKnttt~e ree~mmc;ndatlons. On rol) call. tho foreyolny rr.solutlon was passed by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS; l3ARNE:S~ kiU5E10RE~ DAVIO~ FRY~ HERIjST~ KtNP~~ TOLAR HAEa: COMMI;SIOI~C(iS: NONE AI~SCNT: ~OMMI SS I OhtkRS : ~~O;~E Co~~missioner Klnyo uffere~l Resalution No. PC79-1~~~~ ancf r,oved fnr its passayc and adoptlon~ Chnt thc /lnahelm C(ty Plannin~~ Gommisslon docs I~ereby grant Petltlon for Variance Nc~, 31Q2 on th~ basis that becau5e af special circumst.~nces applicnt,lc to the propcrcy~ (nclud(ng si:e~ shape. topoyraphy~ Ic.~catinn or surroundinqs, strict appl(cation of the zon(ng code deprtves thr. property uf privi Icy~s cnJoyed by othe~ praperty under f~fenticai z~ning class(flcatio~ anJ vicinity~ and subJect to Interdepartmcncal Committr.e r~conxr~ndatiqns. On ro) l ca) I~ the foregoirig resolutic~n was passed by the fol lowing votc: AYES: COI~MISSI~NCRS; UARNF.S, bUS-iORL~ DAVID~ FRY~ NF.R!tSl'~ KING~ TOLAR I~OE:S; COMMISSIONERS: NONL AflSENT; COMf'! SS IOf~ERS: IlONE ITCN N0. 6 READVERTISE.D PU:iLIC IIEARING, 0111JEK5: 'NILLIMI P. E!R ~~ ~I:GATIVE ULCLARATION DRAGAN~A~ DOllGLAS E. J~NES, ANU PETE BILLCY~ 2629 CQIIi~IT10NAi USE. P,MI NQ. i~$2 Harbor Uoul~~vard~ Costa Mesa~ CA 92~~2G, Pct i t(oner reyuests UCLf.TIC'~ OF C~~Il71T10-I NOS. 5 AtID 'J OF RESOLUTION N0. PC7~-tr,2 RELATIVE TO RC~UIREMEN'fS FOR PERPETUAL ACGE55 EAS~M1.'ITS AND PAR~;I~~G AGREF.MEtJTS on pr~perty described ~s an irregularly- shaped parcel of land cunsisting of approximately 3.; acres hav(ny a fronYage of approxl- mately lj~ fect on tl~e ,~c~st side r~f 1larbor aoul~vard~ hnvinca a r~8ximum depth of approxi- mately G0~ feet, beirig lacat~d appmxim~itely 4E;; feet north of Lhe centcr) tne of Orangewoc>cS Avenue~ an~J further cicscribed as 2n~1 5outh Ilerbor Bouleverd. There was na csne indicating thetr presence in oppcnitton to subject rr_quest, and although the staff report tu thc Plannirtig Carunission dated July lE,~ 1~7~ was not read et the public h~ariny~ i t f s referred to and rnade a part of the minutes. Jack Wh i te ~ Ucputy C i ty At torncy ~~xn I a i ned s~sequent to che approva 1 of Condi tlona I Use Pemlt No. 19$2~ whtch Intiuded t-~e condition that ~ mutuo) par~ing agreement with the owncr of Che F,roperty to [he south be submitted to the Cfty Rttorney's Office to proYlde parking at t~~e shupping center adjacent to sub,ject prn~erty ~ the appl tcant d(d submi t documents to th~ City Atto~ney's Off(ce whicli he In good faith bel(eved to be a Jo1nt perking agreement and easement agrcernent~ but In revi~winy the documents~ the C(ty Attorney's Office wAS unable [o approve tt~em betausc the~e exists a substantial legal questio~ as tci the legal ity of the Joint park(ng agreement. Flc stated it is pnss(b 1~, If thts matter vverc taken to court. it could be ruled th~t this is a val id agreement; ha-reve~. because the oarn~r of [I~e shappi~g center property has Indicated they intend to not allvrr that area for pa~kiny and will take whatever legal steps are necessary to enforce tha t r ~t ghts . the G i ty At Lor~ey's Of f 1 ce fe I t that based upon the documonts '1/ 16/ 79 € MINUTES. ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY IG~ t919 79-532 ~IR NEGATIVE DEGI,ARATION J1ND CONDITIO AL USE PEf~MIT N0. 1982 (co~tlnued) preseRtpd~ they could not give approv~l et this time. He explaincd the eppl(cant is requastl~y deletlon of those condtttons. It was noted the petitloncr origlnally requestecf the deletlon of both parking ~nd access eascment requlreme~nts~ but has since consld~reJ the request to include only the deletion of the parkiny easernent requlrement. Wi l l lam P. Dr.~g~nza~ owncr, stated they do wa~t to F~r~ceed wltti construction af the bui lding and ~athcr than yc~ thrc~ugli a lenythy court p~ucedure to test the val iJl ty of the ayreements. they woul~i prefcr that the Planning Cornmisstor deletc thc conditlons. 11e stated they fee) Clie parkiny orlginally propose~.f moSt likely waa adequatc wlthout the ayreement wl[h tt~c neiyhbors to the soucfi; that they hav~ approxlmetely 6~~ park(ng, which fs twc~ spaces for evcry threc ro~xns~ and a~ood pr.rcrnta~e of their buslness wlll come from bir trave) and bus trav~l And wltt~ the current g~s prohlems~ they ontici~~ate even a htgher p~ercentaqe by those mcans of travcl. Ne steted oxher motels In the arc:a are op~ratin~3 efficlc:ntly with a reduced anx,unt of parl:inc~ and re.:ferred to the Sag~ West~ Saga Nor th ~ the Lamp 1 1;h tc r~ L ucky 7, I v~~nhc~e and T rop t cana Mote 1 s. TNE: PUkiLIC HEAf~ING WAS CIOSEU. Chalrma~ Hcrbst asked if tlic other proposeJ corrxncrclal uses were incluoed in thc parking requirements. and RoDert 1lennl~yer~ Assist;jnt Planner~ statecl thr 23y required spoces Include the motel and acc~~sso ry uses proposed~ whlcl~ include the travel agency and n car rent.al ayency. Lhairman tierbst felt the hours of opcration of son,c of cl~c uses would probahly not be late hours, and Mr. Drayonta statc~i at [t~e present time [hcy cb not rcally have anyonc to lease the buildings for the autamobtle agency or travel office anri that these are proposals for bust~esses thac might be establishecl~ and indicat~d there mey b~ a small gift shop. Ch~irman ~ierbst stated becausc o~F tl~c I(mlted par{.Ing~ the othcr uses could harm chP rootel busincss. t~e stated the Commissio~ would not want to see an autamobile leasing agency taking up parking stalls with rental cars. Mr. Dragonza stated they would not wan[ to har~per their bus`~~ss anJ that this would probably be one of the finest mc~tels in the area~ and expla~ned the lobby area will have ovar 'LOUQ square feet and it wlll be in the clas5 of a ma~~~r hotel. Gormisslonc~ ~iushore asked the maxirnum percentage of reduced parking allowed In the past~ and Cc~nm) ss i one r Ki ng t nd i ca t:.~d he thouyh t the maxl mum a I 1 awed was 6S$. Commissloner fiusliore stated if thc proposed automobile leasing agency was eliminated~ the parking would be closer to G3 to 70~K and indicated that would satisfy his concerns. ;Ir. Uragonza sta[ed that proposal would satisfy h!m ancl t~e dc~es na~ have to have the ~utomab(le lcasing agency ~n the property. Chairntan flerbst stated the cond(cion could be Included that a leasing office would bQ aliawea on the property~ but that no storage of automobiles for leasing purposes would be allawed~ and Mr. Drayonza stated he would rnake that stipulaticx~. ACTION: Comnissioner Tolar offared a motion~ secc~~ded by Commtssioner Kiny and MOTION ~ED~ that tlie Mahelr~ City Planning Cammisslon does he~eby reaffirni that the Negative Declaratton approved in Gonnection wlth Gonditionel Use Permit No. 1982 is adequate and there would be ~o adverse inp acts as a result of this change. 7/ 16/ 79 ~~ ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 16~ 1919 79-533 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AfJD CONOITIONAI USE PERMIT 110. 1982 (cont(nued) --_._ _~.._ Cornntssioner Tolar offered Resolution No. PG79-145 and movcd for its passage and adoptlon~ that the Anahetm Clty Planninq Commisston cfocs hereby grant the royucst for deletlon of Condition No. 1 of Resolutton Nu. PC7~-102 relativ~ t~~ the requ(rement for a parking eASement~ ancl subJect to the petitloner's stipulAtion thot there will Ge no storage of automobiles on th~ property for leasing purposes. On roll call~ th~ foroqoing resolutlon was passcd by t1~e f~liowiny votc AYES : COt~r~l SS IOr~ERS : aARNF:S ~ nUSiIORt ~ UAV I u~ FaY ~ I~ERt~ST ~ KI NG ~ TOLAR NOES; COHMISSIONERS: NONE AtiS~t~T: COM111 S$ I O~~ERS : NONC I'TEH N0. I PUULIG NEARING. 041NER: KYU YU NEN~ Rustlc hbte) ~ 1 ~IEGA IVE DFCLARl1T1011 q16 South Iieach Doulevard~ Anaheir~~ CA ~2COh. AGENT: COI~D IONIIL USE PERMIT N0. i'~3`+ EASTbiAYS DEVELOPMENT CORP.~ 11;h„ South Strect, Cerritos. CA '~QJO1. f'etittoner rc~~~ests pcrn~tssion to CONSTRUCT A 20-Ut11T EXPI~~SInN 0 MI E,XISTItIG MOTEL on propcrty described as an IrrPyul~irly-shaped ~arcel c~f land cc~nslsting f approximetely 1.1 acres haviny a front,~g~: of a~proximotely ~4 feet on [he eest side of ueach E3oulevard~ havfn~ a maximum depth nf a~~praximatPly 3); fcet~ bclny I~cated a~~proxlmately 33' fe~t north of the cenferl ine of 3a11 Roaci~ and furtl~er ~Jesc~lbed as ~1~ Sout'~ Beech aoulevard. Property presently classlfled CL (COMMLRGIAL~ LIMITE:U. ZONE. There was n~ one Indicatiny their ~~rr~sence ln oppasit(~n t~ s~ibJeci requc~t~ and although [he staff report to thz Planniny Gor~m(ssi~~n dated July 1G~ 1~79 was not reaa at the publlc hearlny~ it Is referred tc~ .and macic a part of thc minutr.s. Georgc S. Yee~ ~.as[ways Deveiaprnent C~rporation~ .:~yent, explalned thc p~:tlt.(oner is proposin~~ to canstruct two~ 1~-unit adJlti~x~s ana a storaye buil~ling to an existing 24- unit matel In tw~ phases. Chairman tlerbst asked if the pr~rking requirer-x~nts includcd both phases~ and R~bert NenningAr~ Assistant Planner~ repfie~i Lhat tl~cy Jo incluJe bath and par~:ing (s acl~~uale for the ultimate developrr.nt. THL PUliLIC NEARING 41AS CLOSED. ACTIUN; Conmissioner King offered a motion, secandcd by Commiss(oner Davic~ an~i NOTIOt~ CMRIED~ tfiat the Hnahcim City Plann+nc; Gon-mission has reviewed t.he proposai t~ permit a 20-~unit expansion to an existing rrx~tcl an an irrr.g:~lariy-shap~^d parcet af land consist~ng of approximately 1.1 aGres havlny a fr~ntayc of ar~proximateiy 91+ feet on che east side af Beach Boulevard~ having a rnr~xtmum depth of appraxirnately 3J5 feet, and being located approxlmately 33o feet ~~rth of tf~c centerline of t~al! ttuad; and dr~es hereby approve the Negative Ueclaration from the requirerrnnt to ~rE~,are an ~nviroi~mental impact report on the basis tFiat there would be n~ slgnlficant indivl.iual or cumulative adverse env(ronmental Impact due to the approval of ttiis ~~egatlve Oe~larativn ~in~c the Anaheir~ General Plan designates the s~ject prop~~ty for generai comrn~rctal f~nd uscs cea:nnknsurate with the propos~l; that no sensltlve environmcntal impacts are (~valved in the proposal; that the Inittai Study submitted by the petlcioner indlcates no slgnlficanc indivtdual or eumulative adverse cnvironmental impacts; and that the tleyative OESGI~ratlon substantlating the foragoing finJinqs is on f~ie in the City of Anahetm P;ann6ng ~apartm~nt. 7/16/79 MIt~UTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAt~NING COMMISStON~ JULY 16~ 1979 79-534 EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARAT10t1 ANO CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. ~9~ (continued) Conwniaaloi~er King affered Resolution t~o. PCy~-146 and rrovPd for (ts passaye and adoptlon, that ths Anahefm City Pl~nniny Comm(sston dc~es her~by grant Petitlan for Condttlonal Usc Ps~ml t No. l~~f.~ s~bJect ta Interdepartmental Commt ttee recormnendatlons. On roll c~~ll~ the foreqoln~~ resolutiqn wes pnssed by the foilowing votc: AYLS : COMMI ~S I O~IERS : QAR~~LS ~ OUSIiORE ~ UAU I U, FRY ~ HERDST ~ 1:1 NG ~ TOLAR NUCS : C011MI S510NE RS : NONE A(35LriT: GUMMI SS I O'~C R5 : NANC ITE11 N0, t~ PUBLIC NEA~tING. OWNERS: BIIIKHU PATCL ANl) PUSNPA d. ~~~fVC UCCLIIR~T10!a PATE.L~ K1IUSHIIL N. PATE:L AND Ll1LIVATI K. PATEL~ 17F9 ~~( 3 West Strcet~ Anal-elm~ CA 92fi02, P~tittoner requests wAIVEP, OF MIl~IHUN t;UH-3CR QF PI1R~;I~~G SPACES TO CONSTRUCT A TIIRE.E-STORY~ 42-UNIT MOTEL on property descr(b~.d as n rectan~~ularly-sh.~~ ~d parcel ~~f lanJ consistlny of approximately 0.~+ acre havlny a frontayc of approximatcly 7~) f~et on thc south slJc of Uall Road, having a maxirium depth of apE>ruximately 1.J7 fset~ .-+nd beiny located approxim~~tcly G2~ fcet east of tl~e ce~terl i ne of i~est S[reet whr_ri~ i t ( nt~rsects the soutl~ s(~1e af 6al 1 Koaci, Propercy presently classi ficci C-R (COMMLRCIAL-RECREl1'iIQ~~) ZONC. The~e was one person indicatiny their prrsence in apposition to 5ub)ect request~ and althauyh the staff rcpc~rt to thc Flannin~~ Comrnission d~ted July lf,~ 1~7~ was not read at tl~c publ(c hcarlny~ it is rcfcrred to and ma~c a part af cl~e minutes. John Swint~ 1~7 West North Street~ Anahefrn~ indicaied the. plans conform to the code excepc parking. Ile stated from hls past expericnce (n desiyniny r-otcls. variances have 5een granted for ~educed parkiny, t1e stated f~e understooc! tlie 7raffic Engineer is concerned about thr. nurnbc~ of accldcnts whtch have uccurrrd in the arca. tic pointed out 60 cars can perk on the property at the presrnt t(ix and that tl~erc is ~~ rush there at the noon hour btcause of the restaurant. He stated the oNer.~tion of Ghc rnotcl wauld be different than the restaurant a~ l that thc vchlc:les would be arriying and le~ving at v~arious times during the day end ric dla no[ think thc traffic problcrn would he as bad. Ga ry H i nes ~ rer rPSen t( ny tl~e 5heraton-Anat~e I m tlote 1~ 101; Wcs t Ba 1 I Road ~ s tated the ( r maln concern is the use of their parkiny iot by persons otf~er than Chelr guests and the traffic hazarJ to their guests coming out of their parkiny lot into the area. Mr. Swlnt stated the use of the Sheratun-Anaf~cim parking lot by persons ott~~r than guests Is not a valid argurtent anainst this property~ whether this proper*.y is used far a motel or a parkin~ lot. TNC PUEiLIC HEARING WAS CIOSED. Commissioncr E~ushore steteJ th~e opposltion from the Shcraton-Mal~eim may have a valld arg~cment becaus~ If tl~e parktny (s taken away from thr. GO c.~rs patranizing th~ restaurant. they would 1iAVt no plar.e to park and waul~ nverflaw into the tio[el parking lot. Mr. Swint explatned the tot ts c~wned by Hr. Pacel and -d~s sold to htm by the samc property owner as the restaurant and he did nut see why his elienC should suff~r because af someone else's actions, and asked (f Comnissioner Busl~orP is suggesting that the lot should be lefc as a parkiny lot for the restaurant. He felL the owners of a C-R 2oned property should have the right to construct a mc~tel. 1/16/79 9 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNI;~G COMNISSION~ JULY 1G~ 1979 19"53~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATI v n'~U VARIANCE N0. J103 (cortinued) ~ ___-_.__.~~_._._.__ Commissionur Bushore fc:lt the purcl~esr.r shc~uld h~vc+ cl~ecked into tlie problems which exlst In the area and considered tne prablems thr proposed use will creatc. He explatned the reason for reyuiring approval of a c~ndit(onal use perr,~lt for cArtaln uses (s to ollow revlesw of thc effect the propose~ use would havc on the surr~~und(ng prope:rtirs. He steted wlth thc othe~ matcis and r~staurants ln tf~c arca hc would persc~nelly look et tfils as a yuestlonable usc end wes nnt sur~ hc would vote far another motcl on tha[ sitc. Gommissloner Tolar asked ff th~a prorerty was purchesed contl~,yent upon approval of this conditiun~l use pcrmfx~ and Mr. Swint ~' ,~icd that Nr. Patcl owns the prope~ty and thc escrow has clused. He stoteJ he c~uld not see how this developrnent cnul~i b~ penalized because of parl.ing problems on otticr proF~ercics. Cortmissionar 7olar st~~te~ if patr~ns ~3t Delaney's kestaur~nt cannc~t finJ a~lace to park~ th~t eSfabllshn~ent wlll bc punlshea cconomically and i[ may well be that the owner has made a mistake In selling chc ~ro~>erty ins[c~~1 of usin9 Ic for a parG,ln9 lot f~r hts rastaurant. Ilr_ dld not feel ct~~~t Is tt~is property awnr.r's prohlem since h~~ has purchased tl~c property. Commissl~ner Uushore felc thc b~sinesses In thc arca ~re ~~oiny to be hurt if Chis use is allawed~ polntin~~ out the Sheraton-Anaticlm ~ioes noc have a ~arkiny waiver and provides ample parkiny for their own usc:, lie stAt~:d tt~c petitioner is requesting a 3~d parking walvsr and indicatccl he was not sure the reasonin~~ fs vall~i rc~~arding thc modc of transportatiun of the gucsts. Canmissioncr Tolar state~ everyonc rccognizes whcrc thc parking problem is bcing created and it Jocs not I lr w{ [h ttie rrotcl ~ but with tlir_ restaurant~ anJ hc dlc: not fecl penallzlny anothc:r o[her propcrty avner woulJ help that Situat(on, Ja~k Wh(te~ Ueput/ City At[orney, CXPIiIIflt'c~ there is no way [he Ci[y can guerantee this property w(11 stay a parhiny iot and thc only [hing the applicant is ~equcsti~g is a waiver of the requi r~d ;~ark lny. Commisslotier ~arnes a5kc;d if tr~erc is any informati~n regarding th~ parkiny requlrements of the other motels ~n tlic area~ indicatiny t~er question is ti~hett~er or not they were estab 1 i5hed under gr~~ndfaGher rights or whetlier they n~et current code reGul remcnts. Rabert Nenninyer stateJ he t>elieved th~~ Sheratun-Maheim had met thc requirpd parking and so liad the r.iotel to the east af subject p~op~rty. Ile scated there is a variance shown on the rnap for the mntel to the west, but was not sure whet-~er or nat It was for parking and explatned the variances shown on the map followed by a~~ "s" are sign va~lances. Ctiairman flerbst stated the Traftic Engincer does nat fec) ehe 20-foat drivcway proposed is adequate and since [he usr_ is permanent r~tl~er than a temporary pd~klny loty a medlan sho~ld be cons:ructed in ball Road to allc,w no left°hand turns into the property. He stated he felt tf~ese matters should be discu~sec nc~w because the use a111 be perm~nent and this is a small parcel w(tt~ ~~~ units prupu3ed. Mr. Swint stated he coulci aEden the driveway. but was under the irtpressian a 2~-foot driveway was all that was neede~ for tf~e trash trucks or f~r two-~ray traffic. Jay T3tus, Ofifice En~ineer~ stated thc Traffic Engineer is ~ot prtsent today~ but he thouyht a 20-foot drive~+ay wi[h tt~e heavy traffic flow woul•.i slr,~w people down getting in and out of the d~ivdvay ~nd that a wlder drtveway would make ~t possible for quicker ent~ence to get out of the way of the t.raffic, ancl suggesteu the drbveway should be 30 7/16/79 ~ MIt~UTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 16~ 1979 79-536 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AI~D VARIANGC N0. 3103 (conttnued) feet wide and Should be moved ta the west s(d~ of thc pr~pcrty and a nu~dfan should be constructed in Ball Road to precludc lefc curns ln and out c~f thc nroperty. Mr. Swlnt stated he had placed the buildln,y on the cast slde of the property br.~ause of the larye blocl. wal{ c,n tf~~; wost side of the nr~tcl next door nncl felt it woul~i be: bette~ to have e blocl. wall facinh a block wall for app~aranc.cs~ ~nd if thc wall is on thc wcst sidc~ it woul~l bloc~, off the halc~nles of Lhe other mc~tcl, He steted he coutd wiclen the driv~w ay tn 2~ fcet~ but that thc lot Is not wlJe ennugh to have a dr(veway 30 fect wide, Chalnnan Ne~st s[Ated it is qultc ~c~ssll,le that toa m,iny units arc hclny prop~scd and 5uc~gested reduclny the nurrfier uf units end placinq the sa~imninc~ poc~l on the other side so that thc ;lrlvcwvay wuld be wiJr,ncd tu m.~kc a 5uitablc entrancc. -ie statc~i unless the parkiny anci acce5s prc~blems are soivecl~ he coul~i nut votc for 47. unlts. Cornmiss(oncr Kiny offcrcci a matic~n~ secc~nacd by Conr~~issioncr David~ th,it the Anahcir, Clty Plannln,y Camnissfc~n has r~•vi.r.we~i tl~c n~~~~~usal to pcrmit a threc-stc~ry~ 42-unit mc~tcl with walver of minirnum n~ar~rr uf parb in~~ snaces on a r~~~tAnyularly-she~~ecl parccl of land consisting of ~p~~roxir-~t~~~y ~.~ acrc havlny .~ fr~ntaye of ~ipproxim~tcly JO fr.et on the south s(de ~f tiall Roa~~ haviny ,~ nk~xlrnum ~Icpth of ~~,proxima[ely .'.77 fect~ and ~~•Ing located apprc~xink~tc•ly h,'.5 feet ea5t c~f the ccnterl inc uf West Street where sai~! street intersects thc soutli side c~f [~all ~2oad; .md ~1c~es hereby approvr. the N~yat(ve Declaratlon from Ghc reyuirnn~ent to preparr an environmc:ntal impact rc~purt on the basis that there would be nU slgnific~~n[ fndivi~u.~l or cur~ulat(vc advcr~c env!ronr~ent~~l Impact <.1ue to the approval of this Ney.~tive ~1ccl,~ration si»ce the Ana~~r.im G~neral Pl~~n Jeslc~nates the s~ject property for conrni:rclal-recreation land usr, ~.um~ensuratc wi[h thc p~oposal; that ~o sensit(ve envlrorimcrit~) irapacts are involvecl in the prn~osal; cha[ ttie Initial Stucfy Subrnl[ted by thc G,e[i[ioncr indicatc~s no s(~~nffitant ir~dividual or cur~ulative ad~erse environmental (mpacts; ai~~i that thr -deyative Ucclaratic,n sub~,tanciatinca t~~e foreqoing findinys is on file in the City of Anah~irn f'lanr~tnr~ Ue~,artmc~t. Prlor to vc~tln,~ c~n thc Negativc Ueclara[lon~ Lhair~,an Nerbst was cancerned that thrre is a neyatlve imF.~ac[ on thc arc,3 ber.~iusc of [he tr,-~ffi~ flow ond par~:(ny~ and Commis +oner Barnes ind~cate~ she did n~t Fe~:l an Environrtx~ntal Impact Rcport (EIR) shpuld be requlred ~nd suygested reyuirin~; a trifflc stu<fy. Jac'-_ IJ~ifte~ Uer~uty City Attornr..y~ exr,tained the Corrr~ission must cither approve a Negatlve Ueclarati<m or ~n EIR would bc renulrr.a. Chairr~~n Ilerb:~t indic.~ted he~ ~iid not feel an EIR ~voul~ be rec~uired and woul~i support the Ncyatlve ~eclaration~ but would oppose the variance. AC1'10!~: ~'~airman Nerbst callecl f~~r the question on the Megatlvc D~claration and the M0~1-ON C;,.cR I L U UN11N I ~10 US LY , Cornmiss(aner t3arnes indicate~ she ls cuncerne~l abou[ the parl.{ny and [~affic in that area and asked lf there are any availablc studies showiny [hat the JO$ parkiny requirement is adequate. Sh4 askeJ Hr. Hln~s fr~m thc Sheraton-Anahcim if he had any fiyures t~s to the nu~cr of gu~;sts arrivtny by air~ bus or privatc automnbilc~ anJ asked h(s expc~ience royardir.g their parkiny. Mr. ilines steted they do not have cxact studles~ but tf~at tt~ey do liave a pro!~lem at the present ti-~x: w1 th persor~s other ti~an thei r guests parl;ing in thef r{at and anathe~ problem with thelr crtploye~:s' parkiny. He staLed annthcr motel Is beiny constructed on the wcst si~ of the Sher~ton and he felt if they do not have adequate parking~ their guests N111 ba us3ng the Sheraton lot and caus~ stil~ another prahlem. 7/16J73 MI~iUTE5~ ANIII~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMI55lON~ JULY 1G~ 1979 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAMTION ANO VARIANCE N0. 3103 ~~ntinucd) ~.~~ ^r~~~.~.~ 79-537 Cortmissloner Uarnes painted c~ut the Sheracon does not heve a parking varlancc~ but still has a park:ing prob lcm. Commissioner Oavid suggested that a tickest b a>th be installr.d at the Sherat~n to help allevlato the problem of othcrs ~is(n~~ the lat~ similar to what ts beiny done at the Inn at tf,~.~ Park. ConmisslonEr f3ush~rc reminJed the Gar~xnissl~r that thc st~itemcnt has becn madc that in grantlny the5c variances~ a precedent Is not being set and ea di case (s vlewed an Its own merit~ buc that a fr_w of tha other vari~nzes which hAVC bccn gr~~nted a~e bCinc~ discussed and state~l no (nformotion I~as been ~rescnteci to support tlie requcst other than th~ developer's pasC expericnce that other variances havc been c~r.inl~~f; and thnt the er,(sting bu5lnesses in thc area are sayiny t!~ere i, a prol~lem and a varianr.e has becn grantsJ across the street. Hc f~ lt a cluser luok sh~~uld bc ta~.en at rr.~utincly yran[inq thcse requests ar,d d1U not feel the statlstlr,s hnve proven JOb is an adequate numuer ~~f p~rklny spaces. Ca~issloner Tolar stated he ~,rould support thN use and is not really oppose~ to 70~ parkiny, but was concerneel abou[ the driveway and circulation~ and ~yreed thnt "no teft- turn" pockets woulr.f partially solve the t~rublun, ila felt th~ plans should bc redesigned ta make bet[er circul~tli~n and rmre porkiny, Nc suqyestcd that the ~>etltloner request a eontinu~~nee in ordcr t~~ redesign t~~~c pro~ect. Mr. Hlnes stAt~~J witn the increased flaw of traffic, the Shrraton wiil probably hire extra sccurl ty to con[rc,l t~ ~~ problem. He stutc~l he was not sure where l'h~ problem ts coming from and would n~~t say it is specifically Uelaney's (the ottier r~_scaurants and businesses. includiny the: watc:r sl ide~ in the ar~.a wcre :~iscussc~ as possible uscrs of the Sheratnn pa~kiny lot). Commissioner Barnes asl.ecJ Mr, liines if tl~eir establishmenc cloes a 1~[ of b~siness with bus and airline tours, ur if tfie rnajority of tt~eir business is from privaie automobile, and Mr. liines replied hc~ does not I~ave the exact fi~;ures, but uff-hand would say the majority is pt'ivaCe aut~moblle. He staced they do ~ome business with tours. Cortmissioncr Eiusyore suyyested~ if a continuance 1s yranted~ the petitioncr should provide information on thc parkiny ciernands. Mr. Swi nt s tated I~e t~as been L~efur~ the Commi ss i~n many t imes ( n the past and has presenteJ ftyur~s wl~en asking for parkinq variances~ shc~winy the occupancy of the motels. etc.~ and over the years the fiyuris have proven rrx~tels cio not need the parking reguired by code. Commissioner Bust~ore stated cach project is different and the Ga~xnission nceds to look at each proJect on i ts awrn meri [ bas~d on some type af figures. Ile stated he bel ieves the property awner has tl~e riyht to develop his property~ but that as a Commissloner all facts must be brought oui~ ever+ though sortx: are negative. Comr~lssioner K;ng fel; some of the accidents tn the area could be a res~lt of the popular coclctail bars in the area. He asked if the driveway could be widened to 30 feet, and Mr. Swint stated the petitioner would lose th~ swimminy pool~ but tha[ they could go 25 feet without losiny it. and Hr. Patel indicated i~e would not mind losing the pool. Commissioner Tolar fclt it would beneflt the petitioner to redesign the p~oject and pravlde the swimntng pool in addition to better circulation~ and felt it would be better to lose a cvuple of unt ts rathe~ than tfie pc~oi . tie fel t 70~ parking is adrquate. 7/16/79 , ; MINUTES~ ANAtiCIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N~ JUL,Y 16~ 137~ 79-`,38 CIR NEGATIVk DECLARATiON AND VARIANCE NO_._ ~1~ (contlnued) Mr. Swint statod he w~uld 1 ikP to request e two-week contlnuAnc.r In ~rcier ta submit revl~ed p1Ans. Chalrman Nerbst sungestcd Mr, Swtnt rt+eet with thc Troffic: Enqineer t~ solv.: the lrft-turn poekct sltuation~ plus the 3n-f~t drtveway~ anci indicated he would ht+vc no nrohlem wiih the reduct Ic~n i n porki nt~. Cc~xnissioner parnes stated she would havc a problem with thc~ reductl~n In parklnq ~ecAUSe there are p~oblrms in th~ arca at che present timr.. Mr. Swtnt statcd thc Sher.~ton-Annh~im is e hutel rettier tf~.~n a m~tel ~ an~1 thcy ~re al Iawed y0~ parking. Ne stated hr drives up ~nd down West Street often and (nv~riably the whole west parkin~ lat of the SheraCon Is almost empty end the Sl~era[~n rlso has con~erencP rooms and convrntion rooms and a rc~st~iurant, and he felt if there are people parklnc~ in their lot~ most of them ~-~rc ~~ming from thc rest~urant and the water sltde. Commisstoner King p~tnted aut Varlance No. 3~5~~ r~as grant~d tn October 1978 with seve~ "yes" votes by the Co~nniss(on f~r the Tra~lc~na Motel on South Harbor poulevard and a survey by thc manac~ement indicat~ci that at the pca~: nf thel~ business in August 1'~78~ thr_ vc~hicle park(ng at its hi~ahest was 53ti and i[s lc~west was ;17,~ and the vartance provtded 6b$~ and that th(s pian calls for 7~~ parking. Ne ctated he had called on the Tropicana Motel on 5unday morning at 7:3~ a.m, and tl~er~ werc 27 vecant parklny spaccs there. Commissioner Talar stated he felt if manaqemrnt at ttic• Sheraton-Anahelm were to check the records~ they wuuld be shocke~l to find out how many pcople Arrive by hus o~ plane. ACTION: ~ommisslonr.r Tolar o~fered a rmt(on~ sec~nded by Commissioner B~rnes and MOTION tR D, thet consi~ieratien of Varience No. 31~3 be continup~i t~ the rrqularly-scheduled meetln~ of the Planniny Commission ~~n July 3n~ 197'~~ at t!~e request of ~hr. petltloner in order to submit revised plans. ITEf~ N0. 9 REPt)~U RECOMME~IDAT1'JNS A. PROPOSED "ML" 7.ONF AMENDMFI~TS PERTAINING TO QUASt-CoMMERCIAL ~SCS The staff report to the Pla~nin~~ Gonmission dAted July l6~ 1~17~1 was pr~ ented, noting after severai work sessions and studies regarding the p roblem of comrnercial uses encraachiny into industrial a~eas, ti~e proposeci ordinance was prepared to ~~pdate Che zoning code to remove pcrmitted and c:ondiCional use classtfications which nn lonqer apply; tn limit approval of condttio~al use permits and variances within the industrlal areas while allowing far certain compatible com~rcia) uses; to adopt the Standard IndusLrial Classif(cation (51C) Cocies for zoning and bus(ness ltcense purposes; to increase code enforcement in industrial areas wtth a ciean-up prngram; and to amend zoning cievelopr,~ent standards to prahibit use of di;play wlndays and to eliminate subdivtsion of existing buildings for non-industrial uses. Chairman lierbst tndicated in reviewing the proposed ordinance~ he would suqgest that the word "wholesale" be def(ned as a business wh(ch does not servtce the general public, and An~sika Santalahtl. Assistant Dt~ector for Zoning~ replied that that change has been made and Section 3.310 was changed some months ago to specifically state "not avallabie to the gene~al public." 7/16/79 ~ NIt~UTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNII~G COMNISSION~ JULY 1(~~ 197:~+ 7~'~3`~ REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM A(continued) Chetrman Nerbst felt the word '~+holesale" should be cl~rifled tt~rouqhout becduse it appe~rs a lot of businels~~s use the word nnd thr.n r~re open to [he general public. Comnlssioner Qarnes aSked (f ~ny studics have beQn nu~~te ~f i~ass(blc nror~se~i areas for this use, and Robert Nenninger~ Assistant ~'tibnncr~ cxnlalned the maps encloseci show the are~s proposed. Ne stated the cross•hntche~' arnas Are those pnrcels wh'ch co~lci t~neetvably apply f~~r a conditlonal use permit undc~r the new proposed ~.ectlon. He explatned thc intent ts to lfmlt thc area t~~ thc ~ne-quarter mile arc~~ from thc freewey and to 1 Imi t th~_ parcc I s I ze to f i v~ acres ~~r ~ircatcr. Ch~irman Nerbst fclt ~incc the Ghar~er of Ccx;~r~rcc has an int~rest In tl~t , praJect, a work session should ~e sthedulc:d t~ intludc thr.m an~f some of thc ~levclopers In th~ industrlal are~s, and Mr. Henninqer ~xplained tl~c Chamber wi01 i.1ISCU55 this item this wAPk and make a rcconu~k~ndat(on~ ~nd hav~ not as yc[ f~t~Ul`SL~c1 a work sessi<~n. Commissloner Rarnes a~rPed that a wo~k se3sion minht be a qn~ci idea anci even th~ugh the Chamber ~f Cammercc docs rcpresent thc indusirlalists~ she was not s~~rP any4nc in the Industrisl a~r..a knows what Is bcinq contcrrnlatcd anci thrt tl~r_ Plnnnin~ Commisslon d~es not kna+ haw thcy fcel. Comm(ssloner Bust~orc: stated he under'stoo~' thls ordinar.cc is t~e result of ~rrvlous work sessi~ms and that this waul~i be a recom~cndation to ih~ Clty Council, and nrn~ anothcr work sesslon ls beinn discuss~~.~. He s[ated hc did not sec any rhyrm or rcason to the map ~,nd thouc~ht there was gc~inc~ t~~ bc m~rr studfe~s hefor~ a rccorx-xndati~n i5 mAC1C, Robert Hennln~er stated this contep[ was dcveloped out of ccxnrr~nts made in the Ctty Council h~earin~as where same of the corr,~~ercial devclopmPnts in the industrial areas were dfscussed I~ detail and it was the fecliny fr~m the Council that the area~ with vtsual access ta the free~vrys miyfit be an approt~riate arr.a for these large commercial facillties. Cortmissiuner David fclt thi, is the reflection of tt~e series of ineetinqs And the staff's "best shot" at putting togeth~r what direc:ion And input they have had. Mr. Nenntnye~ stated I~e unde~5tand5 thc feelin_y the Commission is getting and explained this does not reflect iQO;, che conc~rns the Chamber of Commerce exnresse~i in the work sesslon and is -~~ore a corrtiination of those concerns~ r~lus other stateme~ts made at the City Councll hearings and in that rc9ard is a cnmpromisc. Cortraissioner Tolar felt tt is thc reflection of a loc af cocrnents the Commission has made regarding quasi-corm~erci,~l uses along t~~e freeway and he did not see it as Just a haphazard ll~e dra-vn witt~ no reasons~ and stated these were the specific areas thai have been d~scussed. Annika Santalahti explained the intent of che ~roposed ordinance is that the arguments the commercial users have used have Included tt~at they could be seen from the freeways and have implied *.hose are the sites they are interested 1n and, as a praccical matter~ staff is interested that corm-e~cial users d~ n~t go it~to the industrlal arPas wlth a lot of local strects +~nd industrial traffic~ and that Staff ts trying to limit them to locations with arterial hi9hway access only. Commisstoner Tolar felt the map reflects where the maJority of the commerci~) users havP asked to be located~ and polnted aut there have been a lot of req uests for permtts in thet a~ea and that is where ~he users are located. 7/16/7g M1~~11TES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNIf~G COMMISSION~ JULY 16' 1q79 79-540 REPORTS AND RECQMMENDATIONS - ITEM A(contlnucd) Charles Farano statcd there ts a larqe-scrl~ study being ~onduct~d at the present tlme of the entire cany~n induscrial r~rea~ tnclu~itng tr~ffic flow anc; the concentratton of currrnt eormbrcl~l businease~~ botf~ leyal and i 11eyAl. nnd that tt wl l l shc~w where the businesseZ naturelly :tecide to l~cate thPmselves. li~ fclt gcner~lly (t can be sai~i that they all seem to be rtc~ht alony tl~r_ frecway on La Psinn~ rr~rc ccntrally loc.ited around ~{rat~er~ Tustin and Ir~ ~rial Highway. t1e cxplatned [I~etr offlc~ is involved in the study basically becaus~ of Conditir~nal Use Permit t~o, 19AG f~r Curtiz FurnlturP; th~~[ pursuant to thelr last hearlnc; t,efore tt,~• C,tty Councl!~ they re~~~uested that this stuciy be ~ione. Ne stated their offlcc h~~ been int~rested fn thls wh~l~ arca an~i thPlr f(rm has !~nd s~vera) appl icatlun~s f~>r con~ii tl~in;~t usc pcrmi t5 in that arc~A arid th~y thlnk ( t would be beneftclal to the City~ as well as t~ thr. dr.velopcrs~ tc~ set the mAtter strai~~ht. He Stated they exnect tn finish the study within thr. next Ntek. Chalrman Herbst asl.ed if ~ wor~. session would be ben~~ffcial~ ancS Mr, Far~no frlt ~t would be very bc~neficial ~ and explainrd there is a ineetin~~ this Nednesd.~y with the Inciustrl~l Cammittcr. nf thc Cha~nbcr of Cornmercc. He stated Alth~ugh [hcy Are d~(n~~ thc study as a result of a clirnt relati~~nshlp~ they arc vrry intcresL~~d in wh~t is ctoin_~ on (n the City right now and have trfed ve~ry har~l tu R,ak~ thr.. s[ucly benefici~l to everyane~ includiny tha industr1~31 dev~~l~~,crs. tie sta[c-J thc study docs scem to ba~l. u~ what they l~ave snid prevlously~ a~.1 these arcas clc~se .o thc frceway secm tc~ bc a natur,~l ~lar.c for a buff~r r.one. Chalrman Herbst state~i thc Pl,~nntn, Cormis,sion can cither ~chedule a nuhlic hcarin~ to br~nq in more develr~pers~ or discuss it in a~~r(v.,te ~,rork s~ss(~r~ and in~licated he wo~ld rather do it in a~+riv~C~~ work session and suy~~r:st~d [hc rn~~ttr_r be contlnued t~ thc wr.ek of llu~ust Lth~ whir_h would a11cwJ timr~ to c~nt~ct the Charrher of f,ommerce~ some of thP develop~~rs nnd nropcrty a~rncrs and allow [he CArx~1551Un nne rnore meetinn in c,rcJ~r to Make a recanmenclatic~n t~ the City Council bef~~rh the Curtis Furni[~re hr_arinc, Ne th~ught because of [he impact to the area~ ihe developers ~f~ould have~ thc opportunity to caive their inpuc. He sur„ested a li5t c~f lnterested narties •.~uld f,e ohtiined f~om the Chamber of Comnerce an~J su~~y~sted th~t Roclti~iell sh~~uld ~lso >_,e inclu~le~l. Commissl~ner Hushore as4.ccd what w(1) be allaaeu in tliese unl[s~ :~c1 Hr, tlenninger explatned the proposPC1 ordinar~ce specifies some criteria and they wili b~ either camnercial uses whic}~ relate to tf~e industrial area~ such as bank~ or office uses, or cormiercial uses which renuire larne floor are.~s such as home improvement furnishings~ aut~moti ve centers ~ etc. Cortmiss(oner Barne, rske~~ why ~orK: o` the uses werc ~islete~i~ such as post offices and substations~ and Mr. 4ienninger exFlained Chat post offices ancl substatlons werc deleted because they are publ(c entittes and do not require approval. Chairrnan Herbst stated he has ta14,e~i wtth the represent~~tives of the post office depart-r~nt and chey are definitely consiciering rioving out of the(r area on Grand Avenue in Santa Ana because of their proxi~nity to residential and th~ac tt,eir next ma)~r complex wil! be in an indus[rial z~ne because c~f tl~etr trucks in and o~at and all-night noises. Mr. Farano stated the~r havQ been c~u~stions about the work bcing done by their offtce ~ ihe study ancJ wanted to clarify that anything they have da~~ has been at the request of some of the members of the City Council pursuant to ~revious hearings stmilar to Curtis Furniture, and assured the Cnmmtssion that thetr office f~as tried to keep their report unslanted. ACTION: Cortmissioner Barnes offered a motion~ seconded by Commisstoner King and MOTION .....,_.~ CARRIED~ that consideration of the proposed "ML" amendments perteining to quasi-comrnercial uses be continued to a work session on August 6, 1979~ at 1:00 p.m. 7/16/79 MINUTE5. At1tiNCIM CI'~'Y PL~1l~Nl~lf, WMMISSION~ JULY lfi~ 1~~9 )~-54~ REPORTS f1N0 It~CGMMENQI',TIONS (c~ntl nur.d) ~~ 8. COIIOITI~INAL USE PfRMIT N~. 17i)2 - Requc~st fc~r An ^xtension of tlmc, Thc steff repurt tc~ the Plannin~i Lomrnlsslcx~ dat~~~i July 1(~. 1~7'1 w~s prosente~l~ notir~g subjcct pra~r.rty Is a rrct+~ngulnrly-shr+n~d ~arc~l ~f land consi•,ting c-f e~proxin-ntely 0.'! acre havln~~ a front~+~~e of inpror~r~it~ly 1~Of~~ton thee~st s(dr ~sf ~rov~.~ Strect~ having a mnxtmum dc~th of ~pnr~~xirr.~tely .'_a2 fcrt~ and hein~~ lo4t~te~i ~~r~roximatcly 711 f~~t s~uth of thc~ centcsrl inc c~f MI r~lc~m~~ Aven~~~; thAt thc np~l IcAnt (K. L. Senrlr) renuests a retroactive ~•xlansian of tink for Conditfonal Usc Permit No, 1)07. whic.h was ~~-. nted on Aprll 11. l~)J by thc Pl.v~nln~.~ Camr,i.r•~,lon t~ prrmit nx:tAl c~rocessin~ nnd reflnir~~ of preelo~, mc[~~ls for a tw~-year pcriu~i~ subJect to revlew .~nd exicn-,lon by thc P1Anning Cerm(s~l~m; th~~t th~- I.onin~.~ ~nf~rce-nr..ne Cfflcr.r r~~~orts ther~~ h~nvr~ hePn no comnl~tnts ~ogardl ny th I~ us~~ ; an~ tl~,it 1 t ha . t,rr.n thc ~~ I I cy ~f the G i ty that ~n r.xtr.ns i ~n of t I mes be qrented onlv for ;.~ r>cric,d ~~ii~ch ck~es noc excced [h~• Ie•n~~t'~ c~f tlrrx, for which th~ eondl!tonn) usr perr~it v~as nri~+i~„~l ly ~;r~nt~J, ACTIOt~: Co~~n~(5~.-~~r;_r DnviJ oft~~rc~f ~~ r~„tion~ scccxi~le~i l.;y ConKn(ssior7er Y.'nr~ anci N~TION CA~~U. that c~;c l~nt~!ielm Llty Pi;ini~;nr~ C~m~~issiun ~io~•ti herr.by yr~int n[wo-y~•ir, r,;troactlvr. ~rt~ns~~~n ~~` r.fric fc~r Conditior~~~1 U5~ Pcrri(; !~o. 17~2, to rx~trr nn A~ri) 11~ 19~ t , ~ l., C~)~I;~IT I QNlIL USE ~'Cf~NIT N0. 1]:~') - Renur~st for ~~n ~rtcns I~.n cF t ir~r.. Th.r, staff rcp~~rt t~.~ t'~ `'I~nninr~ Corxr±issi~~n datc~l Ji:ly I~.~ 1~~7'? ~~as nresentecl, n~ting subJec~ prupcrrty Is ,~ ~ ctar,~~~~l~rly-sl~apr~f ~~~arr_~I of lan~t c.c,nsistinr; ~f ~~p~roxin~,;[Ply 1.5 arres havin.j a frc.mt,~~~~ of ,~~,~~rc~xlmntrlv 1~0 f~~~t nr~ thc sc~uth st~k of Lintcln AvenuP~ hav~n~a a maxirw~ ~1~pth of ~,;,pr~xf~~.,tcly ;~!~ f~~~t~ an~i ~,cin~~ i~~c,~ted apnrox(r~AtFly 7'~~ feet east of the c~~nt~~rl in~• r,f ;~al~~ Avcn~je; that tl~~• a~,pl ir.,~nt (11arr~n 5, Liu) rPnut!S~5 an .:xtension of ;irn.~ for ;;or~di~ia~~,.~1 ~.Jsc F'cr~~it No. 17~~1 which was ~~r~ntc~ bv thr Plan. 'n~~ ComnlSSi<~n -m Au~~ust 1~ 1'~;i~ tc~ r.St.al~lish ;~ t'~-unit~ ~~~cr~•~ti~.in~l vchic.lc p~tirk. tn coni~~ncti~,~ ~~ri[h a~fx~t~~l ~ su}~ject t~, thr ~~,:~ymrnt of fer.s for trf•e p!a-,tin~; an~f strect ll~~htlny ~u~pn5~5 within .~ ~rri~,~i ~~f o~~~• ycAr; ar,d that ~~ nrevious rxt~nsic>n ~f f.lme to ~u~~ust 1~ 1~)7;~~ w~~s c;r~r,t~~~l by Lhr. i'~r~nnir~~; CCxM~~iSSinn ~~n July ;1~ 1~37h, AGTIc1N; Corrnissfuncr t:in~~ c,ffcrr~i a n~tiurti~ seu~ndec! by C~:rriisslnner Tolar ~nd MOT10'i i, EU~ chat thc I'+nahein [.ity ~la~~n~nq Con~r^isti~on ~ioes here'~y qrant a onc~-year extensicx~ of t(r,x: for C~ndltl~,nal '..~se: Pe~'~~i`t Nn, 1~2'1, to cx~ire on Au-aust 1, 1~"•:,. ~. GO~iUITI~~NhL USE PfRMIT t~0. 71f~ - Requcst for terminaticxi. Yhe stAff report tc~ tr:c Pl,~nninq Co~w is„ic~ri ~.iat~~d July 1~ , 1~7~a was pr~sented~ nottng sub jLCt proper[y cc~ns( ~;s of th ree nort io~s of rinprc~ximate 1 y 3. S ncres ~ach oii the south side of Qranc~twvoc~d nvenue; thai the appl icant (Phi 1 in t~. McNrmee) reque~t5 t~:-minat(on of Cond1 tlonal Use Perml t No, ?lF~ whi ch was <~r~nt~:~i by the~ P1 ~snnin~, Gcmm~,s ton cm .1une 21 ~ 19h`i~ ta permlc an ~pa~trncnt co-~plex; a~d thac on May '7~ 1~J'1, t.•,~ Planni• Comnfsslon approvr.d Tentative Trnct Ilos. 1~?7~3~ ~~~7~~ an~1 tOJO; co pernlt n 6b-b~•~l~i;nq, RN-12~0 subdtvision subJect ~o tt~c condltion th~ac che propcrty vwner submit a letter req~~esting terminatlon of Conditinnal ~se Permit No. 71ti. A(:TIQN: Corr~nissionc~ ~arnes offered Resolutl~n f~o, ?C7^-11~7 and movrd for lts pessaqe and a~option~ that the Maheim City Planning Co:nmission cbes hereby terminate Candl~ional Use Permi t ~~. 716. 7/16/~9 MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMtSS10~1~ JULY 16~ 1~79 )g-542 R~POHTS AND RECOMIIENDATIONS • ITEM 0(cantt~ued) On ~ol) call~ the foreyulnr, r~solutton was passed by the following vote: AYCS ; COMMI SS I O~JE RS : BARNF.S ~ BUSIIQRC ~ DAV I D, FRY, HERHST ~ 1:1 MG ~ TQLl.R NOFS; C(~M111SSIONERS: NO'~E AaSEUT: C~MMISSIONERS; I~OtJC SUNSET RIUGC LAt~USCAPING OISCUSSIO'! Theru was a bri~~f discussion rcqardin~~ !endsca~lny for Sunset Ridqe which h~s not bcan dane, an~ i t wos thc Conxnisy iun's genr~al f~el inc~ thac the devcloner should be told to provide the I~~n~lscaping w(thin a 30-day perlod. It wAS suq~~ested stAff send the developer a Ictter. ACTIUN: ~ummissioncr ~ush~~r~• offr.re:J a motlon~ s~canded by Cortr,iss(~„~r 7ol.~r and MQT{ON CARftICD, c.hat the llnaheim Ci ty Plannlnc~ Cortmissl~~n~ heing ccmcern~:d abaut the land~captr ~ un Canyon Rim Ro.~d f~r the Sun~,et Ridqe clevcl~pment~ does hereby Instruct steff ~o t~;~rw,~~.l a ietter t~~ thc~ develo~er thr~t if work ts not ccx+~me~nc~d wtthire 3~~ ~I~ys, the matter wil~ h~ set for r,ublic h~:arlnq, AUJOURNMCNT There bstng n~~ furtt~er hus(nrss, Comr.issl~r,cr Barnes offered a motinn~ ~ seconded hy Corunissioncr Tol,~r anrf MOT~O~I CARRIEU~ th~t the meetf~q bP aci;,•~irned. Thc mret I nc~ a~t journcd at 3: ~+0 p. m, Respecttuily %v ( ,%~( ~- , Edi th L. i~ar Anahclm Glty f t.li ;hm submi t tc~:~ . , '/ . v .^. • "' . 1'ISe Secretery Planning Cortr~iss(on ; / 16/7~ ~ ~