Resolution-PC 89-277~,~,~:
~~'~~
RF.~nLUTION NQ. 'P~8 -277
„~,
f~~
A RESOLUTION OF T.HE ANAHF.IM C:C'TY PLANNING COMM.[SSION
'THA'r PETITION FOc~ RECLASSTF'iCAxION N0. 89-9U-25 F3E GRAN'PED
WHERBAS~ tha Anaheim City Flannin~3 Commi,:,sion diii receivo a
verifiQd peti~iox~ f~r Reclassification fi~om ANAHEIDS FiOTEL COMPLEX, A
CA~IxORN''.~ LIMIT~a PAR'PNERSHIY, 417 W. A11en Avenue, Suits ].12, San Dimas, CA
91773, owner, and CONCRFTE D'YNAMICS, INC., A7.'TN: CHRTS L~OOMIS, 67.0 W. Ash
Street, Suite :L200, San Diego, CA 92101, agent~ for certai~ real property
situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, ~tate UE California,
d4scribed as follows:
PARC~LS 7., 2 und 3 IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF
ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFQRN7A, AS PFR MAP FTT~ED T.N BOOK
228, k'AGES 39 AND 40 OE PA22~EL MAP~, IN TIiE OFFICE OF
THR COUNTY RSCORDSR 0~ SAID COUNTX.
WH~REAS, th~ Gity Planning Commission did ho'.d a public hoaring
at the Civic Center in L•ho CiL•y of Anahoim on November 20, 1989 at 1:3U p.m.,
n~ticP o~ said public hearing having been duly given as requ.ire~ by law and in
accordance vrith the provisions o£ the Anaheim Municipal Cr+de. Chaptez I8.03,
to hear and consider evidencu for and agains~ saicl proposed rQClas~ificati~~n
and tn invesCigate snd make findings and recommendatiuns in c~nnr:~ction
ther~with; and
WHEREAS, suid Commission, aEter due inspection, investigaCion
and study made by itself and in its behal~', anc'1 after due can.sideration of a].1
eviclenre and repoxts of.fered at said liearing, does f.ind anc~ dbtermine the
follovring £act .:
;<i i. That the petiCionor pxopos~~s reclassificatinn of: subject
pro~erty from the CL (Commercial, Limite~) Zone to the CR (Cnmmercial
Recreation) 7.one.
2. That the Anaheim General Pla~n desiqnates su2~ject property
for Commercial Recreation land uses.
c:
3. That the propose8 rec7.assificaL-ion ~f subjeck pr~~perty is
~' necessary and/or ciesirable for th~ orderly and pr~per davelopment af trlP
corrununi t.y.
" 4. Tkiat thQ proposed rec).assification of subject property does
pr.operly relate to the zones and their permir,::ed uses locally established in
close proximity to subject properL•y ar,c3 to t~he zones and rheir pormitted uses
generzlly established throughout the com,-nunity.
5. That the proposed reclassifi.cation of subject property
t;':
requir~s the dedic~tion o~ aLutt:ing streers in accordance with the Circulation
Element o£ the GenRral P1an~ duo to the antiripated increase iu traffic ~which
r will be gane:ated by L-he in~ensifieation of land use.
~` -1- FC89-277
114 5 r
f,~ ,
;;,-: .
_;
,'
.r ~
ll,~ ~ " ~ . . . . Y„S~~
i'"
~ ._~
~ ~a~tt.1 ~.
)Y 1
~ ,~y~~ p~
.I~ ~ Y hs+t44&
. ~ ~R . '~ . ; .~~'~
,.f
~ ,~
6• That three
public hearxng izi opposition;
opnosi.~ion to subject petition,
~ . . . ~ ~.1 •.:
(3) people indic;ated their presence at said
and that no carrespondence wa;~ recc~ived in ~''~;
CAL.T.FOR2~TA ~NVIR Iv'^;ENT~L'' --QUAT~Irl x
conszdorzng DrafL• Environrnental Impact Report ~No 2gq; ~for ~he a proposea
Anaheim FIotel Complex and reviewing ovidence, k~oth written and ural,
presentea to s~upplement said document, t2ie E~lanninq CommiS~iUn finds that
(a) Draft k~IR No. 2g4 is an compli~nce with the California Environmental
Qualit~ act and the State and Citp Gu.zde~anes;
(b) Drat't EIR No. 294 identifies the f~ollowing impac~s wliich are considerod
to be bot2a unacroidaLle and adverse in nature ttnd no~ fu11y mi~tigatad to
a levol aE insigziific~nce:
• ~r~.~~rm or~ ruc ion Noj~~,
Construction nUiso level zmpar.ts
construction activity shall b~
Code.
will not ~e £ully mitic~atec~ but
resEricted per the Ci~y's ~loise
" • 53~1_at~A_.ir • lih~y
The project is considered signi~icant within tYig South Coast Air
Quality Mauagement Uistrict ~ecause it is greater than the 20p
: r.oam threshold used zn the Sf;AQt~ yuidelines. In addition, the
,': proposgd parking faci~it:y could result in locali::ed on-site and
dcwnwind impacts £r~m carbon monoxide and other vehic].e
emis~ions. Tho project site is lucated within SourcelReceptor
' Area No. 17 which includas all of Anaheim scuth of the SR 91
i Fraoway anr~ as such would repreSent only a fraction of total
; emissions. Howover, this prcjecl: along witl.i o~her related
~ projects would have cumulative impacts on sir quality in the South
,; Coast Air Quality Basin because the Basin has •
compliance wit?~ Federa~ and St~te ppllutioYi standards et to attain
. Gumular;.,o rmpac_ t~ *o ~e~ione,l .;a~t~ 1'r~a -m n F
Pr.oaect-related im Acts wiY1-~l~~~~~~~i~~~'~'~
~ be mitigatod to a level of
insignificance by thQ GonstrucCio~ of a new sewor line xn
OrangP•vood Avenue or coordination with the County~s eff~rt to
constxuct a new interceptor lir~~ for the va.cinity prior to
issuance of occup~ucy pc~rmits. FIowever, cwnulative xmpacts m~p be
signiEicant dQpending on projoct phasing vs. completion of the
Orange C~unty Sanitation District's sewage L-reatmc~nt £acilities
expansions.
(~) Section 15U~1 of the CBQ;~ Guidelines requiros that one or more findi.ngs
be made for each of the sigzificant envirqnmental offecLs idantifi.r~d.
Three findinq categories are pos3ible. Sections 1, 2 and 3 below state
oach find3n~r, aad tnon identify the imp~c;t c~ategories for which these
findinga are app~aprxate.
1. "Changes or altera~ion~ have been required in, or incorporated
in~o, the projRCt which avoid flr substantaally lossen the
significant environmental ~ifect as identified in the Final
EIR". This findxng applies to the followinq environmental
effects of the project:
-2- PC89-Z77
s';;
~.; i
:;j
;a
r.
i:'.i .'Y.~
'r'~'~' ~
P!r ,a
. Traffic Impaci:s (inc.luding par?:3.ng)
. Noise (lung-term)
. Ae~thetics (ineludinq Visual Intrusi~n, Shade and Shadow,
and Glare
. Population and Emplnymr~nt
. Palice ~rzd Fire Proter.tion
. W~-ter and Sewer/WasL-ewa~er '~reatmen~ (projact-specific)
. Soli~. Waste
. Communica~ion/Television Reception
Refer to E;IR 294, Section ~, for a Lull discus~ion of. the al3.avs
impacts, the mftigation measur^s p.rescribed and a c3iscussion of
rFSUltant level of significance after mi.tigation.
2. "5uch changes or alterations are wiChin the responsibility and
jur.isciiction of anather public t~aancy and no~ the agency makin~ the
fin8ing. 5uah changes iYave been adopted by such ather ayency or can
and s::oulcl be adopted by such other agency."
With regard to w~stewator and sower capacity, mitigation mRasures
have baen incorporatQd in+:o the project to mitigate, ta a level of
insi~nifi.canca, impacts ~o the City's sewer sys tam. However,
project plus cumulative impacts to the County Sanitation District'~
interceptor lines and treatment £acilities f all under the
jurisdiction of the County Sc~nitation District which is taking steps
to alloviare th~ prablem. Steps include ( a j abtair_ing approval for
the first p2iaso of the plannaci troatment facilities expansion; (b)
providing a.clditional chemi~:al tret~::ment and oxygenation of
discharges to tYie ocean; and, (c) construct=ng a 2~- l:0 33-iach
intercaptor sewer to divert flow from the existing Soul-h Anaheim
Tnterceptor Sewer to the Euclid Avenue Trunk Sowex• to be complet~d
by summer, 1990. This will. ~ufficiently relieve the City's
Qrdngewood Avenue ~sower and onable tYia South Anaheim Intp:ceptor Lo
serve the proposed project.
3. "Specific ecannmic, social, or other considerations make infe~sible
the mii:igatiun mQasures or projact alterna~ives identifi,ed in the
Final EIR." See Paraqraph (e) on Page 5 of attachme:-t 1 of the
stafE report to the Planning Commission dated Atovecnr,-er 20, 1989, tor
a cliscussion of the Statome:it of Overric.ling Consideration~. The
fol].owing cliscussion identifies the vnrious alternu~ives considered
in the EIR, followed by an explanation oL• the rationale for Eindinq
~hese alternatives inf.easible.
NQ, Pro_'~ect/N~Develoanen~Al erna~~~Yg
Under tYie No Project/rIo Devel4pment Alternative, the sfte would
remain in it~ gresei:t condit~on which is vacant dxcept far a
paved lot ~eft fram a previa~is developmont. Project-rel.ated
impacts on traffic, air quality, and infrastructure wou].d noC
occur; however, gen~ration of employment and revenue ko the
City would alsa r.ot occur. ?'hzs al~ernative would co.ntinue to
requir~ a cextain amoun~ o~ mitigati.on surh Es police
surveillancQ, fire protoction and weod/dust/1itt~r~ abatement.
-3- PC89-2?7
?~;j ly~i
fa,~
3 ~ra;
~
. _ , ' ~`i~2~
~h":'
`.,
. ...._:i.r,~
1:
~°
.',
~:.
'~ ` :'~~
~;7~.1~+~
~!:ii%$1~ .
~
. . Y~ 'jr~'.+
~ ';il
;,t
~n
t..
Three Hotal Co~1~x A1t~r~native
The Three Hotel Comp].ox Alternativ~a was tha oriqi~zal project;
howrever, duriizg the praparatiion of ~he EITt it was dei:ermzned `.,';;
that the sing:le hotel pro~ect would be preferable in sev~rsl
rQSpects to this ~lternative. This aYternative would consi.st
of two twelve-stor~ hatels and an eight-story hotel, two
four-s'tory pnrking g~ragea and a subtQrranean ~arking yr~rage,
and accompanying rBStiaur~-nts and meeting rooms. Th3s
altarnative would be buil t in, L•wo or three phases and
constructa.on would be continuous over a four ~o sia ygar
per~.od. Appr~ximatoly thres months of, gradinq would occur to
prep~r.F the.site for dovelopmant if construction wQre to take
place in three phases.
Ali:erna iv~Si~e,
This alterx~ativ~ assumes th~ development of the project in a
differcnt locatiwa. rhe 1oca1 alternatiQie site chosen is an
undevelopaii parcel oE simil ar size and shape located on the
north side o~ Katella Averlue between Harbor Boulevard and
Clemontine Strept. :t'his garcel is ane of *.he few unde:vologed
parcels in this area.
(d) ~hat the P1anb!.ng Cammission does hereby £ind t2aa~ ~he alternat.ives are
i n£nasible or less desirable than the current pro~oct, ~nd rejects the
various al.ternetives for the Following reasons:
. Tlxe No Project Alternative would result in. L•he loss of 220 jobs
as a resu~t o£ operation or the proposed ~roject es well as an
unspACitied number of conatruaL•ion jobs to be create~i by th~:
prnject development. Ir~ additzon, this alternat.fve wnuld
result iu the site continuing to r~main in a vacant stats
which would d~ nothing to rontribut.e financiAlly or
aestheL.zcally ro the City in general and the Commeraial
Ttecreation Area zn bart;icular .
. The T.hree Hotel Complc~x Altarnative wauld result in 180 now
jcbs as a result of on-go ing operation, resulting in less
employment opportur~ities than the prefer~ed alternative ~s we11
as ~roviding an unspecifiefl number o~ construction jobs during
the cievelopmsnC phases of the pruject. Although th~.s
alternative would result in ~ aimilar amourit af hotel rooms,
similar short-term construction jobs and long-term operational
jobs, as well a~ having similaz impacts ta the infrastructure,
this alternative was rPjeated for the fo1104rinc~ reasons:
-4•• PC89~277
~~
i
`s`;
, i/
4~i
'~
~i
'r' ly
i i I ~~:
V~~
.. . ~::~~~ Y•' i~:^, ~:'~ii7
,.n
~;:a~ ~;,r,"',;~
~
(a) this alternativ~ wou1Q reauire up to tchr.ee mon~hs oE
g~~ading and sir_e proparation bRtore constructfon could commence
and c~nstcucCion wau18 take place in two to three ph~sea of up
to 24 months Rach for ~- to~al of up to 6 years cf aonetruct3on
on the si.t~. hhile tl~e proferred project mr.y requf~•e a simi2ar
grading schac]u1e, it has a r.nnstrucrion schodule of only 2g
monL•hs; (b) this nltnrnative woulcl have throe bui..ldings, two
parking structures t~nd y parking lot covering the 5~1 acres
rather. than the preEorred alternAtive with 1 hotol, 1 parking
garage, a separr~te but ~ttached 1ow-rtse (3-story) mee~ing
center and ~ne one-~tor,y re+staurant an~ thus woulcl presont a
more massive presen::e on tt~~ site; (c) this alternative iy loss
desiruk+le becau4o in addition to more mass, it proposes fewer
~arking ~paces in more parking garc~ges (a minimum oE 775
parking spaces in 2~~arking gar~ges anrl a aubterranenn/surfac~e
parkinq c~arage) whilc~ the preferred project proposes a minimum
of "10U0 parking spaces in one 5-:ovel (two leve:ts underground
ancl 2 to thrF:e ~evQls above ground) parkir,q garago.
The selection of the alt~:nati~o sit~ on Katell~ Avbnue w~uld
have similar cumulative ir~pacts as the p.rap~sed prr~ject such as
traffic, air quality, znd iinpacts on rhe in.Erast•ructui•e
Intersection~ such as Katella/Harboz impacted to a gr~ater
deqree than those impacted by tha project on tho proQosad ~ite.
(e) That tho Planning Commission does hareby furthar determine that the
benc~f:i~s of the prajec` outweigh kh~ unav~tdable environmenta~
tm~,aC~S, and pursuant Co thA provisionx of Section 15093 of. the
Slate CEQA GuiQ~linpa cloes hereby adopt the following Statemert of
Overriding Consider~tions:
1. The bsnofits of the project have beQn weighod against the
unavoidable udverse a~nvironmental irnpacts and pursuanC to
Section 7.5093 of. tho Scat~ CEQA G~-idelii~es, the occurrence ot
the siqnificant envi.ronmental impacts id$ntifiecl ia EIR 294 as
set forth above, may be permitted without furCher mitSgation
due to rbe following overriding considerationss
Mittgation measures .fncorporHted inCo tl~e An9hQim Hotel CoRploa
have substantialYy reduce~ the project's environrnental
effoct». While cumulat:ive t:raffic volumos are projectod to
incr~aso duQ "_o L•he dQVOlopmnnt of ttiis project, mitiqation l:as
been iQentitied that will prcvicle acceptnb2e leval~ of sorvice
thro+xghout thcs area affected by Lhe project.
To the oxteut that any impacta, .inrluding cumuletive impects,
at~ribur~ble to the Anaheim Eiotel Comp~ex r~main unmi.tiyated,
such tmpxces axo acceptRblo in light af overridinq social,
oconomic: anc] ~ther co:,sidarat3ons s4t forih hQrein. In
aB~Si+:.ion, unmitigated impac:ta are elther ahost-torm in naturo
or ~sre bnyond the ;,ariu8iction of .ho City of Anaheim. A
diacussion of vastewaLer facilitie~ can be found tn paxeqtaph 2
on page 3•~f this ana]ysis.
-5- PC89-277
:;~
i'i
. . . . .. ~..'F~
~ ~ ' . ~ . ~ ~.~7,
. ,~':r r?~ ~ : ~
~i
Land uae conflicts which ma~y have artsen beaauae of nn adjacent
reaidential noi.ghborhood have been mitigated by buE[ering the
site witb a 20-foot landscapHd buffer and an 8-foot block
wa11. TnLrastructure conc~rns hava been mi:.igate~ to levQla of
insignificanco by tihe doveloper agreeing to (a) upgrado thn
watpr ma3n from an 8 ir~ch to a rwelvo inch maf.n~ (b) c~nstruct,
tu tho satisfaction of the C..ty Engint~er, r.atch bas,ing antl
eonnectlon to the CiGy's 36-inch storm drainl and, (c)
construct a paraxlel sewer line or enlarqo tho existin~ sewer
line rron th~ propos~Q hotel to the main rrunk lino aL• Ninth
Stre~t, or ~oordinata 1-.otel occupancy with the County's effort
to complPhe its Euclid Avenue intercoptor lin9.
Dur°_ng operaCion of the ho~el complex, the developer
anti.;l~3td3 a m.inimuin of 220 jobs w:.ll be available. In
eddition, numerous construction johs sha.ll be provided f~r a
per.Iod up ~a 24 months. The unrnttigatod impact of shork-term
construcL•ion noisQ an~i ~he short-Cer~n reduction in xir q~ality
during consCruction aro justif.~od by k}ce neo~ to creata jobs
arid provide fur economic growth in kht! City. ~he creation af
additional permanent job~ will indi.recL2y create an incrgusod
demancl for qoods ~nd sorvices within the City, thus providinq
~ther potQntial employmenL- ~pportunitics an@ contributing to
overall econom=c growkh and well-beinq of the City.
The Planning Commission find3 thaL• the Anaheim Hotel Complex
wi~l enhance tho City's ahf'lity to £und services a~~
improvements due to additional rovenues qenaratod by the
project in addition to the 3evelopment-re3ated ~eea fmp~se9.
Annual revanue to the City G~neral Fund Erom transient
occupancy tax, proFerty ~ax, sales tax, etc., would total
approximately $1,474,701 versus $70.330 annual expenditures
from th~ ~ity Cener.nl ~~anQ for ;~~Iice and firc aervices. The
prcject would aniiually contribute to the City General Funct
revcnues appr~ximately 20 timn~ expo::diL~~res.
Mitigation moasureg have b8en incorporate~ 3nto ~he Anaheim
Ii~tel Complex to mitigate thQ imp~cts on sir q~-ality such as
the implomentation af a Transportntion DeMaad ManagRmert
pragram, ~tesiyn af che parlcinq structure to m~nimize on-sit~
downwind emission impacts, and curtailing emisaion-Froducing
co~aCruction activities clurj.nq smog t~lart p6rioc]s.
The projoct is c~nsistent aith the intenk o~E the City's General
Plan for. the site and will be curnpatible with khe projected
uses •within the Commercixi Itecr~atien Area.
MitiqpCion measurec t.ave been incorparatAB intn the project to
reduco ~h~ majority of env3.r~nments~l irnpn~cts to ~-n acceptable
leval and a mitlyation monitor.inq program hag been daveloped tc
ensure complianc~ wlth thQ intent of the EIk;
(f) ~'h~retarR, the Planniny Commisefon hareby cartifiaa EIR 14a. 2ys enQ
adopts thi~ Arr,ended S~a~ement c~t Overridinq Con++iderations an3
accompAnying Mil•igation Monftorinq Program.
..g-
PCB9-277
. :,~
I' L~,'. r ~°,,:UY_ t r,. . ~~ ~ .~ r r a~ ~yi', Ir t.(~'~ ~ i~ I !~-~'l`' r'
, ~ . ~' ~ ' . . . . . _ . ':~~i. . ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ' . . .. ~ ~ .. ~.,t} 1 ~ ~ ~ ~, s
~ ~ ~~,i'`;'~
NOW, THEREE'ORE, BE IT JtE50LVED that the Anah~im Ci~y Planning
Commission does I+crehy grant subject Petieion for Roclass3f~catiorx and, by so
doing, Chat Titlo lA-Zoning of the Anareim Municipal Coda be amended to
excliirln tha above-aescribed property ~rom the CL (Commercial, Limited) zone
and ro incorporr,Le said described p~opc+x•ty into the CR (Cummercial,
Racreation) Zon~ upox~ tho fnllawing coxiditions which are hereby found to bo a
nocessary prerequisite to hhe prnposed uae o~ sub7eat property in ordar to
preservo the :~afety~ an8 gRneral welf.ara of the C.itize:-s of the City of Anaheimt
1.~ ThaC thQ legal owner of subject prapaz•ty yhall irrevocably afEe.r to
dedzca~Q to the City of Analieim a strip oE land foz•t~- fxve (45) ~~~e~. in
width frAm the centerline oF Y.he street along Orange~wooci Avenue for street
wictanin,q purposes.
2. That thQ laq~l owner of subject property shall irrevQrably qffor to
declict~to to thQ City ~t At~aheim an sdditionral strip of land twelve (12)
feet in wi.dth alonq Iiarb~r Boulevard.
~:
3. That the 1ega1 awnor nF. Subject property Fhali submit ~ letter regues~inq
kerminat•ion ot• Conditiorial Use Permir No. 24A~3 Co ~he Zoninq Div;oi.on.
4. That pi•ior Cu the i•ntruductiun of an ordinance
Condi.tion No~. 1 thCOU~th 3, above-mei.itioned,
provisinns or riqhts granted by khis resolution
by acti~n of the PlAr,ninq Commi~sion uuloss s
wt`h within on~ (1) year fr.om the date oE this
time ns the Pl~nniny Cammission may gca:~t.
rezoninq subject pr~~erty,
shall be complet~d. The
~ha11 become nu11 and void
aId conditions are complisd
resolut3on or such fur'ther
5.* That appruval 4f this application constitutes appr~val of the propot~ed
rc~quest only to tn~ exter~t that it complies with the Anah~im Municipal
2on.ing Cod~s ~nd ai~y other applicable City, Stato and Federal regulations.
Approval doQS not inc2udp any actfon or findinga as -:o compliance or
approval of the requesC raga:ding any other applict-ble urdinance,
regulation or r~quirement. Conditi~n3 marked with an asteri~k (+~) ar~
coquired by estab]ishod laws, codes, regulations and agret~menttt aa8 are
not subject to ne~utiation.
-'J- PCK9 -277
;e,
f 1
~FVhl5BA3!~~{ M
'';4g1
C'',
~'i
• , . - ~
~
A^"'~
~ ~ ~~ ilt~~P
1 ~,~~
.~
`~ ~
~ ~ ~ '~ra
,a,
B~. IT I'URTHER rE50LVED th~t tho Anttheim City Plt~n~ning CQmmission
doos hezeb~- find and determ3ne that adopCion oE tihis Resolution 3s exprespl,y
predicatad upon applicanr's comp~.iance with ~~ch and all oE th~ cond3tiona
heroinabove se: ~o~rh. Should any sucli cond.itions, ~r any gart therooE, bn
deaJ.ared invali~3 or ungnEorceab]a by the fin~l judgment aE any court oE
cnmpet~nC jur3sdiction, thon *_his Resolutia:i, nncl any ~spprovals horoin
contained, shall be deemad nu11 and vuid.
'~H~ F'OREGOING RLSOLUTiON is signoti and approved by me Chis 20th day
of Noveml~Qr, 1989. ;, , /;, _ ~
~y:.. ~_~~~/ , ~/~`/~ ~/ ~ ~
-~ . f~~~` L.-y-.' ~
CHAIRMAN, AN1~t3GIM+~ PLANNING COMMI5Si0N
A'PTEST: ~; ~ .
',: ---- (~~ ~_~~~..'L•~_.~ ._~__.
SECFETA Y, ANAHGIM CITY PLTNNING COMMISSTON
;
ST.ATE OF CALIFOl2NIA )
; COliNTY ~F ORANGE ) as,
CITY OF ANAHETM )
;; I, L'dzth L. Harris, Secretary of the A.naheim City Planning
;' Commission, do hereby certity that the Eoregoing zesolution was p~sse3 nna
adc.pted at a meeL•ing of the Anaheim City Planning Commissi.on held on Novamber
?Q, ].989, by the followiny vote of the members thereof:
i
,.
AYESs COA~IISST.ONERS: AOYDSTIfN, FBLDHA(!S, HELLYBR, HERAST
': MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: COt~U~tISS20NERS: NONE
~ ABSENT: COMMISSCGN~R~: DOUAS
,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I 2-ave hereunto sc~t my hand this 20th day of
NovembQr, 1989.
A: ______._.- ~~~~~~c~~~ ~ `'. _ ~~ -'t -
- -_~~~~vw~~ ,
SCCRETARt, ANAHEIM CITk PLA.YNING COI~tISSTON
~~;
~'.
^~
-~-
PC89-277
,
,
;'q
~M