Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-06-15MINUTES OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California' TUE S�DAY JUNE' 15 1965, COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Crabb, Lawson, Bazil, Kaufman, Worthy, Miller, Larkin.' COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. MINUTES: On motion by Worthy and seconded by Miller, the Minutes of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission of May 18, 1965, were accepted as transcribed and mailed by the Secretary. TENTATIVE.TRACT N0. 5965 - Continued Number of Lots; 64 Subdivider: Harry Kelso, Inc Total Acreage: 13.2 Engineer: Jennings-Halderman-Hood Located 460 ft south of Warner Avenue, west of Edwards Street and legally described as being a proposed subdivision of a portion of the NEk, NWk, Section 27-5-11. The Secretary read a letter submitted by Robert Hukee, engineer for the subdivider, requesting a two week continuance. A MOTION WAS MADE BY CRABB AND SECONDED BY WORTHY TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5965 TO JULY 7, 1965, AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPER. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Crabb, Lawson, Bazil, Kaufman, Worthy, Miller, Larkin. NOES: None. ABSENT: None THE MOTION CARRIED. USE VARIANCE NO.. 830 - Continued A licant - Ha-ra Kelso Inc. To permit a 54 ft. Street right-of-way on a loop street exceeding 350 feet in length. Located on the west side of Edwards Street, - 460 feet south of Warner Avenue and legally described as a portion of the NEk. NWk of Section 27-5-11; also known as Tentative Tract No. 5965. -1- 6/15/65 Page No.. 2 Minutes: H. B. Planning Commission Tuesday$ June 15, 1965 The Secretary read a letter submitted by Robert Hukee, engineer for the applicant, requesting a two week continuance., A MOTION WAS MADE BY MILLER AND SECONDED BY BAZIL TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON USE VARIANCE N0. 830'TO JULY 7t 1965, AT THE REQUEST OF'THE APPLICANT. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Crabb, Lawson, Bazi1, Kaufman, Worthy, Miller, Larkin., NOES: None ABSENT: None THE MOTION CARRIED. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO2 5792 Number of Lots: 181 Subdivider: Doyle and'Shields Total Acreage: 38.3 Engineer: Voorheis-Trindle-Nelson, Inc Located on the southwest corner of Warner Avenue and Graham Street and legally described as being a proposed subdivision of a portion of the NW'k of Section 28-5-11. The Secretary read a letter submitted by Kenneth Carlson, engineer for the subdivider, requesting a two week continuance. Also a letter submitted by J..E.. Sullivan of Doyle and Shields;Development Co. was read which requested a continuance., A MOTION WAS MADE BY CRABB AND SECONDED BY iA RKIN TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO., 5792 TO JULY 71 1965, AT THE REQUEST OF THE SUBDIVIDER. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: CrAbbf Lawson, Bazilt Kaufman, Worthy, Miller, Larkin,. NOES: None ABSENTt None THE MOTION CARRIED.. ZONE CASE NO, 507 Continued Applicanti.».Eldridge Corporation ��y�A�lAirw-1 IrAll 1 A� AA �' AIII�O� Change of,Zone from C-2 Community Business District to R-:3 Limited Multiple Family Residence Mstrict. -Located •.2.- 6/15/65 Ll Page No. 3 Minutes: H.B, Planning Commission Tuesday, June 15, 1965 at the northeast corner of Springdale Street and Bolsa Avenue and legally described as being a portion of the SW', Section 10-5-11. Further legal description on file in the Planning Department Office. The Staff Report was read by the Secretary. It was noted that this hearing was continued so the applicant could change his,prop6sal. The new proposal would change a portion of the property to R1 rather than R3 and,the remaining C2 zoned property will have a 50 foot setback line measured from property line on Bolsa.Avenue and Springdale Street. The hearing was opened to the audience. Paul Miller, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and agreed to a stipulation in the Staff Report requiring a 50*foot,building setback line measured from property line 6n the C-2 parcel. There being no other comment the hearing was closed. RESOLUTION NO. 507: A Resolution of the City -Planning Commis- sion recommending approval of Zone Case No.. 507 as modified to the City `.Council, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL AND,SECONDED BY MILLER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 507 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CASE.NO. 507 AS MODIFIED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR.THE FOLLOW- ING REASONS : 1. The amount of commercial zoning in this general area exceeds what is necessary to serve the surrounding population. 2. A high density zoning on the subject property will not serve the City's best interest. 3. The applicant has submitted an alternate proposal whereby reduces the amount of commercial zoning and designates the remaining property as R.I. 4. A building line setback of 50 ft. measured from street right. of -way line will provide for a more desirable shopping center. -3- 6/15/65 Page No. 4 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, June 15, 1965 ROLL CALL VOTE; AYES: Crabb, Lawson, Bazil,'Kaufman, Worthy, Miller, Larkin, NOES, None. ABSENT: None. THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED ZONE CASE NO. 521 Applicant,- Paul J. Maddox -Change of Zone from R-2 Two Family Residence District to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District with setback provisions. Located at the southwest corner of 17th Street and Delaware and legally described as the North 190.16 ft. of Block 2704 B, East Side Villa Tract; excepting any portion thereof included within the South 68.22 ft. of said Block. The Staff Report was read by the Secretary. The hearing was opened to the audience„. Willis Warner, representing the First Methodist Church -in Huntington Beach, addressed the Commission and read a letter which opposed the change of zone. The Secretary informed the Commission that t1m applicant was not present and suggested that the public hearing be continued until later on the agenda so the applicant could state his reasons for the request. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WORTHY AND SECONDED BY CRABB TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON ZONE CASE NO. 521 UNTIL LATER ON THE AGENDA. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Crabb, Lawson, Bazil, Kaufman, Worthy, Miller, Larkin. NOES: None,. ABSENT: None, THE MOTION CARRIED. .-4- 6/15/65 Page No. 5 Min#teso H.B. Planning Commission Tue'hday, June 15, 1965 USE VARIANCE N0, 838 Applicant Rex Creed To allow the construction of an additional unit on a lot containing less than the required area in the R-2 Two Family Residence District and to allow said unit to encroach to within 4 feet of the exterior side lot line in deviation to the required 10 ft. Located west of 19th Street and north of Acacia Avenue and legally described as Lots 1 and 3, Block 619, Seven- teenth Street,Section, also known as 601 19th Street, Huntington Beach, California. The Staff Report was read by the Secretary, The Hearing was opened to the audience. Rex Creed, applicant, addressed the,Commis- sion and gave his reasons for the request. There being no other comment the hearing was closed. Commission discussion was held. The Planning Director pointed out to the Commission that under existing R-2 standards one dwelling unit per 3,000 sq. ft. of land area may be constructed in all R.-2 zones; except, in the old town lot area special consideration has already been established by ordinance which permits one dwelling unit per 2,000 sq. ft,.; of land area* The Commission noted that the subject regte st' represents an increase in density. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MILLER AND SECONDED BY WORTHY TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO, 838 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: 1. The request exceeds the permitted density in the R-2 Zone. ROLL CALL VOTE; AYES, Crabb, Lawson, Kaufman, Worthy, Mille, Larkiq. NOES: Bazil ABSENT; None THE MOTION CARRIED. ZONE CASE NO. 521 - CONTINUED Applicant: Paul J,, Maddox Change of Zone from R-2 Two Family Residence District to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District with setback provi- sions,. Located at the southwest corner of 17th Street and Delaware -5- 6/15/65 PAGE No, 6 Minutes; H.B, Planning Commission Tuesday; June 15, 1965 and legally described as the North 190*16 ft. of Block 2704 B, East Side Villa Tract; excepting any portion thereof included within the South 68.22 ft. of said Block.,. The Chairman reopened the hearing to the audience. Ralph Williams$ representing the appl.i- cantf addressed the Commission and explained the proposal. Paul J, Maddoxf applicantf addressed the Commission and gave his reasons for the request, There being no other comment the hearing was closed. The Planning Director informed the Commis- sion that this general area is zoned for multiple family use and preliminary master plan studies designate this parcel for a medium density use, RESOLUTION NO 521: A Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending Denial of Zone Case Noo521 to the City Council., > I K.MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL AND SECONDED BY LAWSON TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO* 521 RECOMMENDING DENTAL OF ZONE CASE NO* 521 TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. It is located at the intersection of a primary and secondary highway. 2. The general area is zoned for multiple family used 3. Preliminary master plan studies designate this parcel for medium density residential, use, 4. A change of zone to commercial at this location would con- stitute spot zoning,:. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES; Crabbt Lawson# Bazils Kau£manf Worthy* Miller, Larkin, NOES: None ABSENT: None THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED TENTATIVE TRACT NO 597$ Number of Lots: 104 Subdividert Essex Land Company Total Acreaget 30#999 Engineer: Bruns Associates Located on the northeast side of Brookhurst Street and Atlanta Avenue and legally described as being a proposed subdivision of a portion of the SW' * SWk of Section 8-6-10. —6— 6/15/65 Page No. 7 Minutes: H,B. Planning Commission Tuesday, June 15, 1965 The Secretary pointed out that Tentative Tract No. 5978, UV 832, UV 835, and Zone Case No. 520 pertain to the same property and should be considered concurrently. The request was acceptable to the Commission and the public hearing was opened on all four agenda items. The Subdivision Committee Report and Departmental Staff Reports concerning all items filed by the applicant were read by the Secretary. The hearing was opened to the audience Eli Broad, representing Essex Land Co., presented several architectural renderings of the proposal. Mr. Broad stated that since February of this year they have been working on this proposed subdivision, A MOTION WAS THEN MADE TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT ITEM. USE VARIANCE NO. 835 Applicant -,Essex Land Company To permit the following: Parcel 1: (1) 50 ft. right. -of -way street. (2) 10 ft. minimum front yard setbacks for fences not over 6 ft. in height and for garages with a side ap- proach; however,, for ggarages which are entered directly from the street, a minimum of 20 ft, setback will be provided., (3) 15 ft. minimum front yard setback for fences over 6 ft. in height. `(4) 6000 sq. ft. average area for lots in subdivision but not less than 5000 sq, ft* in any one lot. (5) A minimum of 3 £t. side yard on one side of a lot provided the abutting side yard of the adjoining lot is not less than 5 ft. (6) 15 ft, minimum rear yard setback on irregular shaped lots and on other lots only ubere a front patio is provided. (7) Roll curb driveways and continuous roll curb around cul-de-sacs. (8) Sidewalk adjacent to curb, with no parkways. (9) A 40 ft. radius on Cud. -de. -sac. (lb) On cul-de-sac lots, a minimum lot width of 50 ft. measured at the front setback line. Parcel 2: A private swimming and tennis club,, together with the normal appurtenances and facilities, the ube which shall be limited to the members and their authorized guests, and which may include the limited sale of tennis and swim- ming equipment and apparel and dispensing food and beverages to the members and their authorized guests. Parcel 3: (1) 50 ft. right. -of. -way street.. (2) 10 ft. minimum front yard setbacks for fences not over 6 ft. in height and for garages with a side ap- proach, but without guest parking on the driveway apron. (3) 15 ft. minimum front yard setback for fences over 6 ft. in height, except when abutting a garage with a setback of less than 15 ft. in ub ich event the fence shall be no closer to the street than the front of the garage. (4) Roll curb for driveways and con. tinuous rollcurb around cul-de-sacs.. (5) Sidewalk adjacent to curb,, with no parkways. (6) 6000 sq. ft. average area for lots in subdivision, but not less than 5000 sq. ft. in any one lot, and with no less than 6000 sq. ft. on corner lots. (7) The further subdivision of any or all of said lots into not more than two lots, each, of approximately equal dimensions and area, pro- vided that not more than one residence shall be permitted on any -7- 6/15/65 Page No. 8 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, June 15, 1965 lot so subdivided and provided further that said lots shall then have a 3000 s ft. average area, but not less than 2500 sq, ft, in any lot. �$) -63 ft,-*minimum width on corner lots, except as modified by the provisions of item (7) respecting the further subdivision of said lots. (9) Delete interior side yard require- ments to permit attached units at the lot lines. (1) 4 ft. min- imum exterior side yard (11) Minimum rear yard of less than 15 ft. (12) 20 ft. minimum garage setback with guest car storage on driveway apron, (13) 10 ft. minimum garage setback without guest car parking on driveway apron (14) A 30 ft. radius on cul-de-sacs. Parcel 5: (1) To permit the operation of a gaso- line and petroleum pro ducts service station. Located on the north side of Atlanta Avenue and east of Brookhurst Street and legally described as being a portion of the SW4 Section 8-6-10. Further legal description on file in the Planning Department Office. Eli Broad, representing Essex Land Company, stated that they would be willing to provide 40 ft. private streets if the Commission did not agree to reduction of public streets. ? Ralph Jensen, representing Hercules Construction Co., owners of adjoining property, felt that their planners and engineers should have time to review the development and determine it's effect on their proposed development. Mr. Broad explained that the property to the north had been taken into consideration. George Shibata stated that there could be complications in reciprocal easements for use of common masonry walls between dwelling units. Sam Ferguson, Assistant Director of Building and Safety, felt that the use of common walls would not present any problem as far as the Building Department was concerned„, Fred Sindrom, a resident of Huntington Beach, said that this request was similar to Use Variance 838, and should, -be denied for the same reasons Use Variance 838 was denied., • Dr. Kaufman explained that in this case the density was to standards and Use Variance 838 involved a re- quest to increase densities. ,A lengthy discussion followed. A MOTION WAS THEN MADE TO CONTINUE'ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, ZONE CASE NO. 520 A2plicant - Essex Land Com an Change of Zone from R-A-O Residential Agricultural District to R-1 Single Family Residence District, R-2 -8- 6/15/65 0 Page No. 9 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission, Tuesday, June 15, 1965 Two Family Residence District, R-4 Multiple Family Residence District and C-2 Community.Business District with setback provisions. Generally located on the north and south sides of Atlanta Avenue and east of.: Brookhurst' Street, Precise legal "de"scriptiori on .file in the Planning Department office'. The Secretary read a letter from Mr. Moffitt, representing the Huntington Beach Elemertary School Districto,pro- testing the request, This protest was based on a density increase Vb ich would result in an increase in school -attendance„ Mr. Charles Palmeri Business Manager for the,Huntington Beach,Elementary School,Districto emphasized the school districts) feeling. Mr. Broad stated various reasons for the request,. , There .being, no , further comment on Zone Case No. 5201 the hearing on this c"ase,was -closed* Commission discussion followed. RESOLUTION NO. 520: A Res'olutbon of the City Planning Commission Recommending Approval 'of Zone Case No. 520, as Modified, to the ,City. Councilo ,A MOTION WAS MADE BY CRABB AND SECONDED BY LAWSON TO APPROVE ZONE CASE NO,� " 520 t ,AS MODIFIED � FOR -THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The proposed R�2 Zone.encroaches into an area outlined for low density development. a 2* If an adjustment is made between the R-1 and R-2'Zones the entire request would conform to the adopted Master Plan of Land Use* ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Crabb, Lawsonf Bazil, Kaufman,,Worthy, Miller, Larkin, NOES None, ABSENT: None* THE MOTION CARRIED, USE VARIANCE NO, 832 Continued Auulicant ..Essex Land Company „ " To permit-.the.,following: (1) 50 ft. right- of-way for interior streets with rolled,,curb and gutter; (2) con- struction of sidewalks adjacent to curb. Located on the east side of Brookhurst Street, 1170 ft. south of Indianapolis Avenue in the R.A..O Residential Agricultural District and legally described as a parcel of land being a part of the J. A* Day Tract, lying in the -9" 6/15/65 Page No, 10 Minutes: H,B, Planning Commission Tuesday, June 15, 1965 SA of Section 8-6-10 described as follows: Commencing at the SW'k corner of said section and proceeding thence along the west line of said section N. 00 341 5011 W. 1210..87 ft. to the point of beginning, thence along the west line of said section N, 00 341 50" W,0 260.00 ft.; thence N. 890 251 10" E,, 425.00 ft,; thence S, 00 34e 50" E,,, 260..00 ft,; thence S. 890 36, l0" W,,425 ft, to the point of begin- ning. Bill Hartge mentioned that the study for a 50 ft, street had not been completed at that time, and public re- action to rolled curbs was questionable. Mr. Broad stated that they would withdraw the request for rolled curbs if they were objectionable„ A lengthy Commission discussion followed, Questions brought up by the Sub -division Committee Committee Report and Departmental Staff Report were voted upon. The question of reducing rights -of -way to 50 ft. was dis- cussed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LAWSON AND SECONDED BY WORTHY TO REAFFIRM THE POLICY FROM THEIR APRIL MEETING OF THIS YEAR, READING AS FOLLOWS: The Commission will not act on any new subdivision with 50 ft, streets until a clear decision has been made on their accepta- bility and the subdivision and zoning ordinances are amended, ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES; Crabb, Lawson, Bazil, Kaufman,.Worthy, Miller, Larkin. NOES: None, ABSENT: None. THE MOTION CARRIED, The question of reducing the minimum lot of 61000 sq* ft, to 2,500 sq. ft.. was discussed„ A MOTION WAS MADE BY LAWSON AND SECONDED BY BAZIL TO RETAIN TM 61,000 sq. ft.-MINIMUM LOT AREA. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Crabb, Lawson, Bazil, Kaufman, Worthy, Miller,'Larkin, NOES: None, ABSENT: None. THE MOTION CARRIED, The question of reducing the 50 ft, minimum cul-de-sac radius to 35 ft, was discussed* A LOTION WAS LADE BY BAZIL AND SECONDED BY WORTHY TO KEEP THE 50 FT. MINIMUM CUL-DE-SAC RADIUS. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES; Crabb, Lawson, NOES: None, ABSENT: None, THE MOTION CARRIED, Bazil, Kaufman, Worthy, Miller, Larkin, -10►- 6 j15%65 Page No. 11 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, June 15, 1965 The question of common wall construction with no side yards on buildings that range in length from 120 ft. to 570 ft. was discussed# A MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL AND SECONDED BY LAWSON TO APPROVE COMMON WALL CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A 6 foot building separation along the side yard shall be provided for each group of four dwelling units. Said separa- tion shall be free and clear and it shall be paved with con- crete, 2. A 10 ft# separation between the garage and dwelling unit may be provided for access purposes, ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: 'Crabb, Lawson, Bazil, Kaufman, Worthy, Miller, NOES: Larkin. ABSENT:, None THE MOTION CARRIED. The question of reducing the minimum 22 ft. setback for straight -in driveways to 10 ft. was discussed, A MOTION WAS MADE BY LAWSON AND SECONDED BY BAZIL TO REQUIRE STANDARD SETBACKS FOR STRAIGHT -IN DRIVEWAYS. A MOTION WAS MADE BY CRABB TO APPROVE STRAIGHT -IN DRIVEWAYS WITH A SETBACK OF 20 FEET. THE MOTION WAS LOST FOR LACK OF A SECOND. THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS BROUGHT FORTH AGAIN BY LAWSON AND SECONDED BY BAZIL TO REQUIRE STANDARD SETBACKS FOR STRAIGHT -IN DRIVEWAYS, ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES; Crabb; Lawson, Bazil, Kaufman, Worthy. NOES: Miller, Larkin. ABSENT; None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission then took action on the following cases: A MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL AND SECONDED BY CRABB TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 5978 UNTIL JULY 7, 1965, WITH APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPER, ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Crabb, Lawson, Bazil, Kaufman, Worthy, Miller, Larkin NOES; None, ABSENT;. None. " THE MOTION CARRIED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MILLER AND SECONDED BY BAZIL TO CONTINUE.USE VARIANCE N0. 835 UNTIL JULY 7, 1965 TO ENABLE THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT REVISED PLANS, �11' 6/15/65 Page No. 12 Minutes: H.B, Planning Commission Tuesday, June 15, 1965 -ROLL CALL VOTE. AYES. Crabb, Lawson, Bazil, Kaufman, Worthy,Larkin, Miller. NOES: None, ABSENT: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. A MOTION -WAS MADE BY CRABB AND SECONDED BY BAZIL TO CONTINUE USE VARIANCE NO..,832 UNTIL JULY 70 1965, TO ENABLE THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT REVISED PLANS. ROLL - CALL VOTE: AYES Crabb, Lawson,, Bazil, Kaufman, Worthy; Miller, Larkin. NOES: None. ABSENT: None, THE MOTION CARRIED. COMMUNICATION, The Se.cretary,read a communication sub- mitted by the Orange County Planning Commission regarding Use, Variance No. 5565 which is a request. to permit a two car,garage 18 ft. in width instead of the required 20 ft. The Commission reviewed the request and it was their unanimous recommendation that -the use variance be denied because the applicantrs proposal has an inadequate°turning radius and it will result in excessive lot coverage* A MOTION WAS MADE BY CRABB AND SECONDED BY LAWSON TO INSTRUCT THE SECRETARY TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF UV #5565 FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Crabb, Lawson, Bazil, Kaufman, Worthy, Miller, Larkin. NOES: None., ABSENT; None., 'THE MOTION CARRIED. COMMUNICATION: The Secretary read a communication submitted by'the Orangge County Planning Commission regarding Conditional Permit No. 1181, which is a request to permit required parking for a proposed restaurant in the C-2 General Bus-_ iness District on adjoining lots in the R-4 Suburban Residential District, The Commission reviewed the request and it was their unanimous recommendation that CP #1181 be approved. A MOTION WAS MADE BY YA.UFMAN AND SECONDED BY CRABB TO INSTRUCT THE SECRETARY TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CP #1181. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Crabb, Lawson, Bazil, Kaufman, Worthy, Miller, Larkin. NOES: None, ABSENT: None, THE MOTION CARRIED. -12- 6/15/65 Page No..13 Minutesr H. B. Planning Commission Tuesday, June 15, 1965 COMMUNICATION: The Secretary:read a communication submitted by the Fountain Valley Planning Commission regarding -Use Variance No. 46 which is a request to permit the estab- lishment of an animal hospital in the CP District. The Commission reviewed the request and it was their unanimous recommendation that UV 46 be approved upon the following conditions; 1,. Warner Avenue shall be dedicated and improved. 2. There shall be no outside kennel runs. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MILLER AND SECONDED BY CRABB TO INSTRUCT THE SECRETARY TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE FOUNTAIN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF UV #46 UPON THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Crabb, Lawson, Bazil, Kaufman, Worthy, Miller, Larkin, NOES:- None4 ABSENT: None. THE MOTION CARRIED, OFF=STREET .PARKING STUDY. The Secretary distributed copies of an off-street parking study to the Commission. This study will be considered at the next study session;, COMMUNICATION: The Secretary read a letter submitted by John G. Schmitz? California Legislator, acknowledging receipt of a resolution by the City Planning Com:t�is­ sion supporting of AB 1150. The letter was received and ordered filed. K. At ReynolcYs Secretary THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING ADJOURNED. Henry u man Chairman -13- 6/15/65