Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/1/1985 - Minutes PC City of Orange Orange, California PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 1, 1985 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the City of Orange Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Master at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF John Lane, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secre- PRESENT: tary; Jim Reichert, Associate Planner; Genre Minshew, Assistan$i~ ~ City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Toba V. Wheeler, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE . IN RE: MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 1985 Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the minutes of March 18, 1985, be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1408 - INTERSTATE CONSOLIDATE Proposed expansion of a retail center utilizing greater than 40% compact parking spaces on 3.9 acres at the southeast corner of Tustin Street and Katella Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 968 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Lane made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report. He said there is some concern on the part of the applicant that Standard Condition No. 3, r~hich indicates that the improvements ofi the two rights-of-way will be the responsibility of the developer of the property and feel that condition should not apply in this case inasmuch as there was quite a bit of negotiation initially in relation to the Transportation System Improvement Project for Tustin and the requirements for additional rights-of-way, and the understanding was that the additional right-of-way would be given but the Standard Condition regarding improvements would not be a part of the application approval and the terms of the Transportation Systems Improvement Project would be used for the improvements at that intersection of Tustin and Katella. He said the Redevelopment Agency and the Public Works Department were involved in the discussion and the Planning Department became aware only today that the condition was inadvertently put in the Staff Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1985 ~" ~ Page Two Report and Mr. Johnson was going to discuss it with Mr. Dennis prior to this meeting. He said he believes there would be no problem in deleting Standard Condition No. 3; consequently, the Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the other 15 conditions in the Staff Report. Commissioner Greek said he would like to establish a policy to have a procedure that indicates what improvements are required and what improvements are not required, and asked if there is a policy having to do with existing improvements when additional dedication is required. Mr. Lane responded that there is an ordinance amendment being considered right now by the City Council which will allow the Public Works Department to implement the Transportation System Improvement Project for all practical purposes in terms of the intersections along Tustin Street. This will be heard at a public hearing on April 9 and, if ;it is approved, it will no longer be a matter of negotiating each item that comes up but rather there will be a plan that has been approved for the entire length of Tustin Street in terms of intersection widenings. Commissioner Mason asked how the City of Orange requirements for a maximum of 40% compact off-street parking spaces compares to other cities in the area. Mr. Lane said it is fairly consistent with other cities although there has been quite a bit of pressure over the last couple of years to increase it .and a number of applications have been received vrith such a request. He said the Planning Depart- ment has not done an in-depth study so he can`t advise as to whether or not such an increase might be feasible. Commissioner Scott questioned Standard Candi;tion No. 7 requiring~:a six~foot view-obscuring Masonry wall on the south boundary of the development,. Mr, Lane said it would be between the apartments and the commercial frontage on Katel1a Avenue. He said that's a standard requirement between commercial and residential property. Commissioner Master questioned Mr. Johnson regarding Standard Condition. No. 3. Mr. Johnson said there are several overlay types of conditions in the area--it is a Transportation System Improve- ment Project area. and it is also a redevelopment area which has. certain requirements. He said that due to the extraordinary circumstances in this case it is all right to exclude Standard Condition No. 3. Chairman Master opened the public hearing, Carol Hoffman, Hoffman Business Consultants, 2300 Michelson Drive, Irvine, representing the applicant, Interstate Consolidated Industries, owner. of the property, said that her client purchased the property with the opportunity to develop ultimately and imminently and began with the existing parking and realized the number of spaces could be increased if the amount of compact parking spaces could be increased. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1985 Page Three She said all the compact spaces will be provided on the perimeter of the parking area, which is the least used, and the .parking spaces closest to the building will be standard size. She said they had requested the deletion of Standard Condition No. 3 because their project alone would not warrant the extent of the improvements being requested and the Redevelopment Agency felt that the dedication of twelve feet and an additional two feet amounted to their fair share of assuming the requirements for traffic improvement in the area. She said they also gave attention to on-site access and through access for adjoining properties and they intend to preserve in its entirety the current easement that allows access from their property to the shopping center to the south, which they feel will help the City improve the flow of traffic along Tustin Street by keeping cars from entering that street to get from one point to the other. Commissioner Hart asked Mrs. Hoffman how the parking. spaces were calculated for the proposed building and she responded that they were calculated on the basis of mixed use retail. Zeb Pisden, P.O. Box 5160, Orange 92667, owner of the shopping center to the south of the proposed project, said the easement referred to by Mrs. Hoffman was drawn up by him and Scott Bell, the owner of the property on which this project is proposed to be built, and the purpose of the easement was not to relieve traffic congestion, as Mrs. Hoffman had indicated, and .not to allow a.treet traffic to go in front of his building, and he is very disturbed that the applicant is assuming that it is to be a thoroughfare since it was done only to a71ow access between the two properties.. He said his tenants are already unhappy about the amount of traffic that flows through there now and certainly don't want it increased. He also pointed .:out that a statement made by Mr, Lane in presenting the application, referring to an alley at the back of the-area, is incorrect, that this alley is owned by him and is a private alley which has never been dedicated and if he wishes he can block it off at any time. He said the proposed building will nmt enhance his property, rather it will block it off totally from Katella and his tenants are not happy about it. He said he has owned his property for 25 years and feels he should get some consideration and therefore this proposed project should be examined more care- fully as it not only will be detrimental to him but also does not conform with the area. He suggested that the Planning Commission should physically view the area rather than looking at ~t an-ly on paper, and evert more control over what is approved for the area so it will be something that does not adversely affect him and the tenants of his building. Chairman Master closed the public hearing. Commisioner Greek asked if any studies were made indicating how much parking would be lost if the City standards were maintained Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1985 Page Four within the required Conditional Use Permit, and if the applicant had submitted an application that met the required standards for parking br if this is the first application submitted. Mr. Johnson said he had not researched it and there was never any grading plan issued on this project since it dates back to before the City was requiring grading plans. Mr. Lane said he believes the applicant exceeded the compact 40% originally and the developer's problem is that he is very limited in what he can do in terms of the present off-street parking configuration because of leases with the present tenants of the building. He said he understands it is the developer's long-term intention to revert to approaching the Code as time permits after the expiration of .the current leases since, apparently, he doesn't like the layout of the parking lot either. Chairman Master reopened the public hearing. Mrs. Hoffman said they did an internal analysis on the site that determined parking demand relative to the uses they are proposing and, as a result, they came to the conclusion that the parking requirements of those uses: were perhaps less than the Code, and because they know th~_t shared parking allowances can be graded according to the City Code they examined that alternative and worked with Planning Department Staff as to the best way to design the ultimate parking configuration for the site. Commissioner Greek asked her how many parking spaces there would be if they met the Code, and she responded that she did not know, Commissioner Greek said he felt that the parking lot could be redesigned to meet the Code and not require a Conditional Use Permit; discussion followed on such redesign possibilities that would either meet the Code or fall only a few spaces short of Code requirements.- Mrs. Hoffman asked if that meant they would need a Variance instead of a Conditional Use Permit and, if so, would that mean different advertising and a different procedure that would delay them considerably. Mr. Minshew said if it would be only a matter of falling short by five or six spaces there wouldn't be the need for another public hearing. Mr. Lane also said he didn't think there would be the need for another hearing if a Variance were required rather than a Conditional Use Permit. He pointed out that in con- sidering a redesign of the parking lot it was necessary to take into consideration not only the width of the stalls but also the length of the stalls and the aisle width dimensions. Commissioner Hart questioned the turning radius allowance and Mr. Lane said that would also be a problem. He said he doesn't think it will be possible to design a parking lot that will be within the Code or even close to it and that a Conditional Use Permit will be required. Chairman Master declared the public hearing closed. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Greek,~that this matter be continued to the meeting of April 15 to allow Staff to reappraise the parking to ascertain whether or not the compact numbers can be reduced and the regular stalls be increased. Chairman _~~-- ... Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1985 Page Five Master asked the applicant if he would agree to a continuance and he responded that he would. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1031, TENTATIVE TRACT 10112, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1382 - RIDGEWOOD Proposed Zone Change from R-1-7 to R-1-6, and proposed 39-unit Planned Unit Development on eight acres situated along the proposed extension of Canyon View Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet east from Chapman Avenue. This item has been continued from the January 7, January Z1 and February 20 Planning Commission meetings. NOTE: Negative Declaration 941 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Lane made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report and said Staff recommends approval subject to the 18 conditions in its report. Chairman Master opened the public hearing. The applicant, Fred Armstrong, 151 Kalmus, Suite J-5, Costa Mesa, said he concurs with the Staff Report with three exceptions--Tentative Tract Conditions No. 22 and No. 23, and Police Department Condition No. 3. He said Conditions No. 22 and 23 refer to the provision of a right-of-way and improvement of Canyon View Avenue and in discussing it with the City Engineer they have agreed that a minimum of 28` would satisfy the needs of the project. Regarding the Police Department condition, he requested that the fencing along Canyon View be allowed to be of similar character to what is being requested for the park area; i.e., some combination of masonry and wrought iron. ® .Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Armstrong if he was referring to the paved surface when he used the figure of 28' either way. Mr. Armstrong replied that he wasn't sure what the ultimate wording of the two conditions should be but suggested for Condition No. 22, "prior to the approval of the final map developer sha71 submit evidence that a minimum of 28' with access westerly to meet existing Canyon View is provided," and for Condition No. 23, "shall provide a minimum of 28' pavement surface westerly to meet existing Canyon View." Commissioner Scott asked if that meant it would be just a ribbon and then access to that ribbon, and Mr. Armstrong responded in the affirmative,. Commissioner Hart asked where the ultimate improvements would come Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1985 Page Six from. Mr. Armstrong said 95% of that property abuts the Baldwin property so he feels half should be paid for by Baldwin and half by Ridgewood. Mr. Johnson said he discussed this matter just prior to this meeting and he feels that the Baldwin Company is responsible for half the improvements. He said he is concerned primarily about the Wallace property because there is no abutting usable property that could sustain the improvements of that partic- ular roadway; in other words, the remainder of the parcel after the dedication of the northerly portion of the road will not be large enough to sustain development, so he feels the Baldwin Company should make the improvements along the southerly boundary of the street and the northerly portion, which was basically the Wallace development, should be completed as part of the current project under consideration. He said if that can be accomplished with some change in the wording of the conditions, he will accept such a change. Mr. Armstrong said Ridgewood Development would be happy to assume the responsibility of assuring the full-width improvement within that portion of the Wallace property that is cut off and therefore might not be developed. Commissioner Greek asked Mr. Johnson if he is asking Ridgewood to construct full improvements--curb, gutter, sidewalk and a portion ® of the street--or just a portion of the paving. Mr. Johnson said his concern is to ensure at least two lanes of access to the tract and that the northerly side be fully improved. After some discussion it was agreed to by all parties that Condition 22 could remain the way it is and only Condition 23 need be changed. Additional dis- cussion followed on the rewording of Condition 23. Bruce Ramm, Orange Police Department, dpoke regarding Police Department Condition No. 3, and said the reason the Police Department is requesting that a six-foot masonry wall be built along the entire south property line adjacent to the north side of Canyon View Drive is to enclose the park area to prevent the public from thinking it is a public park, in order to cut down police problems with trespassers. Chairman Master asked if the Police Department would object to the applicant`s request for a ® combined masonry and wrought iron fence and he replied that it would.,~Commissioner Hart asked if he 'had discussed. the relocation of the part to another .area of the tract, per the Police Department suggestion in it's report that the location be changed, and he replied that it had been discussed but the applicant did not wish to move the location, of the park because it will provide a better entrance if left where it is planned to be. Commissioner Greek said he thought a sick-foot masonry wall would detract from the entire development and the entire neighborhood. Commissioner Mason questioned the various homes in the development that would not have 20' standard length driveways and the fact that there is not enough off-street parking provided, Mr. Armstrong Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1985 Page Seven said there would be only six homes with driveways of less than 20' and in two of the locations off-street parking in close proximity would be provided, three of them would be in a cul-de-sac with some parking at the end and across the street, and one would be a small lot on the northeast curve with two or three spaces. right across the street from it. In addition, garage door openers will be provided with the homes in an effort to encourage garage parking. Commissioner Scott asked for the length of these six driveways and Mr.. Armstrong said they would be only five feet long intentionally to prevent parking in the driveways that would hang over the sidewalk area and curbing. Chairman Master declared the public hearing closed. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Mason that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 941. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, MasonA Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Mason, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zone Change 1031 becaUSe the R-1-6 classif~cata~i i$ ~' ~~ f _ consistent with the East Orange Area P1 an with a maximum unit designation of 45. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Tentative Tract 10112 subject to the conditions in the Staff Report but with the revision of Condition: No. 23 to read: "Prior to the release of occupancy of any home., developer shall provide ultimate street improvements for the northerly one-half of Canyon View Avenue but not less than 28 feet of pavement westerly to meet existing Canyon View Avenue. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES:. None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Greek., seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1382 subject to the conditions in the Staff Report but with the revision of Police Department Condition No. 3 to read: "That a six~foot masonry and wrought iron wall be constructed along the entire south property line adjacent to the north side of Canyon View Avenue." AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1985 Page Eight IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1412 - SMITH Proposed three-story mini-warehouse facility in the C-1 zone on 2.1 acres at the northeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Wayfield Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 970 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Lane said the property owner requested continuance of the public hearing until- the meeting of April 15. Mark Murphy, archi- tect, 2750 S. Harbor Boulevard, Suite I, Santa Ana, representing the applicant, said a number of conditions on the property have come up since the time the application was submitted that make it necessary to make some minor adjustments to the project; therefore, a continuance is requested. Moved by Commissioner Scott.,~seconded by Commissioner Mason, that this matter be continued to the meeting of April 15, 1985. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1473 - ROOT Proposed office development in the M-2 zone on .35 acres on the south side of Taft Avenue, 350 feet west from Main Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 971 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Lane made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report and said Staff recommends approval subject to the 73 conditions in its report. Chairman Master opened the public hearing. Applicant Paul Root, 1630 Douglas Road., Anaheim 92806, said that originally he has planned to put a manufacturing-type use on this property; however, to be more consistent with some of the more recent developments in the area, he decided to update to an office-type building. After reading the conditions, Mr. Root said he had no problems with them. Commissioner Greek pointed out Condition No. 3 regarding the sewer and said it might be difficult to get the Sanitation District to allow tying into one of its main lines. Mr. Johnson said that condition was included prior to finding out that the Sanitation District is putting a line down Taft Avenue along the easement of this property and there will probably be no difficulty with Mr. Root being able to tie into the sewer. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1985 Page Nine Chairman Master declared the public hearing closed. Moiled by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mason „ that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 971. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Mason, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1413 for the reasons so stated. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES:. None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1030., CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1414 ~ GARDNER CHESLEY TRUST Proposed Zone Change from RM~7 to C-1 and proposed 99-unit senior citizen congregate care facility which exceeds the allowable height on 2.55 acres on the west side of Glassell Street, approximately 340 feet south from LaVeta Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 929 has been prepared for this project. Clommissioner Hart excused himself from the meeting due to conflict of interest. Mr. Lane made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report and said Staff recommends approval subject to the 21 conditions in its report. Chairman Master asked why this is a request to rezone to limited business when actually it is a resi- dential use. He said he thinks the intent is excellent but once the property is rezoned what is there that controls this new use, Mr. Lane said there will be nothing to control the use but Staff's feeling is that basically the area is commercial use now and has been for many years. He said the Code allows residential hotels ® in the commercial zone but not in the residential zone and this use is consistent with the residential hotel designation in the commercial zone. Chairman Master asked if the provided parking is consistent with the number of units. Mr. Lane said if the use were to become a traditional-type apartment complex the off- street parking ratio would be low since it is only one space for every two units. Chairman Master opened the public hearing. R~~~];~:1Fairbairn, representing Gardner Chesley Trust, owners of the property, and Barbara Resnick, the developer, said the Gardner Ches1ey Trust also owns the property on ~hrh the Chinese restaurant is located, adjacent to the property proposed to be developed in this project, Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1985 Page Ten and approval of the lot line set forth in Condition No. 4 is now being reviewed because it is all one piece of property. He also questioned Condition No. 14 regarding the six-.foot view-obscuring masonry wall along the west property line, and said the property to the west is the Holy Family School and Church grounds and there is an existing chain link fence separating the two properties which provides a nice visual access, so in addition to the expense they hate to see a solid block wall erected there and would appreciate it if this condition could be waived. Barbara Resnick, P.O. Box 1188, Florence, Oregon,r~deVeloper of the proposed care facility, said it will be called the Park Plaza Retirement Hotel and it is planned to be an example of the highest state of the art for retirement hotels. John Reinis, 130 East River, said he has lived there for 20 years and objects to the increasing traffic in the area which will be further aggravated by the proposed project. He said he is afraid of the possibility of other high-rise buildings if the area is zoned for business usage, and he would not object if the building were to be two stories rather than three. Bob Johnson, 126 East River, a1 so objected to the traffic in the area due to the church and .the restaurant and feels the proposed development will make it worse. He said concern should be given to the logistics of parking. so that the parking spaces at the proposed care facility might be increased in number. Keller Watson, 655 South Glassell, owner of the property across the street from the proposed prvjec~, spoke in favor of the project and said he felt the planned amount of parking spaces would be adequate since the residents of the care facility. would, for the most part, not own automobiles. He suggested the need for making some rearrangement of the pedestrian crosswalk which now has a blinking yellow light, and suggested moving it to the location of the traffic signal. Ms. Resnick said the proposed building will be less than 35' high ® and will be well-designed in Spanish-type architecture to blend in with the park buildings and the church facility. She referred to a study made of six retirement hotels in Los Angeles similar to the proposed project and said that 25-33% of the total population is all that is required for total parking spaces whereas this project will be providing 50%. In addition, one or two vans will be provided for transporting the occupants of the care facility, most of whom will have given up driving. She said it will not be a low-cost, low-income hotel, that the target is middle-income older adults. Chairman Master closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mason asked Staff's reason for requiring the six-foot Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1985 Page Eleven view-obscuring wall. Mr. Lane said it had been because of the commercial/residential interface but since there is a chain link fence there and given the nature of the use, he thinks the visi- bility and accessability of the activities at the church and school will probably be positive rather than negative for the residents of the care facility. Chairman Master asked if Staff had any problem with the lot line relocation. Mr. Johnson said he thinks that the way the buildings are laid out the lot line must be obliterated in order to satisfy the building code require- ments. He said it will be a simple procedure to move it northerly to a point where it will be a demarcation line. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board irm file Negative Declaration 929.. ® AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Mason, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that the Planning Commission recommend approval from RM-7 to C-1 as it is consistent with the recently approved amendment to the City of Orange General Plan - Land Use Element. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Mason, Scott NOES:. None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart POTION CARRIED AYES: NOES: ABSENT:. IN RE: Moved by Commissioner Mason, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1414 subject to both Special and Standard Conditions in the Staff Report, but with the elimination of Standard Condition No. 14. Commissioners Master, None Commissioner Hart Greek, Mason, Scott MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1415 -HOWARD F. THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES Proposed office use in the M-2 Zone on 6.7 acres at the southeast corner of Taft and Batavia. NOTE: Negative Declaration 972 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Lane made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report and said Staff recommends approval subject to the twelve conditions in its report and the six conditions in the memo received from the Fire Department. ~ ~ Y Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1985 Page Twelve Chairman Master opened the public hearing. Howard F. Thompson, 16520 Aston Street, Irvine, representing the owners of the prop- erty „ said he has no objections to the conditions but requested clarification of Condition No. 9 which states that perimeter fencing or wall concept should be uniform in design and be approved by the Design Review Board. He said they did not plan to build a fence and wondered if this condition required them to build a fence or merely meant that if a fence was built it would have to conform to the requirements of the condition. Mr. Lane said a fence is not required and Condition No. 9 could be elim- inated. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review to file Negative Declaration 972. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES:. None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Mason, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1415 for the reasons so stated, but with the elimination of Star9d~rdifCondi- tion No. 9. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Mason, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Master asked if there should be a second attempt at a Study Session now that the Adair design book had been received or if the applicant should be allowed to proceed with an appli- cation for a General Plan Amendment. Mr. Lane suggested allowing Staff to review the design book and prepare a report for the Planning Commission. Mr. Reichert pointed out that the General Plan Amendment would cover only a portion of the property not the entire plan .contained in the design book. Chairman Master requested that Staff review the design book and report on it by April 15, 1985. fi:N RE:ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. to reconvent to a regular meeting on Monday,, April 15, 1985., at 7:30 p.m..,'at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 E,,as~'Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. ~. ~• s .w. ~r s ~~