Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/6/1982 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California December 6, 1982 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p:m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: ZONE CHANGE 984, VARIANCE 1709 - CENTURY AMERICAN CORPORATION: A request to change from the OP (Office-Professional) District to the C-P (Commercial-Professional) District and permission to provide less than the required setback in the C-P District on the southern portion of a parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and .Wanda Street. (NOTE: Negative Declaration 798 has been filed in lieu of Environmental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy explained that the applicant had requested a continuance to January 3, 1983. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master to continue Zone Change 984, Variance 1709 - Century American Corporation to January 3, 1982, as requested. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 981 - CITY OF ORANGE: MOTION CARRIED A request to rezone property from the R-M-7 (Residential Multiple- Family) District and the C-1 (Local Business) District to the M-H (Mobile Home) District on property located on the north side of Collins Avenue 251± feet east of the centerline of Tustin Street (1801 East Collins Avenue). (NOTE: Negative Declaration 796 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Norvin Lanz presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains 5.8 acres of land and is located on the north side of Collins Avenue 251± feet east of the centerline of Tustin Street (1801 East Collins Avenue). The property is developed with a 73 unit mobile home park on property zoned R-M-7 and C-1. Mr. Lanz explained that on May 18, 1982 City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 15-82 prohibiting the conversion of any mobile home park to any other use, pending completion of a study on the appropriate land use provisions which should be applied to all mobile home parks. At the same hearing, the City Council directed staff to commence public hearings to rezone existing mobile home parks to the mobile home district. He further explained that on September 30, 1982, members of the City Council and Planning Commission met in a joint study session and dis- cussed policy concepts to be used as a basis for policy actions related to mob i 1 e home parks i n the City. On October 12, 1982, the City Council referred the report of the September 30, 1982 meeting to the Housing Advisory Committee to begin the process of formulating policies for Council adoption. Policies and actions considered are Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez Planning Commission Minutes December 6 , 19 82 Page Two a. Continue the requirement that future mobile home park developments be zoned M-H. b. Continue to hold public hearings to rezone existing parks to MH District and: (1) if approved either (a) adopt an ordinance or policy that this is not a permanent action but serves to afford tenants with adequate notice (time) to address relocation requirements; ordinances to be circulated to the tenants; or, (b) include language to the effect of (a) above in Staff reports and resolutions to record the City's intent. (2) if denied, adopt a policy or resolution that any change of use (including revision to vacant land) would require preparation of a Tenant Relocation Impact Report and possibly a Tenant Relocation Plan. c. Tenant Relocation assistance plans are to continue to be established between the property owner, park tenants and, if necessary, a neutral third party; said plans to be evaluated for adequacy at public hearings. d. The City will not adopt a universal formula for relocation assistance plans as factors differ in each park. How ever, the City could adopt a policy that benefits are to be paid equally to all tenants regardless of the date they vacated the park and the City could adopt guidelines to include factors to be evaluated in formulating relocation assistance plans. Staff has reviewed this proposal and has expressed a few concerns: 1. That it appears the intent of the City Council to stabilize existing mobile home park housing in the City by rezoning them to the Mobile Home Park district may not be accomplished by this procedure. It is presumed the park owner would simultaneously request a new zone and initiate the public hearing process. How- ever, if a rezone request is not processed simultaneously with the decision to merely go out of the mobile home park business, no public review would be required while tenants were required to relocate. City staff differs in their opinion as to whether the going out of business constitutes a change of use. 2. Rezoning to mobile home district may be giving tenants of a park a false sense of security. 3. Procedural options, such as an ordinance or an overlay zone requiring an impact report upon any use change in a park, could be equally or more effective and less costly to process. Staff recommends that the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 796 be accepted. With regard to a recommendation on Zone. Change 981, field reviews reveal that the Collins Avenue access to this site is restricted by the elevation of the Collins Avenue Overpass to the Newport-Costa Mesa Freeway. Further, th e site does not enjoy access to Collins Avenue or Tustin Street through parcels to the west, as does the commercial center across the street on the south side of Collins Avenue. It is felt that the site's limited accessibility makes it unsuitable for commercial or office uses and suggests residential use as its best use. The probability of the use of the site for residential uses and the prospect that the City Council will be adopting policies i,n the future ~. that affect mobile home parks suggests three action options: Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 1982 Page Three 1. Deny Zone Change 981 without prejudice and recommend that a policy resolution be adopted that states any change of use (including reversion to vacant land) will require preparation of a Tenant Relocation Plan for City service. 2. Approve Zone Change 981 for the following reason and policies: a. Reasons: 1) The proposed zone is compatible with the surrounding uses and zones . 2) The proposed zone is consistent with the foreseeable and present use of the property. 3) The proposed zone is compatible with the City's General Plan. b. Policies: 1) Adopt a policy resolution that states that the City recognizes this zone change is not necessarily a permanent action, but serves to afford the tenants with adequate notice to address relocation require- ments upon a park owner's request to change the use; policy statement to be circulated to the tenants; and 2) Adopt a policy resolution that states that any change in use (including reversion to vacant land) will require the preparation of a Tenant Relocation Impact Report and possibly a Tenant Relocation Plan for City review; policy statement to be circulated to the tenants, or 3. Postpone action until the City Council adopts a set of policies or guidelines for the development, retention or redevelopment of mobile home parks in the City. Chairman Mickelson asked what the General Plan designation was for this area and Mr. Lanz responded that it was medium density residential and commercial, R-M-7 and C-1. Mr. Murphy further explained that Staff takes the position that the change. to MH zoning does not constitute a significant deviation to the General Plan and, therefore, doesn't require a General Plan Amendment. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. ~, Tom Caldwell, owner of the Go Forth Mobile Home Village, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, also introducing his wife, Marge, as co-owner of the park. He explained that this is a request by the City, not a request by the owners of the park. However, they are very much in favor of this zone change, as they would like to stay in the mobile home park business. Their residents have a very sizable investmen t in their mobile homes and they feel the residents should have this reassurance. Burt Rafter, resident of Go Forth Mobile Home Village, addressed the Commission, asking for clarification of the mobile home zoning which is proposed. He wondered if this is being done to make it more difficult to change the mobile home park to something else. Chairman Mickelson replied that this is pretty much what it means and he explained the situation in a little greater detail. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. 1~1oved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 796. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 1982 Page Four Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to recommend approval of Zone Change 981, for reasons as stated by Staff. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED ZONE CHANGE 985, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1243 - M/M GENE SEVERS, FAR HORIZONS MONTESSORI, ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: A request to change from the R-1-6 (Single-Family Residence) District to the OP (Office Professional) District and a request to convert a single-family residence (292 North Main Street) to an office use; rezoning involving three parcels located on the southwest corner of Main Street and Palm Avenue (264 and 292 North Main Street). (NOTE: Negative Declaration 799 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that the property consists of three parcels which total approximately 1.35 acres of land bounded by Palm Avenue, Palm Drive, and Main Street. The property is zoned R-1-6 and contains a single-family residence on the north east parcel, a vacant lot on the northwest parcel, and a single- family residence on the south parcel. He explained that the applicants request a zone change on three parcels of land from R-1-6 to 0-P, and the conversion of a single-family residence to an office use. He pointed out that on March 18, 1980 the City Council overruled the recommendation of the Planning Com- mission and denied the reclassification of the property in question from R-1-6 to 0-P. He went on to explain that on January 7, 1980 the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit to allow a private school upon the south parcel of the property in question and on July 7, 1982 the Planning Commission granted a second extension of time for the use of the conditional use permit. Mr. Murphy told the Commission that the applicants request that the single-family residence located on the northeast parcel be converted to a marriage and family counseling center with 8 parking spaces which meets City Code). No development plans have been submitted for the northwestern parcel which is currently vacant and owned by the Orange Unified School District. Mr. Murphy said that the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the general area for major commercial, public facilities, and low density residential use. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and has a few concerns: 1. The two designated parking spaces located in the garage of the marriage and family counseling center should be made available for public parking during normal business hours. 2. The applicant needs to provide the necessary street improvements along Palm Avenue. 3. In the event that any of the parcels are redeveloped to office use and particularly if parcels are combined, the proposed development plans should be reviewed to insure they are compatible with the area. Staff recommends acceptance of the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 799. u i Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 1982 Page Five Staff further recommends approval of Zone Change 985 under the intent to rezone procedure to insure compatibility of proposed development with surroundings, for four reasons: 1. That the porposal is consistent with the intent of the general plan. 2. That the property, because of the lack of residential character on the west side of Main Street, is far more appropriate for office-professional use than for residential use. 3. That the property has direct access to a primary arterial street. 4. That office-professional use will serve as a desirable and logical buffer zone between the commercial areas to the south and the residential areas to the north and west. Staff also recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1243, subject to the twelve (12) conditions listed in the Staff Report, which includes one special condition - that all parking spaces, including covered spaces, be available to the public during normal business hours. Chairman Mickelson asked if the denial of the zone change in 1980 was just for the Severs property and Mr. Murphy replied that he thought that it was for at least two of the properties in question, if not the entire package of properties, the same as are being requested at this time. Commissioner Coontz asked about the land use designation and Mr. Murphy replied that the General Plan. indicates several different designations in the area, including low density residential, public facilities for the schools, as well as major commercial to the south, which includes the fire station and commercial uses at Main and Chapman. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Gunvar Severs, 292 N. Main Street, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, explaining that in 1980, when Montessori asked fora zone change, they decided to ask for this change also. The Commission was very sympathetic to their request, but the City Council denied it because of pressure from many citizens in the area. At this time, the traffic has increased steadily and there is much traffic on Main Street, including trucks, fire trucks, buses and, since the traffic lights were installed when the street was widened, things are much worse. Also when the street was widened, their front :yard was taken away. Therefore, their front door is right at the street. The Montessori School will soon be in operation, which will bring more traffic. This area has been definitely affected by the growth and change in the city. It is no longer conducive to residents. Mrs. Severs explained that they have been trying to sell their property for three years and to no avail, because of the noise and lack of safety for children. Nora Muller, one of the owners of the Montessori School, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. She agreed with Mrs. Severs that their property is very difficult to sell as a family residence. When their school opens in January it will be almost impossible to live on that property or to sell it. She appealed to the Commission to carefully consider approving this zone change. Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 1982 Page Six Mrs. Severs again addressed the Commission and said that she knows that the Orange Unified School District had their piece of property up for sale recently. They had no takers as a residential piece of property. Paula Kauffman, a realtor who represents the Severs in trying to sell their home, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. She stated that this property is surrounded on three sides by schools, with much traffic in the area. There have been many inquiries on the property but no one wants it as a residence. Their buyer wishes to put in a family counseling center with accessible parking which will not be visible from the street. They will need no off-street parking requirements and will work closely with the Montessori School. Ms. Kauffman explained that there is a need for this type of a center in the community. She further explained that there is no longer any need for the residence on this property. The proposed use agrees with the general plan. This is a compatible adaptation in this area. Leslie Donovan, addressed the Commission, stating that she will be one of the counselors working in the proposed center.. She and her husband have a center in Los Alamitos and need to expand. Therefore, they have chosen this property as right for their councseling center. They feel that this will be a real contribution to the City of Orange and the general neighborhood. The character of the house will remain the same. There will only need to be changes in the parking arrangement. They feel that they will not be adding to the traffic burden. Commissioner Vasquez asked what ty pe of counseling they are involved in and Mrs. Donovan replied that this is a marriage, family and children counseling center. Commissioner Vasquez asked for more details regarding the child counseling and Mrs. Donovan replied that this is a private practice and the children who are being counseled are there through an infra-family situation. Diane Fedderson, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, explaining that she is the co-listing agent and realtor with Coldwell Banker. She explained that they listed the property at a price, anticipating a zone change. She felt this would be a dangerous property for a family with children. Also because of the traffic, noise and emissions, plus intrusion on their privacy, because of being so close to the street. This is not a desirable piece of property for a residence. They have had many inquiries on the property, but no one has considered it fora residence. They have had inquiries to change it to a doctor's office, or an apartment complex. She felt that the marriage counseling center would benefit the community. Art Hawkins, rbpresenting the real estate management company who represent the Do novans in this transaction, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that he is a personal friend of the Donovans, aside from being their real estate agent and knows that they run a very good establ ishment in Los Alamitos. He felt that this center will act as a good buffer between the commercial and residential zones. Their traffic pattern will be very low and this use coincides with what the general plan calls for. He felt that this is a most logical use for this particular piece of property. The area has changed and this property needs new life without making too drastic a change. Tom Rogers, 1227 W. Palm, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He lives about four doors from the property in question. He felt that the reason many of the neighbors are against this is that there is a buffer now. The Akron and Ralphs center acts as a buffer at this time. It is true that the Severs cannot sell their property for what they are asking. Residences are selling for $98,000 at this time and the Severs are asking for $150,000. He stated that Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 1982 Page Seven ~ he took exception to the statement that the whole area is a mix. This is a residential area with schools in the area. Commercial comes to Main Street and stops. This use would bring it further in- to the residential area. He did not feel that not being able to sell their property for their asking price is a valid reason for a zone change. By moving the commercial area further north, it places a burden on the residents in that area. They are happy with the commercial set the way it is, but do not want it to be encouraged to move any further north. Mr. Rogers pointed out that they realize that Montessori will create more traffic, but they are prepared for this eventuality. This was talked over when Montessori came before the Commission earlier. Frances Williams, 1226 W. Sycamore, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that she was present at the City Council meeting the last time this came up. She sees primarily a woman who is unhappy in the home she is in and wants to get out. However, there is a moral obligation to the rest of the community. She has lived in the area for 22 years and for years they have had to go long distances to find a market. They are grateful to have Ralphs in their neighborhood. They have a fire station which is helpful to their safety and not a business. They have a school and a park, They do not need a business and professional building in this area, She felt that there are many buildings available and empty in the rest of the city for this purpose. She thought that the City of Orange is a lovely city but things must be done i n moderation and changes shoul d not be made for one person',s , needs when they hurt someone else. Lois garke 2022 Spruce, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. She asked if the Commissioners had a map of the land use zone which shows a low density residential use in that entire area. The contention was made that the traffic light was put in in conjunction with the street lighting. This is not true - the traffic light has been there fora long time. She also felt that it is not true that there is a problem with children crossing a busy street to play. Ralphs does not increase traffic drastically in this area, in her opinion. In addition to the fire station, there i s a vi ctory garden and then the Montessori School. She felt that many people were not aware that it was going in, as it went in under a conditional use permit. Ms. ~ rke explained that the Severs have had this property up for sale for some time and it is quite overpriced for the surrounding residences. With reference to truck traffic, she explained that in our recently passed truck route, that part of Main Street has been removed and as soon as the signs are in place that part of Main should become quieter. She pointed out that the School District lot is 75 x 100. It was ap- parently excess property which is why it is so small. She explained the situation for crossing the street at the Sycamore light, pointing out that the children do not cross on Main Street. Regarding the marriage counseling service being a quiet business, this is an 0-P zone change and if they do not get their financing, any kind of professional business can go i n there. Ms. f~r!<e asked what the CUP allowed and was told that it is a conversion of a residence to 0-P. Commissioner Coontz stated that they have not seen the truck route plan and she pointed out that north to Orangewood is all M-1 and M-2. Ms. Darke explained how the truck route is being changed. There was a discussion between Ms.Barke and Commissioner Coontz with regard to truck movement around the city. Ms „~ rke also asked why Montessori is applying fora zone change when all they need is a conditional use permit. Chairman Mickelson explained that the Commission cannot base their decision on what will go into that place, but they must base their decision on whether it is proper to have 0-P zoning in that area. Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 1982 Page Eight Commissioner Master asked for clarification with regard to Staff's recommendation of intent to rezone for the situation as it is now, wondering how it would be handled if there was a change in use. Mr. Murphy replied that the major purpose in using the intent to rezone procedure would be to review the existing vacant parcel to insure that any physical structure being built is compatible. It would not be for the purpose of controlling the use for the district. Commissioner Coontz did not understand this statement. She wondered if it is going to apply to the vacant parcel owned by the school district, why wouldn't it also apply to the property on the corner, in the event that the house was demolished and there was a desire to build an office-professional building.. Mr. Murphy responded that the property will have to be zoned 0-P for the applicants to use the building for an office use. Staff's suggestion is to withhold zoning the property until it is used for an office use. Commissioner Hart asked if a school is allowable in an 0-P zone and was told that this is so. ~. Mr. Hawkins again addressed the Commission, explaining that when they went in fora zone change on their one piece of property they were told by Staff that they would stand a much better chance if the other two lots went with it. He believes that the victory garden is zoned 0-P and they would like to extend this down. He explained that the counseling center is a very small business. Mrs. Severs again addressed the Commission to explain that the reason they are trying to sell their home is because her husband has been transferred to Oregon and she wants to join him. Mrs. Donovan, owner of the counseling center, again addressed the Commission and explained that when they came to the Staff they were t91d there must be a zone change in order to run their business in this area. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hart pointed out that in looking at the zoning map, the applicant's agent has pointed out that the victory garden next door is zoned 0-P - was this not spot zoning? He could not quarrel with ~ this intended use. Commissioner Master wished to explore further with Staff and the Commissioner how the intent to rezone could be placed in perpetuity on the property. Commissioner Coontz agreed with this thought. Their concern was that there is a possible inequity by applying the intent to rezone on the vacant parcel, but not on the parcel with a residence on it. Why cannot that intent to rezone somehow remain in effect in perpetuity so that in the event the residence is turned down, or Montessori goes out of business and the three parcels perhaps become one. Mr. Minshew explained that there have been several instances before the Council where they have restricted the use and said that Council may rezone. Commissioner Coontz thought this had been because of a possible lack of compatibility in the area. Mr. Minshew did not under- stand why they would want this to be in perpetuity, to be used as a club. There are other ways to accomplish the same goal. Council can record an instrument so that they may .rezone property if the zone changes. Commissioner Master felt that, in general, there have been some .changes eminent along Main Street. This change might set a precedent. He felt that 0-P is appropriate here but that some form of controls should exist. Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 1982 Page Nine Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart to ` accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 799, with subsequent mitigating measures. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez h10TI0N CARRIED Chairman Mickelson thought that, because of its unique position and surroundings, the property is appropriate for Office-Professional without controls. Commissioner Hart agreed with this thinking. Chairman Mickelson felt that the 0-P is a very restrictvie zone. It is likely that a two-story building could be built there, but no more than two-story and use would be restricted. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to recommend approval of Zone Change 985, for the reasons as stated in the Staff Report. Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Vasquez Commissioner Master Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner H-art, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1243, subject to the 12 conditions listed in the Staff Report, which include one special condition. Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Vasquez Commissioner .Master Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master felt that some mitigating measures should have been built into the motions, to soften the blow to the surrounding community .and aid in the transition from one zone to another. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1240, VARIANCE 1708 - MARLENE THOMASON: A request for permission to construct a second story room addition over a relocated one car garage which exceeds the one story height restriction placed by the RCD (Overlay) District for any new con- struction; and to encroach on the side and rear setback areas on property located on the south side of Moreland Drive, approximately 158 feet east of the centerline of Shaffer Street (524 Moreland Drive). (NOTE; This project is exempt from environmental review.) It was the consensus of the Commission to forego a presentation. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Marlene Thomason, the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating that she had read the Staff Report and accepted .all conditions listed therein. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to approve Conditional Use Permit 1240 and Variance 170 8, for the reasons as set forth in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ~ ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 1982 Page Ten IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: Commissioner Master commented that he was not sure if the truck route report was ready yet, but it is obvious that Batavia is going to catch much of the traffic, He felt that people will probably be coming in on this. Commissioner Coontz wondered why they have not received this report yet, also wondering what the status is on the truck route study. Mr. Johnson explained that this study has been pretty much finalized and should have been presented to the Commission. It is not part of the General Plan and perhaps that is the reason why it was not presented. He proposed that Bernie Dennis be asked to present the truck route study report to the Commission in the near future. It was his belief that this has already been adopted by the Council. The Commissioners felt that it would be good to be informed on this, Mr. Murphy asked if this might be included in the study session on the historic element. A study session was .then set for Wednesday, December 15 at 5:00 p.m. to study the historic element and possibly the truck route study could be presented at that time. Commissioner Hart spoke a little bit about the Orange County Planning Com- missioner~ meeting which he recently attended, where they spoke on decision making. He thought it was a good idea to attend these sessions as they have good information. 60 cities were represented by Planning Commissioners from the cities and one from the county. Chairman Mickelson brought up the memorandum which he had sent to the Commissioners regarding the procedure for handling public hearings. Moved by Chairman Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to adopt this procedure and to instruct the Staff to provide a copy with each Staff Report which goes out. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez none none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m, to be reconvened to a study session on Wednesday, December 15, 7982 at 5:00 p.m. and thence to a regular meeting on Monday, December 20, 1982 at 7:30 p.m, at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.