Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California October 19, 1981 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Vice-Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Plaster, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bob Beardsley, Assistant City Engineer; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 5, 1981 Commissioner Coontz asked for a correction to the minutes on page 17, paragraph 3 - "... and was not placed on the property" add, "at a later date"... - delete "back to the Staff", rest of sentence to read: "but was part of the original zoning." That part of sentence now to read: "... and was not placed on the property at a later date, but was part of the original zoning." Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to approve the mi nutes of October 5, 1981 , as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: REQUEST TO ALLOW A TWELVE-MONTH EXTENSION OF TIME FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1029 (TWO-STORY IN RCD OVERLAY DISTRICT - 383 S. GRAND STREET). REQUEST TO ALLOW A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF TIME FOR IMPLEMEMTATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1027 AND VARIANCE 1574 (RESIDENCE IN C-1 ZONE ABOVE MARKET - SOUTH SIDE OF PALM, EAST OF CLEVELAND.) REQUEST FOR FINDING THAT REVISED PLANS FOR MEDICAL OFFICE ON SOUTH SIDE OF LA VETA AVENUE, AT LEMON IS ACCEPTABLE UNDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1114. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to accept the three items as shown on the Consent Calendar. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1148 - JENNINGS/HALDERMAN/HOOD: Request to allow conversion of an existing office building to condominiums for property located on the south side of Chapman Avenue, west of Harwood Avenue. (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review.) (Continued from meeting of September 21, 1981. ) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to allow conversion of an existing office building to condominiums. The property contains .49 acre of land and is located on the south side of Chapman Avenue, approximately 208.44 feet west of Harwood Street. The property is zoned 0-P and contains an office building presently being completed. Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1981 Page Two Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant is reques ti ng approval of a conditional use permit to allow creation of air space condominium office units . A maxi mum of eight units i s planned. I t was pointed out that i t was determined i n a meeting between the subdivision engineer and City Attorney that i n cases of the creation of commercial and industrial condominiums where no public improvements are required, a tentative parcel map would generally not be required. This would be a change from present policy but is felt to be con- sistent with state law. Mr. Murphy explained that the site plan, which was ministerially approved by the Staff and Design Review Board as an office building, would remain unchanged. All applicable development standards are complied with. Generally, 9,749 square feet of floor area are pro- posed within a two-story building and 40 parking spaces are proposed. The owner of the duplex abutti ng the subject property to the East (Northerly) previously addressed the City Council , stating h i s desire to have, as a condition of development, the applicant remove the existing ten foot high wire fence (overgrown with vegetation). Staff could not administratively require this since both properties are zoned 0-P and the code does not address the matter. The City Counci 1 , however, directed the Staff to request the applicant to remove the existing fence. Staff has reviewed the proposal and found that it was technically acceptable. It was suggested, however, that if the existing fence is removed, a buffer should be provided between the subject property and dupl ex i n the form of a block wall . Staff feels that this request is a relatively routine one which pro- poses no physical alterations to that already administratively approved. Approval is, therefore, recommended, subject to two conditions: 1. That the existing wire fence along the southerly portion of the east property line be removed and replaced with a six foot high block wall . 2. That the CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney . Mr. Mi nshew explained, with regard to the wire fence, that the City Attorney had been instructed by the City Counci 1 to negoti ate to have the fence removed. To date this has not been successful . Mr. Mi nshew had written a letter to the applicant, at one point in the process, that in his view it was no longer a legitimate non-conforming use and that the fence shoul d come down. In order to arrive at that con- clusion, he had to interpret the term "building" to mean "structure". A fence is included as a structure. The original purpose of the fence had been for a tennis court and most of the fence has since been removed. What is left is now used as a trellis. This is at least 10 feet high and currently serves as the boundary fence between two parcels. This matter was recently discussed between the attorney for the appl icant and Mayor Pro Tem Smith and they hope to come to some understanding. Upon questioni ng by Commissioner Coontz with regard to conditioning for a block wall, Mr. Minshew replied that a conditional use permit i s a di screti onary act and a condition can be placed upon i t. Vice-Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes October 19 , 1981 Page Three Neither the applicant, nor anyone representing them,was attending the hearing to address the Commission. Charles Miles, 1330 Dana Place, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He stated that he had written a letter to the City Council, explaining his position regarding the fence. He has no argument as far as the building is concerned. However, he is arguing against the adamant position the owners of the fence have taken. In order to be harmonious in this matter, he agreed that if the fence could be cut from 10 feet to 6 feet or 6'6" it would not become a problem keeping the vines which grow on the fence trimmed. The vines grow wildly and reach over to his duplex next door, creating a problem. He received a letter from Mr. Minshew, referring to the letter which he had written to Mrs. Goldberg, who was the developer at that time. It is his understanding that the property has been sold since then. Mr. Miles then read a portion of Mr. Minshew's letter, which stated that this fence is illegal and should be removed as soon as possible, to avoid continuous violation of the building code. Mr. Mi 1 es then explained that on February 26th he received another correspondence from Mr. Minshew which he read. This letter was in response to a letter which Mrs. Goldberg had written to Mr. Minshew. In this 1 etter, he stated that as he understood i t, Mrs . Goldberg was telling him that at the time the fence was erected, there was no building permit required and, therefore, it should be allowed to re- mai n as a non-conformi ng use indefinitely . Mr. Minshew explained to her that a structure illegally erected may continue as a non-conforming use for so long as there are no structural alterations. However, he pointed out that the fence appears to have been significantly altered. Mr. Miles then pointed out that the fence has been upgraded with steel poles put i n to rei nforce i t. He again explained that he has no argument with the building. He is only concerned with the height of the fence. He would like to see a fence of about six feet in height, as this would be easy to maintain. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that there is no block wall required by ordinance in the 0-P zoning, except that there is residential use there. However, the suggestion was made by Staff because the duplexes are not being used for Office-Professional . There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Vice-Chairman closed the public hearing, There was discussion among the Commissioners with regard to .the question of a block wall. Commissioner Hart pointed out that the fence which is th ere now certainly does not 1 ook very good. It was pointed out that since a block wall is not required, it is an extra expense to put this up. Perhaps the fence in question could be re- pl aced with another chain 1 i nk fence six feet i n height. The problem seems to be that this area was residential and is now zoned 0-P. However, not every building in that area is professional. Some are still residential. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1148, subject to the recommendations as shown by Staff, except that Condition #1 should be changed to read that the existi ng wire fence shall be cut down to a typical height of six feet. Commissioner Coontz ques ti oned that thi s might cause more di ffi cul ti es for the applicant. Commissioner Hart did not see a problem with this. Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1981 Page Four Mr. Miles asked to address the Commission again and the public hearing was reopened so that he might do so. He stated that he thought the six feet should be measured from the elevation of Moreland Drive. When they built the building, their pad was two feet higher than his ground level. Commissioner Hart explained that in calculating fence heigh is within the City, it is always measured from the high side. The Vice Chairman again closed the public hearing. Commissioners then voted on the motion on the floor. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Coontz ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Coontz explained that she voted no because if we are discussing a fence at all , we should require something subs tanti al and it should not b e a problem for long term maintenance. IN RE: NEW H EARINGS: GLASSELL STREET WIDENING AND RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN WALNUT AVENUE AND KATELLA AVENUE. (Note: A Negati ve Decl arati on has been prepared i n 1 i eu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Gary Johnson presented this project to the Commission, with the aid of Bob Beardsley. Mr. Johnson explained that notices had been sent out to al l owners and residents residing along Glass ell . He pointed out that a Negative Declaration has also been prepared. He explained that this project stems from O1 d Towne del iberations which have been studied for the past two years. The Old Towne area is bounded by Walnut on the north, La Veta on the south, Cambridge on the east and Batavia on the west. Glass ell is one of the spoke streets that leads into the Old Towne area. This project would lead into the Old Towne core, which is a one square mile area. Mr. Johnson explained that this is the first phase of the Old Towne circulation pattern. It is in- tended to go along with the widening of Chapman Avenue, which will take place next spring . Some of the funds to do this project wi 11 come from the Federal Aid Urban Program, Mr. Johnson explained that a proposal has been prepared with three alternatives for widening the street. Al ternative "A" would necessitate acquisi tion of 10 feet each side of Glass ell Street, resul ti ng i n an 86' wide street with two full -width s i dewa 1 ks ; two 8' wide parking 1 anes ; four 11 ' wide travel 1 anes ; and one 10' wide continuous left-turn lane. Right-of-way would be re- quired from 55 parcels and three structures would be physically impacted by the widening. With traffic signal relocation work, pave- ment rehabilitation between Walnut and Katella, and installation of a storm drain between Walnut and Mayfair, the cost estimate for Al terna to ,"A" i s $1 .4 mi 11 i on . Alternate "B" would limit immediate right-of-way acquisition to the west side of Glass ell Street. A second phase at an undetermined future date would allow completion of the widening in conformance with Alternate "A" by acquiring 10 feet along the east side of Glass ell . P1 anni ng Commission Mi nutes October 19, 1981 Page Five Immediate improvements under this option would leave the easterly curb and sidewalk unaffected. The westerly curb would be moved 13 feet closer to the adjacent structures and afull -width (8' ) sidewalk would be constructed on the west side. The features of the street under Alternate "B" would include 8' parking lanes on each side of Glassell Street, two15.5'travel lanes and one 10' continuous 1 eft-turn 1 ane. In effect, this would be very similar to the existi ng street except that wi th the Conti nuous turn lane, the vehicular capacity and safety of Glassell Street should i ncrease substantially. Alternate "B" necessitates immediate acquisition of rights-of-way from 22 parcels; two structures would be impacted by the widening. With similar pavement rehabilitation, signal relocation, and storm drain installation work, as in Alternate "A", this project is estimated to cost $600 , 000 . Alternate "C" offers a maximized use of the street right-of-way to provide ul ti mate vehicular capacity with minimum ri gh t-of-way needs . Wi th this option, 10' of property would be acquired from 22 parcel s along the west side of Glassell (as i n Al ternate "B ") ; however, i t would be unnecessary to widen the east side in the future. By eliminating street parki ng and reducing the sidewalks to widths of 6 feet, four full travel lanes and a continuous left-turn lane can be accommodated. Alternate "C" would provide for street rehabilitation, signal reloca- tion, storm drain construction, and modifications to the two impacted structures on the west side of Glassell . A total cost of $900,000 is estimated for this alternative. Mr. Johnson pointed out that right now the street is carrying ap- proximately 11 ,000 cars a day with numerous accidents over the last few years . Many of these acci dents could be prevented by the wi deni ng of this road. The capaci ty wi 11 be improved from 11 ,000 to a vol ume of perhaps 16-17,000 cars per day. Mr. Johnson al so pointed out that i f Al ternate "B" were used, this would be the first phase. Slides were shown of the east and west sides of Glassell Street, from Walnut to Collins , with an expl anati on by Bob Beardsley as to what is planned for each area. Commissioner Coontz asked what the purpose is of widening the west side of the street. Mr. Beardsley replied that there are fewer trees and the number of parcels is less along the west side. Commissioner Master wondered if there is another alternative - that of banning all parking along Glassell. Mr. Johnson expl ai ned that i t was felt that elimination of parking was a vol ati 1 e subject. Because of the fact that parking is being utilized all along the street, eliminating parking is something they do not wish to promote at this time. Mr. Johnson stated that, as stated in the report, recommendation is for Alternate "B ", which Staff feels i s most cost effective and meets many of the problems which they are facing. Alternate "A" is the ultimate widening. They see the needs today for Alternate "B". They can defer the ultimate widening until they have the volume to justify it. Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1981 Page Si x Commissioner Hart asked if the big reason for not going to Alternate "A" is lack of money. The answer was in the affirmative. Com- missioner Hart pointed out that if this is postponed a few years down the road, costs will be even higher than today. He also questioned with regard to placing utilities underground. Mr. Johnson explained that i t i s not planned under Al ternates "B" or "C" to place the utilities underground. The poles will merely be moved back when the street is widened. Commissioner Hart felt that if underground utilities were ever going to b e put in, now would be the logical time to do this, h1r. Johnson stated that if the money was there th ey would 1 i ke to include this i n the project. However, there is no money for that at this point i n time. Commissioner Master felt that the Commission owes the City Council a "shopping list" of alternatives, looking at today's costs and what the same thing will cost five years from now. It might help them to prioritize what things need to b e done. Commissioner Master stated that it was not clear to him that, when we are asking for dedication of the property, who covers the cost beyond this, such as landscaping, sidewalks, etc. Mr. Johnson re- pl i ed that the Ci ty i s proposing to cover the cost of remodeling buildings, etc. They are not le~?allly bound to do this, b'ut~ i,t wbuld be rather hard for the property owners to take i f the City did not help them, Regarding landscaping, sprinklers, relocation, etc. - the City would try to provide whatever is there now. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Linda Falkner, 531 N. Glassell, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that this is a very emotional subject. Orange is a very little city and this is why they live here. They do not want to see their streets widened and changed around. She did not purchase property where she did to have a 64' wide street. She asked whether the entire Old Towne project had been approved. If it has not, and we are attempti ng to start here, then i t is inappropriate to tal k about this now. Regarding traffic studies and the statement made of 20 accidents in three years, she wanted to know how this relates to other areas of the city; whether there were any injuries or fatalities ; and thirdly, why would i t not be appropriate, rather than wi deni ng the entire street, to simply provide a left turn pocket where there is a corner, with no parking. Mr. Johnson replied that this is not an O1 d Towne project. However, the concept for traffic circulation, as it affects the Old Towne area, calls for improvement of spoke streets to the outer loop. All outer loop streets will eventually be widened. The intent is to provide a more viable route around the plaza. There are traffic problems in the plaza area. Therefore, the study was done to improve traffic in the downtown area, which incorporates up to Walnut. This has nothing to do with the Old Towne Committee. Ms. Falkner stated that, if you are not going to widen the areas from Walnut to the Circle, nothing will be improved. There will still be a bottl eneck at the Circl e and the people at the outer edge will have all of the traffic. She explained that the bottlenecks are between Walnut and the Circle. From Walnut to Collins is a free flowing corridor. Mr. Johnson replied that obviously the core stody and the circulation for the Old Towne area will happen over many years. It will not be decided by one project. By the widening of which they are speaking, they wi 11 reduce the accidents . This project i s the begi nni ng of trying to improve the traffic flow. Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1981 Page Seven Ms. Falkner pointed out that she had asked specific questions with regard to the number of accidents and fatalities tied to them. Mr. Beardsley expl ai ned that they have a study and there was one fatality in the 20 accidents mentioned. This was not counted as a preventable accident. There have been three injury accidents and the rest were all property damage only. Mr. Beardsley then explained that, with regard to how this measures up with the other areas of the city, he did not have this information but he explained that the State does give out information of this type. He didn't have i t at this time, however. With regard to Ms . Fal kner's thi rd question wi th regard to why we need continuous left turn lanes, it was explained that the placement of left turn pockets is necessary continuously rather than just a t intersections because of the driveways all along the street. It would probably be an unsafe design to only widen at intersecti ons . Ms. Falkner wondered if what the citizens want makes any difference as to what will be done here. She is disturbed because she feels as though this is proposed as an accomplished fact. Commissioner Coontz explained that the Commissioners never make up their minds before a public hearing. She further explained what they must do to prepare for such a decision. She stated that this is a democratic process and, after all input, they may or may not make a decision to recommend a widening project. This could be continued or sent to the City Counci 1 for denial , approval or further study . Mr. Beardsley stated that the purpose of this first heari ng is to take the comments of the public for study. Marian Adlesi ch, 528 N. G1 assell , Orange, addressed the Commission, pointing out that they are proposing on Alternate "B" to take 35 feet on the west side of Glassell . If they take 35 feet of someone's property, where will they park? You must assume that they have somewhere off the street to park. Thirty-five feet is a lot to take. She asked i f you would buil d a house wi thout a ki tchen or bathroom. The street should not be wi dened unl ess we can afford to improve i t compl etel y, not just halfway. If you figure 11 ,000 cars a day on a street, wi th 21 accidents i n the area, this is a very small percentage of accidents for that much traffic. If you bring this up to 16,000 cars, with the same number of people living there, she imagined that there would be more accidents . She wanted to know the percentage of accidents on Chapman and Katella. Mr. Johnson explained that they will not be taking 35 feet of anyone's property. Ten feet is the maximum. The back of the sidewalk would be 10 feet further back from where i t is now. The tel ephone poles would be placed in back of the new curb. Jim Bacin, 291 Spinnaker, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that h e travels this area frequently, especially on Walnut. Part of the feasibility of this project is to divert traffic onto Walnut. He pointed out the obvious narrowing as you reach Walnut and the way the traffic signals would be set up to divert the traffic sideways. He asked if there would be other nominal incentives, such as a sign saying "through" or "bypass" traffic. He pointed out that Walnut is not a very large street as it is now. West of Glassell it is a residential area with railroad tracks about three blocks west of Glassell . East of Glassell there is a lot of pedestrian traffic. To have Walnut as part of the outside loop will be causing more accidents . He would hope for signs i n this area to help divert the traffic flow. Mr. Johnson explained that there would be signs placed at some point i n time. Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1981 Page Eight C•~ Charl es Miles , 1330 stati ng that he di d therefore, he coin d at 870 N. Glassell. Dana Place, Orange, addressed the Commission, not receive a notice in regard to this project, not speak to how it will affect his property Ernie Jaeckel, 545 N. Glassell, Orange, addressed the Commission, asking questions about the cost of the project. He wondered if the figures quoted include the total project or i s i t just the ci ty's half. Will the State add money to this? Mr. Johnson replied that the figures on the board are the total cost of Phase I. The funds they receive from the County will be half of that figure. Mr. Jaeckel did not see how you can make these extensive kinds of improvements for this relatively small amount of money. He asked about reimbursement for the 10 feet taken away as the right-of-way, Is the amount quoted square feet or linear feet? Mr. Johnson replied that he believed that, for es ti mating purposes they have included $10/sq. ft. Then there are appraisal costs and other costs involved. An independent appraiser is hired and he takes many things into con- sideration, It is a very complicated procedure, not something where they come out and try to "horsetrade". This is included in the cost of the total inprovement. Commissioner Master asked about the fact that Mr. Jaeckel 's property already has the right-of-way dedicated, Mr. Jaeckel explained the circumstances concerni ng his dedication and asked where he stands now wi th the Ci ty. Mr. Johnson explained what the requirements are i n these cases where right-of-way has already been dedicated. The City takes the dedication and the bond which is posted as people come in for improvements to their properties and then the City uses the bond money for a project such as this one. Mr. Jaeckel asked if he has any recourse in getting back any of the money which he had to pay out for the bond, Mr. Johnson then explained the details of this kind of a situation to him, Les Nesbitt, owner of two parcels on the west side of Glassell - 576-588 N. Glassell, addressed the Commission, stating that he is un- willing to have 10 feet of his property taken without a fight. He sees what the City is trying to do, However, he feels they are putting the cart before the horse. He feels that what they are attempting to do is create a worse bottl eneck than wwhat i s flowing into Orange now. Once you get this tremendous flow of traffic into the center of Orange, what can be done when it gets to Walnut? He explained that he travels Walnut regularly and knows the traffic problems there. Until they take care of the problem at Walnut, there is a larger problem created by doing what is proposed here. If their voices have any meaning, or are not heard, then he hopes that the decision makers will not take the short sighted view and thus do the whole thing instead of half a project. His suggestion was to make the traffic circle first at Walnut. In other words, widen Walnut before taking on this project. Commissioner Coontz commented to Commissioner Master that one of the things they should look at is the core study itself and what the relationship is between the core study and the widening of Glassell , Commissioner Master stated that the designation of streets is something that comes about via public process on their General Plan Circulation Element, which is adopted as the result of public hearings. He pointed out that Glassell, via public hearings and decisions made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, has been designated as a primary arterial highway. This just did not come about th rough a S taff decision, The process has been going on for a long time, possibly for the past five or ten years. This is not something that just came about all of a sudden. Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1981 Page Nine Elmer Hol thus , 192 N. Cambri dge, Orange, addressed the Commission on behalf of the Christian Temporary Housing Facility at 704 N. Glassell. Mr. Hol thus explained that thei r organization received Condi tional Use Permit 975, adopted by the Planning Commission on August 6, 1979. This permit included dedication of frontage subject to a letter of encroach- ment, which letter has not been received to date. The dedication was for the purpose of permitting the eventual widening of Glassell Street. Mr. Hol th us pointed out that the plans submitted at the time showed that the primary use of that part of the bui 1 di ng included i n the dedication (approximately five feet) would be as a kitchen. The plans were later refi ned to i ncl ude the remaining part of this east end as a ki tchen, because of the greater size of needed commercial -grade ki tchen equi pment. The kitchen was planned for i n this 1 ocation for several reasons 1 . It was the most rational use of space, as worked out i n plans developed by a senior architect of Mission Viejo Company. 2. Informed advice at that time was unanimous in concluding tha t a po tenti al wi deni ng of Glassell Street was a possibility only far in the future. This east end of the facility has been completely remodel ed i n accord- ance with the plans and the intended use of the structure. In 1980, the Christian Temporary Housi ng Faci 1 i ty received $20,000 from the Ci ty of Orange i n Federal Revenue-Shari ng funds with the sti pulation that the money be used to provide equipment and furnishings to complete the kitchen and adjacent dini ng room. The funds have been so used. The total space of the Christian Temporary Housing Facil i ty is used for a specific purpose. Reducing the size of the building woud. in actuality, eliminate the entire kitchen from use. I t would be di ffi cul t to replan a functional use for the remaining part of that room. There is no space on the property to add a new kitchen. Therefore, the Christian Temporary Housing Facility would face grave problems of use of the entire faci 1 i ty i f al l the 1 and included i n the dedication were taken over by the City at this time. Thei r first consi derati on would be how they would disband their organization i f they have to give up their kitchen. Mr, Holthus referred to his letter, which was handed to the Commission. Mr. Hol thus indicated his concern that the City wants to widen the street by 12 feet plus another five feet for the sidewalk, thus taking a total of 21 feet of his organization's property. Mr. Johnson explained that only 10 feet additional was necessary to widen the street and move back the sidewalk. Commissioner Coontz asked questions with regard to the $20,000 in Revenue Sharing funds, stating that she thought it had cost more than that. Mr. Holthus explained that the total was probably $30-35,000. Commissioner Coontz remembered that, at the Revenue Sharing public hearing, it was stated that the widening of Glassell was something in the distant future, so they went ahead with their plans to allocate funds to the Christian Temporary Housing FAcility. It was pointed out that there was con- siderable discussion about the location of this project. Commissioner Coontz asked Mr. Johnson if the priorities have changed and he replied that they probably have changed since the Revenue Sharing issue was discussed. Commissioner Coontz wondered if the fact that the Serrano extension project did not get constructed changed the plans for Glassell . Mr. Johnson did not feel that i t had anything to do wi th this, as the Serrano project is still alive. The money has not been lost yet. He explained that it is still an approved project, but the City has to find some addi tional money somewhere to bui 1 d the roadway. Concerning Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1981 Page Ten the development of the housing project being discussed, Mr. Johnson explained that dedication of an alternate right-of-way is the normal requirement if there is going to be a redevelopment of a building into a use wi th another purpose. Addi ti onally, they normally require that the building be moved back to put it outside of the right-of-way. At the Staff level, they did not feel that immediately moving the building was realistic at that time, since this project was in the future. Under normal circumstances, when the project becomes funded, the City would revamp the building at its cost. Mr. Hol thus explai ned that i t would take some serious study on the part of architects to decide whether they could still function with the building cut off. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the sidewalk could be reduced in that area, but the result would be a three-foot sidewalk, which is quite narrow. It would be very marginal from a functional and safety standpoint. Mr. Hol thus stated that, referri ng to the Staff's concern for the existing oak tree on the project, he would like to see similar concern for the Christian Temporary Housing Facility's saving of people. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the City's Master Plan right now shows an 86 foot right-of-way and a si mi 1 ar street width south of Walnut to what they want to create here. Verdon Craig, 825 E. Barkley, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that she is appalled at this whole project and the proposed project for the future. You are taki ng a very nice city and ri ght i n the middl e you are putting major highways through primary residential areas. This whole project will cut through primary residential communities. If notices were sent to all of the people in the surrounding areas, she feels there would be a mass revolt. The only street she can see which would make sense to use as a primary artery would be Batavia, since i t has very little adjacent residential use. Gary Altheide, 775 N. Glassell, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he does not like Glassell as it is. Adding 3 or 4 noise decibels to what is already there will just compound the problem. There is a high street crown where he lives and, when it rains, there is a problem. He wondered if something will be done during this project. Mr. Johnson replied that they are aware of this problem and by widening the street, this will be reduced. He further explained that Glassell is an inter- ceptor for water and there might be a need for a short reach of storm drain to be placed. However, he did not believe there would be an extensive storm drain system. Mr. Altheide wondered if there is a proposed time element for the project to begin. Mr. Johnson replied that the normal schedule, if this 'is submitted to the County for approval , the County would have to review i t to see how i t compares to other projects i n the County. It must have a high priority or it will not be funded at all. If the City receives the funding, they would acquire the right-of-way in Fiscal Year 1982-83. Construction would still be at least a year and a half away. Mr. Altheide commented that the increased traffic will make this area 1 ess desirable for residential uses . He wondered i f th i s would mean a change in zoning. Mr. Johnson replied that the planners will be addressing these problems i n the future. However, the increase i n traffic vol ume would not be considered cause to change the zoni ng on the street. C~ Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1981 Page Eleven Steve Craig, 768 N. Glassell, Orange, addressed the Commission, asking who is actually paying for this project. Mr. Johnson answered that the costs will be split equally with the County of Orange. Both shares would be fi nanced by State gas tax revenues which the City and County receive from the sale of gasoline. Mr. Craig wondered who benefits from this project. Mr. Johnson replied that the motori ng public benefits . The intent is to provide safety for the adjacent property owners who are trying to get in and out of their driveways . The acci dent history is typically one of rear end acci dents occasioned by not having a protected lane to pull out of the way of through traffic. Mr. Craig was concerned by the number of 11,000 cars per day. If this traffic is increased he will have even more difficulty backing out of his driveway onto Glassell. Mr. Johnson replied that traffic will in- crease whether there is a 1 eft turn pocket or not. By havi ng a pl ace for cars to merge into and out of driveways, traffic will go at a safer pace. ~" Mr. Craig stated that he questioned whether, when the traffic is in- creased, there will be 1 ess acci dents . He did not see this happeni ng. He spoke to the noise level on Glassell and did not feel that they need more noise. He explained that he chose Orange for its small town quality. He sees the wi deni ng of Glassell as changing that quality. He suggested that Alternative "D" be proposed -not doing the project. Ken Carpenter, 874 N. Cambridge, Orange, addressed the Commission, stati ng that he felt that we always seem to be encouraging more traffic. Why can't we slow the traffic down and discourage traffic? He wondered if a sample has ever been taken to find out if people travel through town to go to other ci ties . Do we need to 1 et people go through our town? He is reluctant to see change here. Mr. Johnson replied that there have been some traffic sampl es taken and there are many people who come through the city going from Santa Ana to Anaheim. The greatest amount of people are traveling through the city, not into the center of the ci ty . People are el ecti ng to use local streets rather than the freeways because the freeways are crowded. There are people who do not want to travel the freeways so they would use our 1 ocal streets . Mr. Carpenter stated that he would like to see a copy of the Master Plan and wondered where this could be acquired. Mr. Johnson told him that he would make sure that he got a copy. Mr. Carpenter could not understand why we must feel responsible for getting people through our city. If we widen the street, it encourages more people to come off of the freeway. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the desire is there regardless of whether we widen the road or not. In his opening remarks, he tried to make it clear that they are trying to make the road more safe. The primary purpose is not to accommodate 20,000 cars a day. It is being done primarily for safety purposes. Mr. Carpenter asked if more cars would cause more accidents. Mr. Johnson replied that we are talking about preventable acci dents . They know from experience that the preventable accidents will be reduced. Ms. Falkner again addressed the Commission, wanting to know, if it is possible, that if we are going to increase traffic that people on Walnut and other streets to be affected by this project will be notified so that they can participate i n these hearings . They wi 11 eventually be affected by this project so they should have input. She pointed out that, on Wal nut, there are three schools indirectly affected by thi s pro j ect - a n el ementary school , a h i gh school and a col l ege . There wi 11 Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1981 Page .Twelve C~ be small children walking in these areas where there will be increased traffic. This is a charming city and she is appalled at what is being proposed, These other people should be involved in these hearings. Mr. Nesbitt stated that he had taken a "straw vote" here and there is no one in favor of this project at the hearing. Jess Parker, 758 N. Glass ell , Orange, addressed the Commission, stati ng that, as he saw i t, by moving more traffic down that street and taking care of preventable accidents, spending a large amount of money to widen the street, we might be just opening up the way for more danger- ous accidents to occur. For the amount of money we are talking about, perhaps we should i nject that into the Police Department for enforcement of traffic 1 aws i n that area. Perhaps th i s would h el p to keep our city a small rural atmosphere. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Vice-Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Coontz felt that she would 1 ike to be abl e to study some of the materials which make up the background of this project. She felt that she is not ready to make a decision at this time. Commissioner Vasquez was concerned about widening Walnut. He thought that there is a lack of communication here with regard to the Old Towne concept, etc. Commissioner Coontz felt that it was important to study the other studies which have been made. Commissioner Vasquez commented that he also shares the concerns which have been expressed here tonight. He would support any decision to postpone action on this issue because there are many areas which must be discussed and questions which must be answered. Commissioner Coontz was concerned about the nature of the development along Glass ell. She proposed a study session on this subject, con- tinuing the meeting for a decision. Mr. Johnson thought that there certainly could be a study session. He explained that they will be happy to discuss questions which have come up tonight with anyone who wishes to come to the office. Commissioner Hart commented that he had not made up his mind beforehand, but had heard enough good arguments tonight which almost convince him that they do not need to do what is proposed. He thought that they should study this . Commissioner Master commented that there is a December 31, 1981 dead- line. Mr. Johnson explained that there is still time for a study session. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the first date for a study session would be November 9th. He suggested that this action be continued to November 16th, Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to continue this action to November 16, 1981 , with a study session for November 9, 1981, at 5:15 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED O Pl anni ng Commission Minutes October 19, 1981 Page Thirteen Mr. Johnson asked whether this study session will be on this project and the core study and Old Towne. Commissioner Coontz stated that the Commission needs an overview of the entire si tuation. Commissioner Master felt that we need to look at the intent and scope of how this fi is into the overal 1 area . What happens to Wal nut and what about south of Walnut? Are we creating a "monster"? Commissioner Coontz felt that our highways and streets are not always tied to residential factors as they should be. She is concerned about what the future of Glassell will be. How would this project affect it? Commissioner Master felt that whatever is decided should have alternatives. Commissioner Coontz mentioned the Kimmel Report and wondered if it would be i ncl uded. Mr. Johnson answered i n the affi rmative. Commissioner Coontz felt that we need to 1 ook at the hope for the com- mercial potential for the downtown area as opposed to maintaining the quality of life for the residential area. Commissioner Vasquez had concern about that area of Glassell becoming mostly commercial in the future. He pointed out Tustin Street and its problems. His concern is over the long term basis - he would lilee to find some kind of accident analysis for the type of continuous left turn lane as is on Tustin Street and speak to this, as there are many problems with i t. ZONE CHANGE 957 -CITY OF ORRNGE: Proposal to change zoning from R-1-6 to R-1-6-A for an area bounded by Adams Avenue, Collins Avenue, Shaffer Street, and Cambridge Street. (Note: Negative Decl arati o n 738 has been prepared i n 1 i eu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to rezone the subject area from R-1-6 to R-1-6-A, creating an overlay district limiting the height of structures in the area to 20 feet or a si ngl e story, which ever is 1 ess. The area contains approximately 44.87 acres and is located generally between Shaffer Street, Cambridge Street, Collins Avenue and Elizabeth Drive. It is predominantly ~, developed with single-fami ly resi dences i n the R-1-6 zone. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that in an action related to a Tentative Tract proposal in the area which two-story residential structures were pro- posed, the Ci ty Council directed that a zone change be initiated to consider rezoni ng the area from R-1-6 to R-1-6-A, which would 1 imi t the area to single-story development. He recalled for the Commission that this request came about at the request of a number of residents in the area who were concerned about a property being developed in the middle of this area by Mr. Cheatum, who proposed at that time to subdivide the property and build two-story units on i t. At the time of the public hearing, the neighbors and owners of resi dences i n the surroundi ng area addressed the Planning Commission and City Council and requested that Mr. Cheatum be limited to single-story development, which would be more compatible with the development i n the area as i t now exists . Mr. Soo-Hoo then pointed out that the Staff previously prepared a study which identified two alternative rezoning boundaries and area residents have identified a third. He explained that the area is designated low density (2-6 uni is per acre) residential on the Land Use El ement of the General Plan. It is recommended that the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 738 be accepted. Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1981 Page Fourteen There defi ni tely appears to be interest on behal f of area residents in having the single-story height limitation imposed. The primary consideration concerns the physical parameters of such a rezoning. Though the number of al ternati ves are numerous, three basic choices have been discussed in the past and Staff feels that these still remain the most logical. Alternative I -This alternative encompasses a broad area and basically includes all properties which are on either side of Shaffer Street between Col 1 i ns Avenue and Quincy Avenue, east to Cambridge Street. With a few exceptions, all properties in this area meet the necessary criteria for lot size and building height. Alternative II -This alternative proposes a more restricted area and includes only the Elizabeth Drive Tract (i ncl udi ng the 1 ots immedi atel y north of the site) as well as the Cleveland Street Tract east and southeast of the site and the lots south of the site up to Coll ins Avenue. It is felt that Shaffer Street offers an effective demarcation point and 1 i ttl e advantage can be seen to rezoni ng the west side of the ~., street . Alternative III -This alternative was developed by a resident of the area and primarily reflects their immediate area of concern and also attempts to physically separate single-story 1 ots from those permitting two-story development (wi th streets) as much as possible. The Staff has contacted Mr. Tom Martin of the area in order to precisely ascer- tain the boundaries. However, Mr. Martin has been unable to come into the office to discuss this. This alternative will, therefore, be presented separately. Staff feels that, though the City Council directed the boundaries of this zone change consideration to reflect the maximum number of parcels (Alternative I), the intention was not necessarily to include all properties in the final action. Rather, it was felt to be an attempt to gain as much public participation as possible, in order to gauge proper parameters for the rezoni ng. Staff feels, as it stated i n a previous memorandum, that Alternative II offers an acceptable choice. However, since the proposal is essenti ally sel f-initiated by the area residents themselves , their comments are critical to the es tab 1 i shment of the final limits. Commissioner Coontz brought up a letter dated October 16, 1981 from Tom Marti n, proposing that the boundaries of "A" suffix be at the center of the street. Commissioner Master asked if there is any information confirming the uses out of the area in question. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained this to Commissioner Master, using the maps on the board. Vice-Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Jim Sufferin, 949 N. Harwood, Orange, addressed the Commission, asking i f the "6" i n the R-1-6 denotes 6 ,000 and was told that this was so . Mr. Sufferin explained that he was under the impression that the footage was 7500. He asked i f "A" meant single story and was told that thi s was correct. He then asked which area we are talking about that this new zoning will encompass. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the green area on the map was the area whi ch the City Council had asked for i n order to advertise and get more input into this discussion. Commissioner Coontz explained about the concern of the neighboring residents in this area. Mr. Sufferin then asked if the "A" designation is placed on this, will people then not be allowed to place a second story on their homes. He was told that this was correct. Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1981 Page Fifteen Verdon Craig, 825 E. Barkley, Orange, addressed the Commission, asking if her area of Barkley was involved in this zone change. She was told that it was not. It was explained to her why she received a notice for this public hearing. This has no direct effect on her property. Commissioner Hart commented that Mr. Martin made reference to height limi tation i n hi s letter. He felt that 1 5 feet would be proper over our existing rule. Commissioner Hart felt that 20 feet was a proper limit because of the fact that structurally i t must be 20 feet. Mr. Murphy commented that most houses of a s i ngl e story nature are al l 18 to 20 feet in height. The "A" classification indicates 20 feet as a maximum. Commissioner Master wondered if the "A" suffix prohibits lofts. Mr. Murphy thought that the "A" suffix would be interpreted to mean that al l floor areas are to be at ground 1 evel . Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 738. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Coontz felt that they should not consider the larger area. Commissioner Hart preferred Al ternati ve I I . Since h e lives i n a two- story house, he did not feel he is imposing on anyone's privacy. There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding the building of two- story structures on some of the larger lots. This could be an alterna- teve for the future with land and building values the way they are. Commissioner Hart felt that we are placing a burden on property which i s not entirely proper. Commissioner Master asked fora point of clarification. The brown area on the map is Alternative III. Alternative I is what the Council directed Staff to advertise. Al ternati ve I I i s the Staff's preference. Moved by Commissioner Paster that Alternative III be recommended for approval by City Council . Motion died for lack of a second. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to recommend Alternative II for approval as a compromise between no "A" designation, which would give the homeowners more potential on their properties, and Alternative I, which is too all-encompassing and in- cludes parcels which are smaller; for the reason that the Commission is acting to a public concern and the concern of the City Council; and also to minimize the concerns of the residents in that area. Commissioner Master felt that there were i nconsi stenci es i n taking Alternative II. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Master ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master commented that he did not like to see a zone change with lot splits, that is adjoining property lines, since the zoning cannot be effective in this way. We lose the effectiveness of those people around that borderline. He felt that the street division is a ,` more viable approach. Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1981 Page Sixteen CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1155, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 81-767 - SALKIN: Request to allow conversion of an existing office to condominiums on the south side of Chapman Avenue, west of Crawford Canyon Road. (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review.) Staff asked if the Commission wished to have a presentation on this matter. Commission responded that no presentation was necessary. How- ever, Stan Soo-Hoo pointed out that Tentative Parcel Map 81-767 is also being considered in this matter. Vice-Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against this application, the Vice-Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1155 and Tentative Parcel Map 81-767, for the reasons as set forth in the Staff Report and subject to the two conditions stated i n the Staff Report, pT us two additional condi ti ons which were presented by Staff at the Planning Commission meeting. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTIOPJ CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1157, VARIANCE 1663 - GOLDMAN: Request to allow conversion of an existing residence to a doctor's office and to provide less parking than required by the Orange Municipal Code on the west side of Glassell Street, north of Mayfair Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 739 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) It was decided by the Commission that no presentation was necessary in this matter. Commissioner Coontz questioned Condition #7, reading that: 7. That Glassell Street be improved (including, but not limited to, sidewalks, curb, gutter and sewer facilities) to City of Orange standards (Department of Public Works). stating that she felt this was pertinent to what was just discussed during the public hearing on the widening of Glassell Street. Mr. Murphy responded that he thought that this property had already been dedicated. However, it is not fully improved. Therefore, that condition covers the possibility of any additional dedication being needed, or improvements on the property. This is a standard condition. This does not affect the use of the property because the parcel has normal front yard setback. They have dedicated the right-of-way already. Mr. Murphy also pointed out that Condition #3 should be deleted, as this is covered in Condition #14. Commissioner Master commented that he knows the applicant personally, but he has been advised by the City Attorney that there is no conflict of i nterest. Vice-Chairman Coontz opened the public h Baring. Dr. Richard Goldman, 1000 W. La Veta, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that he has practiced in Orange for about 21 years. Because of congestion in his present location, he looked for another location for his medical office. He chose this location be- cause of what he thought was adequate parking. However, the Traffic Engineer did not like the parking space in front, as he was concerned about Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1981 Page Seventeen backing onto Glassell Street. Dr. Goldman pointed out that h e has one office girl and he plans for her to use this space to park her sub-compact car. He explained that he does not have a high volume practice and thus feels the parking is adequate. Al ternati ves would be to tear down some of the house to make the 7 parking spaces adequate. He filed for the variance in order to explain why they should approve this application. Dr. Goldman explained that he also had a number of questions with regard to the conditions . Commissioner Coontz pointed out where this was reclassified from R-3 to R-P at an earlier date, at that time the applicant said that the dedication required for Glassell Street made this parcel not large enough for R-3 development. She thought that this fact should probably still be true, plus there wi 11 be additional dedi cati on i f the widening of G1 assel 1 takes place. She thought that this was a substantial reason fora variance. Dr. Goldman pointed out to Commissioner Hart the parking space in front of the building which would make this adequate parking. Commissioner Hart asked if the bui 1 di ng is 15 feet i n back of the sidewalk and was tol d that this is true. Commissioner Hart stated that he did not have any problem with the parking space i n front. Mr. f~lurphy explained that the Staff would like to see the variance approved rather than see a parking space in front of the building. There was discussion among the Commissioners as to whether there is hard- ship for the variance in this matter. The Commission asked if the variance could be eliminated. Mr. Murphy explained that they could accept the eight parking spaces and the applicant could withdraw the variance. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 7 39 . AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1157, subject to the conditions as shown on the Staff Report, with the eight (8) parking spaces . AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Hart then asked Dr. Goldman if he would withdraw Variance 1663, which he did. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, that the request to withdraw Variance 1663 be granted, AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Dr. Goldman then asked questions with regard to Condition #2 - he explained that the landscaping is already in and wondered if he would have to tear this out and start over. It was explained that this was a standard condition. A1T of the conditions are standard. Dr. Goldman then asked questions regarding Condition #5. This was explained in more depth to him. Upon questioning Condition #6 with regard to fire protection facilities, he was told that this was also standard, as a~as Condition #8 with regard to lighting. Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1981 Page Eighteen Commissioner Coontz suggested that Dr, Goldman talk in greater detail with the Staff regardi ng these conditions . Dr. Goldman then stated that he objects to Condition #14, calling for a six-foot view obscuring masonry wall, as there already is a fence there. It was explained that since this is between commercial and residential zones, i t i s requested by the City's ordi Hance. Dr. Goldman also objected to Condition #17 calling for a deed restriction, which prohibits the use of the site by a general practitioner or pediatrician, as this limits who he can sell this property to. There was discussion among the Commissioners with regard to Condition #17. Mr. Murphy explained that the parking required by code and shown on the plans is not adequate for an isolated pediatrician or general practitioner's office. Commissioner Coontz explained that they have already voted on this application and would have to reopen the public hearing i n order to reconsider this condition. Commissioner Hart explained that this condition encumbers a piece of property forever. Mr. Minshew sug- gested that the owner puts this on the deed - the owner can take it off with the permission of the City of Orange. There was further discussion among the Commissioners regarding how this matter could be handled if Condition #17 is dropped. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to reopen the hearing and reconsider this matter. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION FAILED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m, to be reconvened to a special Commission meeting on Monday, October 26, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. n C .,~ ^~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SS . AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on October 19, 1981; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place speci fied i n the order of adjournment attached hereto; then on October 20, 1981, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of October 19, 1981 was held. i D EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 19, 1981 . The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Vice-Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m, PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master, that this meeting adjourn at 11:20 p.m, on Monday, October 19, 1981, to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, October 26, 1981 at the Civic Center Counci 1 Chambers , 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California . I, Jere P. Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, October 19, 1981. Dated this 20th day of October, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. sere' N. Murphy, c~ ty ~+' ianner~{ ana Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Orange. ~_ ^M