Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/5/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California January 5, 1981 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene P~1inshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Joh nson, City Engineer; Lon Cahill, Fire Prevention Bureau; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 17, 1980: Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve the minutes of November 17, 1980, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Paster, Mickelson NOES: Commissioner Ault ABSENT: Commissioners none h10TI0N CARRIED IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 1 , 1980: Page 2, second paragraph from bottom of page, Commissioner Mickelson requested that the finding in the motion be deleted, as he had intended merely to explain that this study was in- fluencing his vote. However, this was not a valid finding in the matter. Page 3, paragraph 2, with regard to Commissioner Mickelson's com- ments in the next to the last sentence, Commissioner Master stated that he had challenged this statement and therefore i t was requested that sentence should be changed to read that i t was Commissioner Mickelson's opinion that people are probably accepting this. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to approve the minutes of December 1, 1980, as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRi:ED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: REQUEST FOR FINDING THAT MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1009 ARE ACCEPTABLE - TEN RIKYO MISSION NANKAI GRAND CHURCH (SOUTH SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE, WEST OF ORANGE-OLIVE ROAD) . Mr. Murphy explained to the Commission that the applicant had requested that th i s item be removed from the calendar. Com- missioner Mickelson wondered if there was any opposition to this item and was told there was none. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Master, to remove this item from the calendar. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Two RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 970 AND VARIANCE 1543 - L I NDB ERG Request to reconsider conditions imposed on approval of Conditional Use Permit and Variance which allowed expansion of an existing 45 run dog kennel to 67 runs on the south side of Collins Avenue, east of Parker. Mr. Murphy explained that Staff has received a 1 etter requesti ng the Commission to continue action on the reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit 970 and Variance 1543. The request for continuance has been generated because the people i n that area were not able to attend toni ght's meeting. The parti es wi 11 be returning to the area i n a couple of weeks . Chairman Coontz asked if there was anyone in the audience re- presenting the applicants. Bob Vedell, 629 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, representing the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Lindberg, addressed the Commission, reluctantly accepting a continuance. Moved by Comm continue this parties . AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners issioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to item to January 19, 1981 , with noti ce to go to both Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson none none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: REQUEST FOR FINDING OF CONFORMITY TO GENERAL PLAN - SALE OF COUNTY PARCEL TO CITY OF ORANGE FOR EXPANSION OF PUMP STATION AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOP1A STREET AND SANTIAGO CAPJYON ROAD. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to approve a finding of conformity to the General Plan - sale of county parcel to City of Orange for expansion of pump station. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERh1IT 1068 - MAIZE: Request to allow construction of a two-story second unit in the RCD Overlay district on the south side of Washington Avenue, east of Shaffer Street (524 East Washington Avenue) . (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review.) (Continued from meetings of Decelber 1 & 15, 1980.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that the public hearing was continued in order to allow the appli- cant to meet with the local residents and to consider making modifications i n the elevations of the east and west sides of the proposed two-story structure to be added to the rear of the property. Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant has submitted letters to the Commission which were received by the Commissioners earlier this evening. These letters indicate that the owners of the property and the residents on each side, as well as to the rear, have accepted the elevations as shown on the board at this time. He pointed out that it is now up to the Commission to decide whether these elevations are adequate. P1 an ni ng Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Three The Chairman opened the public hearing. Paul Maize, 524 E. Washington, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of the application. He stated that he had gone to all three of the neighbors on either side and behind the subject property and they feel that there i s no objection to the plan as shown on the board. The neighbors have no objections whatsoever. Ch airman Coontz mentioned communications that have been received from Mr. and Mrs. McCoy and several others with regard to this item. Nick Neddy, 625 Palmyra, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he wanted to stress that privacy is not the only thing that is involved. H e pointed out that the alley is small and they do not want to see more traffic through it. They also do not want to seta precedent for more two-story structures. He explained that they had made an attempt two years ago to get the zoning changed to one-story residences and were told that this would be considered spot zoning. They felt that by allowing additional conditional use permits that the Commission is allowing spot zoning. Commissioner Master questioned whether they are against two-story s tructures or extra neighbors in the back of the property. Mr. Neddy answered that they realize that the zoning calls for a second structure on the back of the property, but they do object to a two-story structure. Chairman Coontz explained that the statement of spot zoning was not correct. The Commission told the residents of that area what the appropriate process was for the requesting of a zone change. Bob Knaack, 610 E. Washington, Orange, addressed the Commission i n opposition to the appl i cati on. He explained that he 1 fives four doors away and takes access off the alley i n ques ti on. He was concerned about the congestion, the amount of open space in his neighborhood if a two-story structure is allowed to be built. He explained that two years ago the same applicant submitted a plan to the ci ty to develop his property as a single story. This had approximately 1400 square feet and was approved by the city of Orange at that time. The structure was one story and had one bedroom. H e pointed out from this fact that the applicant has ample room to to develop his property in the back, it is just a matter of the size of the unit. He explained that there are 22 houses which take access off of the alley in question. There is only one way out. The potential for future development is there and the people in that area hate to see the first garage apartment go in. He felt that the plan which has been submitted does not go along with what is planned for the area. The alley cannot handle large garage apartment type of structures. This structure would be approximately the third largest structure i n that block if it is allowed to be built. It is larger than most of the structures i n the neighborhood. The nei ghbors are not asking for any special treatment. They ar.e asking the Commission to uphold the existi ng zoni ng as i t exists. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, Chairman Coontz closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master stated that he went down the alley i n the dark and another car came from the other way, which made a si tuati on of a standoff because of the alley's narrow width . Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Four Chairman Coontz asked if the alley was one way and Commissioner Master replied that it was not designed to be one way, but definitely was by width . Commissioner Mickelson questioned the Staff regarding the Council's intention i n creati ng the RCD Overlay. Mr. Murphy replied that it was the Staff impression that the Counci 1 was asking that second s tory development be reviewed i n light of primarily the surrounding single story developments, particularly in terms of privacy, yard areas and things of that type. He pointed out that the zone does allow two-story develop- ment, but requires the Condi ti onal use permi t process to approve the two-story structures wi thi n the zone. Mr. Murphy explained that the Council could have restricted this to a single story development by a s uffi x to the RD-6 district. However, i t appears that the Council was not ruling out second story development, only that they make i t compatibl e with the surroundings . Commissioner Mickelson questioned where in the city's instructions the words on harmony and character were located and he was told that they were to be found i n the resol uti on. There were questions from the audience as to the wording with regard to the zoning. Mr. Murphy then read from the Uses Per- mitted section of the RCD Overlay Zoning which explained what was permitted in this area to be built. H e explained that in this section there was a Condi tional Use Permit section which stated that all uses and structures permitted by the base district, excepting single story one family and two family residential dwellings shall be permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Mickelson then read from the resolution regarding the passage using the words harmony, character and scale i n the existi ng neighborhood, and permitting more orderly transition of the existing older development to the new, for more efficient use while pre- serving the structures and landmarks which are historically signi- ficant. Commissioner Mickelson then stated that he had also driven the area again to get abetter feel for what was being proposed. He stated that he has never quite agreed with the City Council on the RCD Overlay, but he did think it was their intent to preserve this scale and he expressed concern about this project. There was more discussion among the Commissioners in this regard and Commissioner Ault stated that he felt this unit had been well planned. He pointed out that it is 8 inches lower than the present building on the property and is maintaining the character of the neighborhood. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart to approve Conditional Use Permit 1068, for the reasons as stated previously, and with the 8 conditions as set forth by Staff. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart NOES: Commissioners Master, Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1070 - OUR SAVIOUR'S LUTHERAN CHURCH: Request to allow a pre-school and day care program in an existing church facility at the northwest corner of Cambridge Street and Lomita Avenue (800 North Cambridge Street). (Note: Negative Declaration 657 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) ( Continued from meetings of December 1 & 15, 1980.) Mr. Murphy presented this application to the Commission, explaining that this item had been continued from December 1st and 15th meetings to allow the applicant to consider alternatives to the play yard as related to the pre-school facility being requested by Conditional Use Permit 1070 . He stated that the Staff is not at Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Five this time aware of the studies made by the applicant. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Bob Theilen, 811 N. Handy, Orange, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of the application. He passed out copies of a tracing made of the blueprint which is in the file of the church, showing the various buildings on the property of the church. It also shows the Gruen and Craig houses adjoining the church property. He explained that when they made their pro- posal at the December 1st meeting, the upper and lower play areas were discussed, as shown on the tracing. The upper yard has some cement areas and some of ,the noise being complained about was being generated by the pl astic wheel s of toys being run on the concrete. He explained that the Big Wheels have now been removed. Also, some play equipment has been removed from the lower yard which is nearest to the Craig property. He pointed out that the suggestion had been made to move the play area into an area between the church sanctuary and the school building. He then explained that they have two age levels of children which are two to five years olds i n the pre-school and then five through nine i n the day care center. Because of the state requirements, the older children do not require fencing all the way around the play area, providing they are far enough away from a street. Therefore, the area be- tween the church sanctuary and the classrooms is currently being used as a play area by the older children. If they were to try and change this around, this would put the older children somewhere else, probably down in the lower yard (where older children would probably make more noise than younger ones. He brought out another problem they would have with this area, which is that first and foremost they are a church and this particular area is used for certain church activities. He felt it would be difficult to convince the congrega- tion that the pre-school and day care center should be put over some of the church activities. In meetings that they have had with the residents i n the area they have tried to determine what could be done with the current area to satisfy their needs. They talked about making a garden area in the lower yard so that the children could work with planting and tending the garden, and putting a fence across the entire back part of that yard, which would remove them from the Brewer property another 15 feet and eliminate them playing right down by the Brewer fence. He explained that they have also talked about planting cypress trees and such in that area. Mr. Theilen explained that the residents in that area have not de- cided if this is what they really want. He then went on to point out that they have looked at another area west of the bui 1 di ng. That area was originally planned fora gymnasium if they ever got the money together to do this. In the meantime, if they could get the state license people to approve this area fora play yard, it could be used for this purpose at this time. He explained that there is currently a low wall on the north side of the property. The requirement would be that this would be extended and the fencing brought all the way around the other two sides and attached back to the building. This would also require some extra landscaping and some sort of watering system. He pointed out that there could be a problem with the restroom facilities i n that area. If the state were to ask for restroom facilities down in that area, they could not afford this expense. In talking with Mrs. Craig, they asked which of these plans would be preferred. She did not like either idea, as the children still would be playing very close to their property. Therefore, they are now at a standoff and must wait until the city decides on this plan. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Six Mr. Theilen explained that he had a contractor give them an estimate on putting fenci ng _i n to the west and putting i n a smal 1 type of sprinkler facility and the price was quoted at around $10,000. It would definitely be expensive to do this. If the neighbors were to agree on the play area to the west of the bui 1 di ng, then they woul d have to compromise, but if it does not make any difference, then they have a problem. They feel that the noise level has been lowered. The neighbors have stated that this is true, but wonder if they can hold the noise level down. They intend to put up a chain link fence in order to keep the older youth from getting into the lower play area. The one area that they now use for the older children has mechanical equipment in it. By the time that area is fenced out, they would have to take up part of the 1 and and put i n some type of soft sand, etc. i n the area between the bui 1 di ngs . They must either modify what they have with cypress trees along the wal 1 , moving the sand boxes and play equipment up next to Moreland Hall and moving things as far away from the property line as possible. Commissioner Ault asked what hours this playground in question is used. The answer was from 8:30 to 9:00 a.m. Then there are staggered recesses from 10:15 until 11:00 a.m. The children are out for lunch and then again after their naps. Then later in the afternoon until they go home at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Mickelson asked for clarification with regard to where the older children will play. H e asked about the upper and lower play yards and using them in conjunction with the play yard to the west or would they fence in the area to the west and eliminate this one play yard i n the lower area . It was explained to him that i f they would be allowed to use the lower yard, there wouldn't be the expense of putting the yard to the west. But i f they are not allowed to use the 1 ower yard at al 1 , then th ey wi 11 be moving i t to the west. Terry Heddy, 2873 E. Geral d Circle, Anahei m, director of the pre- school, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. She stated that Mrs. Craig had called Mrs. Takeda, who is the representa- tive for the state, to come out and look at the situation and evaluate the play yards, etc., which she did. She then read excerpts from the report by Mrs . Takeda, evaluating the noise 1 evel i n the 1 ower play yard. According to the report, Ms. Heddy pointed out the lowered numbers of children using the lower play yard and stated that they are doing the best they possibly can to lower the noise level in that area. She explained that they need all three play yards to properly run the school. She pointed out that these play yard are properly licensed. She further explained the location of the restrooms , pointing out that two are off of the nursery inside of the educational building and two are in Hansen Hall. Chairman Coontz asked about the requirements for restroom facilities and Ms. Heddy asnwered that she did not know the requirement, but the children would have to be escorted to the restroom and if they are far away, thi s creates a problem. Verdon Craig, 825 E. Barkley, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. She explained that they did have a meeting with the pastor, director of the pre-school and church board members . They explained about the extended day care for 6 to 9 years olds. They stated that they used the back play area one hour per day and the smaller children used it 32 hours per day. Mrs . Craig said she asked i f this could be switched so that they could have children near their property only 1 hour a day. She was tol d that the state would not 1 i cense thi s switch . She then cal 1 ed Mrs . Takeda and asked for criteria for moving the 2-5 year olds to the other area. She stated that the area would have to be as large Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Seven as the back area in which they were now playing in square footage, not including sidewalks and shrubbery. In speaking with Mr. Martinez, who had previously measured the area between the buildings, he told her that he did not measure the sidewalks or the shrubbery when he measured the area, so the area was larger than the existing area now being used. Mrs. Takeda stated that the play equipment would have to be moved to this area and a 5 foot chain link fence would have to be erected. Mrs. Takeda felt that since the license had already been issued to the church, she could not get involved with this situation. Mrs . Craig stated that i n speaking with the church about thi s problem, it seemed to come down to the cost and the view. The area between the church sanctuary and educational building was not acceptable to them for these reasons . The Crai gs feel that having chi 1 dren a few feet from thei r property for one hour a day vs . three and a half hours a day would be much more acceptable to them. Commissioner Aul t asked i f the Crai gs have a room i n thei r garage and Mrs. Craig explained that they did not but that there is a bedroom on that corner of the house near the play area. Marty Martinez, 815 E. Barkley, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He explained that they have discussed this with the church and the proposal to move to the west would compound the problem, as this would involve more homes in the immediate area. Even if they raise the fence to 6 feet there would s ti 11 be a problem. Chairman Coontz pointed out that there are no houses to the west. Mr. Martinez exolai ned that there are houses across the street i n that direction and the noise would s ti 11 carry . Commissioner Ault asked about which six houses are affected and Mr. Martinez answered by pointing out where the houses are located and also stated that he could hear the children's noise in his home also. He 1 i ves next door to the Crai gs . He included i n the houses affected the homes facing Cambridge and the Crai gs , hi s home, the Robi nsons and the Gruens, which are staggered behind the property on Barkley. Mrs. Craig explained that the Gruens are hard of hearing and they have no problem with the noise. However, the noise can be heard quite far down Cambridge for some distance. Commissioner Ault stated that he wondered about the noise complaints because he had gone out to that area and did not hear such loud noise. It was explained that there are 85 children in this school. Chairman Coontz then asked Mr. Theilen to be more specific as to what kind of church activities are held i n the area between the church sanctuary and the educational building. She felt that there should be a good reason why this area cannot be used. She also thought that if the church people are behind the activity of the pre-school and day care center, then what would the objection be? Mr. Theilen answered that currently that section is used for Easter Sunrise services out of doors. Some of the church's social activities are held i n that area and some of the youth groups use the area. The pre-school and day care center is also using the area in the daytime. To put a chain 1 ink fence from the sanctuary to Morel and Hall would definitely affect the esthetics of the area. The church people are behind the pre-school. However, there is a limit to how much they are willing to go. He explained that the pre-school is ~. in addition to the church related activities. So far, the price they have had to pay is coming up with outside donations of $10,000 i n order to start up the school . But i f they take away some of thei r activities for the purpose of the pre-school the price seems Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Ei gh t rather high. This is why he thinks they would be against it. It was explained that Mrs. Takeda had written up some of the items which would need to be done in order to move the play yard and have the new area meet the cri teri a of the state . Mr. Th ei 1 en listed some of the improvements which would have to be made. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Coontz explained that this item had been continued in order for the applicant and neighbors to come to some kind of decision. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 657. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioner Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioners none h10TI0N CARRIED Commissioner Hart stated that he sympathized with the noise the neighbors are putting up with, but he also envisioned not closing down the school . He felt that the area between the church and school rooms is the logical place for the play area. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to approve Condi ti onal Use Permi t 1070 , with an additional condition that the play area be relocated to the area between the church sanctuary and the educational building be added to the five conditions set forth i n the Staff Report. Commissioner Mickelson wondered if this additional condition would cover the older children being allowed to use the lower play yard. Commissioner Hart re plied that i t appears that the usage of the lower yard is OK on a one hour per day basis. This should be added as a seventh condi ti on . Commissioner Ault withdrew his second to the motion. Commissioner Master seconded the motion. Commissioner Ault questioned the limit of one hour usage of the lower play yard. Commissioner Mickelson also felt that this was too restrictive. He thought perhaps it should be stated that the play yards be switched and the older children use the lower yard for a lesser period per day. There was discussion among the commissioners with regard to the policing that would have to be done under these circumstances. It was agreed that the "upper and lower" yard areas be occupied by non-.preschool students for a maximum period of 1 hour per day. Commissioner Mickelson then explained that his reason for voting no on the Negative Declaration was that he felt that mitigation is needed on the noise level. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES : Commissioner Aul t ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED • Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Nine REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT 9605, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1072 - BALDWIN: Request to consider 189 lot subdivision and revise previously approved Planned Unit Development for property generally located south of Chapman Avenue and east of Crawford Canyon Road. (Note: EIR 444 has been previously certified and no further Environmental Review is required.) (Continued from meeting of December 15, 1980. ) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to consider a 189 lot subdivision and to consider revisions to a planned unit development. The property consists of a 132 acre portion of a previously approved 235 lot tract located generally south of Chapman Avenue; south and southwest of Old Chapman Road, and east of Crawford Canyon Road. The property is zoned R-1-20 and RM-7 and is presently being graded. It is generally surrounded by vacant land and residences in both the City and the County of Orange. Primary access to the property would be via Canyon View Avenue, a proposed secondary arterial with a width of 80 feet. Mr. Murphy explained that the East Orange Plan designates the area for Medium Density Residential (3.5-6.5 dwellings per acre) develop- ment and Medium High Density Residential (6.5-15 dwellings per acre) development. The applicant is requesting approval of revised Tentative Tract 9605 which would create 186 single family 1 ots within the portion of the site previously approved for 135 lots. Mr. Murphy pointed out that in August, 1978, Tentative Tract 9605 was originally approved by the City Council for creation of 232 single family 1 ots , 2 multiple family 1 ots , 1 recreation 1 of and a large amount of open space which consisted primarily of slope areas. At that time staff expressed concerns about the private streets (preferring public), street grades, street radii, and inadequacy of guest parking faci 1 i ti es . It was explained that the applicant has already recorded 97 lots as originally approved and now wishes to increase the yield for the balance of the site. This would be accomplished basically by increased grading activity and encroaching further into slope areas previously left untouched, as well as including a 1.5 acre island of land not previously owned by the applicant located immediately east of the recreation lot. In addition, a large portion of those areas previously reserved for open space is proposed to be sub- di vi ded into estate 1 ots . Yield for the total site ( including the lots already recorded) would now be: 283 single family lots, 2 multiple family lots, 1 recreational lot and a much smaller open space area. The East Orange Plan allocates 267 single family lots to this site. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the density for the entire site (including the previously recorded lots but excluding the multiple family lots) is 1.68 dwellings per acre. It had previously been 1.41 dwellings per acre. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and feels that the additional lots proposed are acceptable but that a number of design short- comings should be corrected. These include: a) "E" Street contains a 12% grade for over 1,000 feet which Staff feels is too severe for that great of a length. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Ten b) Driveway access to l of 184 through l of 185 i s over 800 feet long and contains grades of 15%, both of which are not acceptable. In addition, this driveway as well as the one to lots 182 and 183 will provide access only to County streets. Therefore, emergency service will be unavailable from city agencies. c) Lots located on the extreme curve of "G" street (lots 176- 179) are not acceptable i n that access points at this location are extremely hazardous. Recall that the staff, at the time of the original consi derati on, warned that thi s street radii was too severe to meet municipal standards and constituted a hazard even without the location of lots off of i t. d) "G" Street as i t enters the site westerly from Kni ghts Bridge Road should be widened to 32 feet in order to create a uniform width throughout. e) The extremely large estate lots appear to have potential for future subdivision by subsequent property owners. As the Planning Commission knows, controversy has been gen- erated i n the past when 1 arger 1 ots were created and speculators purchased them with intentions of further subdivisions. Staff recommends that the Commission move for a continuance to allow the applicant to make the necessary modifications to his proposal or that there be a recommendation for denial because of the technical problems listed herein. Should the Planning Commission find the proposal acceptable, the conditions of the Engineer's Plan check sheet are recommended. There were questions from Commissioners Master and Hart with regard to the open space area and Mr. Murphy explained this in further detail. He further explained that the plan as proposed i s not consistent with the .East Orange General P1 an, not because of the number of units, but because of the location of the units. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. James Baldwin, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that when they had the original Tentative Tract h1ap approved by the City of Orange, i n its strictest i nterpretation i t was not consistent with the East Orange General Plan, but in a loose interpretation, they felt it was consistent with the East Orange Plan. The East Orange Plan envisioned a little more open space, but in that area of development, it envisioned a higher density development - a town- house cluster type of development. They chose to spread the development over a few more acres, but to do a single family, detached type of development . At that time, i t met with the Ci ty's approval. Mr. Baldwin explained that this whole thing got started because of the reservoir site. Because of the new reservoir being built and other related reasons, the Baldwin Company was able to purchase additional land in that area. He then touched on the major areas over which Staff had expressed concern. As far as open space area being sub divided into 1 arge 1 ots - they had originally asked for this, with the idea in mind of a homeowners' association taking care of the open space areas. They have since had experience i n thi s area and are finding that open space areas are not being taken care of properly in other developments. They have also found i~n the last two years that there are people who would like to own large acreage lots. Therefore, they feel that this proposal is a good solution to the problem of upkeep. They do not feel that this Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page E1 even would detract from the esthetics of the surrounding area. This would take the burden from the people on top of the hill and would add very little to the burden of the people at the bottom, off of Crawford Canyon Road. With regard to the concerns about private owners devel opi n:g sub- divisions with their large acreage, they can impose deed restrictions on each of these lots which could be approved by the city attorney and they wou 1 d also see to i t that a condition would fol 1 ow that when they offer those 1 ots for sale, that i t would be clear that there i s a deed restriction and there would be only one unit bui 1 t per lot. He pointed out that there are four lots on the nose of the hill that will remain as natural lots. They have super views where you can see all the way to the mountains. These lots are on the inside of the street and 1 ooki ng up at the hi 11 , you would see the street, with the houses being built into the hill. Mr. Baldwin further explained why they are asking for a 122% grade as against the 12% requested by the city . H e explained that they need thi s 122% grade and he pointed out on the map why thi s i s needed. That i s the critical grade i n the whol e development so that there will not be a landslide. There was a question here as to what was mentioned i n the condi tions and i t was explained more clearly. Mr. Baldwin pointed out that this same condition was approved on the earlier tentative tract map. With regard to the width of the streets, he also pointed out that a width of 28 feet had been approved earlier. They are conforming to that earlier standard. Mr. Baldwin then went into the sidewalk si tuati on, explaining that it has been recommended that they have sidewalks on both sides of all doubly loaded streets and on one side of single loaded streets. He pointed out that on the earlier recommendation, that did not apply, they only had to have a sidewalk on one side of the street. However, i n the spiri t of trying to meet the staff halfway, they would be happy to have sidewalks on both sides of the double loaded streets . ~. Commissioner Master questioned the grade of 15% on the driveway access for lots 184 and 185. Mr. Baldwin explained that this was only for one driveway. Commissioner Master pointed out that there was a concern for the fire department getting up that driveway. John Dominick , 1 2321 Red H i 11 , Tus tin, addressed the Commission i n opposition to this application, stating that he and his wife own the house on top of Easter Hil l and they were directly involved i n the recent landslide. They are asking that the Commission deny this application because he felt that the landslide is not under control. It is still moving at this time. H e explained that he is a licensed contractor in the State of California and is therefore cognizant of the 1 andsl i de and the grading that i s going on. He wondered why the greenbelt areas were put into slope areas and why there is not more concern about this. He stated that Mr. Baldwin knew two years ago about the problem areas and seems to be ignoring them. He wondered also how a pri vate owner was going to take care of a green belt area that the county does not want to take care of and an association cannot take care of. He went on to explain with regard to the green belt area dedicated to the property owner to the south, who is Mr. Rodriguez. He told the Commission that he sold 11 acres of land to h1r. Rodriguez. This land was in escrow at the time of the landslide and he had to end up discounting this property $50,000 for Mr. Rodriguez to Planning Cor~mission Minutes January 5, 19 81 Page Twelve take i t. Mr. Rodriguez has gone into negoti ati on with Mr. Bal dwi n and Mr. Baldwin is dedicating a green belt area to him. Mr. Rodriguez has told him that he was going to put a motor bike trail on 11 acres and he wonders if he will also include some of the greenbelt area in this motor bike trail. Mr. Dominick pointed out that the grades are severe, which means more cutting. They are cutting into slope areas which are in the slide area. He feel s that the slide was caused by Mr. Bal dwi n's cutting into thi s area and grading there. He feel s that the property owners are suffering in this regard. It was his feeling that Mr. Baldwin has something to hide. This area has never had a fire or a landslide before. They have had a landslide now - will they have a fire also? He was concerned with these open space areas. If the city and county cannot control these spaces and does not want them, how can a private owner control the same. He stated that he agrees with the Staff when they call fora denial of this application. Neal Harkelrode, speaking for the Santiago Municipal Advisory Counci 1 and for the Foothi 11 Communities Association, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He stated that they were strongly in concurrence with the Staff's basic recommendation of denial of this application. The changes they are asking for seem to be much more substantial than what they have seen i n the Staff Report. He pointed out that it would appear that the legal notice which was sent out reads that this is a proposal to change from 235 development units to 189 development units. Actually, what has been brought out in this hearing, it would appear that they are actually i ncreasi ng the development units to 283 rather than decreasing to 189. He felt, therefore, that the legal notice deviates from what actually is being proposed. He felt that previous comments made that information was not made available to the public is very pertinent because the drawing on the lower portion of the board appears not to be substantiated by what can be seen on the site. He stated that the upper drawing on the board was not available to the public and this is very important because it develops some of the real information that is being discussed. Mr. Harkelrode thought that a zone change is in order here to carry out what is being proposed. The associations he represents recommend that this be included in the next legal notice. H e further pointed out that the legal notice states it is not necessary to do an additional Environmental Impact Report. However, he felt because of the landslide, the instabil i ty of the area, the major change to the open spaces, which is not defined greatly in the Staff Report, but was generally indicated by Mr. Baldwin's statements just previously, would indicate that the open space has been changed substanti ally. He also pointed out that the accesses to these open spaces which are now called new parcels, going down into Daniger and the other roads in the County area represent totally new approaches in the way of traffic access, etc. These roads were designed to accommodate very 1 imi ted areas . Therefore, the feeling is that an EIR is required. There has been no determination made that an EIR is not required. It would appear that an EIR is very much required because they are talking about a whole new design concept. With regard to grading approach, looking back to two years ago, Mr. Baldwin promised that the crest housing would not be visible from below, but this is not so. This is not i n accordance with the East Orange Plan . V Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Thirteen C~ Mr. Harkel rode pointed out that Tentative Tract 9605 was a companion to Tentative Tract 9606 and the open spaces were sup- posed to have been consistent with one another. They feel that the legal notice i s substantially defective and does not cover the questions raised. The proper information has not been made avai 1 abl e by the applicant. He felt also that density numbers need to be brought out. There is a dispari ty here. The associations which he represents strongly recommend that this application be disapproved. They would strongly recommend major changes i n the plan if the Commission wants to allow this. Mr. Baldwin responded that many of the points brought out by the previous speaker have already been approved previously. He pointed out that the phase of development in which this area is in presents i t i n its worst possible li ght. He went on to explain about the 16 units over the general plan on the land that was recently sold to P1r. Rodriguez, who now plans one very large estate on that property. This would be significantly under the amount of develop- ment allotted to that property. He indicated that people from his office came to the city and met wi th the East Orange people and the Staff. They had only one con- cern with their request. Wi th regard to Per. Domi nick's statements that the 1 andsl i de i s not under control , he stated that they have stabi 1 i zed i t but the 1 andscapi ng i s not complete. One of the reasons i t i s not compl ete is that i t i s pendi ng approval of the plans . Commissioner Mickelson asked Mr. Baldwin if he had had any additional s tudi es done by soi 1 s engineers with regard to the 1 andsl i de. Mr. Bladwin replied that. as soon as the landslide occurred, he hired addi ti o nal geologists to study the area . H e had three different geology compani es do this study . After they had all three reports , then they went i n to do their work . Commissioner Mickelson explained that when something like this land- slide occurs, it would seem to him that this documentation should have been turned over to the Environmental Review Board as supple- mental to the original Environmental Impact Report. Otherwise, he felt that the City 1 eaves itsel f open to 1 i ti gati on for not doing this. Or someone could attack the inadequacy of the EIR and therefore the inadequacy of the Commission's decision i n the matter because they didn't look into the additional facts. Mr. Johnson was asked if he knew about the landslide and he replied that he knew about it. He was told that they were taking care of the situation and the city did not get any further i nvol ved i n the situation. Mr. Baldwin explained that they had raised the pads i n the area of the landslide and went into a little further detail as to what they had done to remedy the situation. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Murphy commented that since the East Orange Implementation Committee report has been raised by the applicant, he explained that the two members of that committee who met with the Staff i ndi Gated no concern for the i ncreased number of uni is within the revised tract, but their concerns were basically with dividing the large slope areas into estate lots and the further division of the small lots along the curved road facing Chapman Avenue, both as being inconsistent with the East Orange Plan. The additional com- ments from the committee were that they reminded the Staff that an equestrian trail was to be provided along the southwest edge of the project, and the Staff has included this in the proposed conditions. That trail would be developed by the applicant and maintained by a homeowners' association. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Fourteen Chairman Coontz commented with regard to the Environmental Impact Report that she assumed that the feeling was that the previous EIR was acceptable but that the geologists' reports should be added. Commissioner Mickelson stated that he had to express his concern i n this regard. He felt that this design does not meet with the East Orange Plan, particularly with regard to the open space areas, because it is changing commonly owned and maintained open space to privately owned open space. This was a very specific issue in the plan. Secondly, he felt that there i s certainly some modi fi cati on to the original tentative tract warranted, due to the fact that they are not going to use the reservoir site for a reservoir and due to the fact that the landslide occurred. He stated that he believed Mr. Baldwin's statement that the additional buttressing required a higher site. However, the original tract was 235 lots total. Now they are proposing 188 lots in addition to the 97 already recorded, fora total of 285 lots, which is an additional 50 lots. He ex- plai ned that he would agree with the Staff and the East Orange Implementation Committee that 18 addi ti onal 1 ots is not significant and woul d not bother the area too much . However, he i s concerned that they would take action without having a report on the geology study that recommended the grading. He felt that they would be taking a terrible chance making a decision without the geological information. He saw two alternatives. One is to continue the Revised Tentative Tract hearing and ask that the Environmental Impact Report be supplemented. The other is to make a recommendation for denial and force them to take it to the City Council. He pointed out that the rainy season is upon us and they need a decision quickly. He did not see any need to change the width of Road "E". He could not see approval without amending the plan. He did not think the Commission could approve thi s even with Staff's conditions . Commissioner Hart felt very nervous about the landslide and the effect i t has on the whole area. There appears to be measures that can be taken to correct it but adding units and taking away green belt area does not solve the problem. He would 1 ike to see the original map carried out. Commissioner Mickelson stated that the only thing he could find acceptable would be to modify the area of the map for the fact that the reservoir site i s no 1 onger a reservoi r s i to and the 1 and i s obviously different now. Commissioner Ault also was concerned regarding the landslide. The Commission then asked Mr. Baldwin which way he would like this to go - a continuance to allow for time to revise the proposal and supply additional geological information, or denial recommendation to the City Counci 1 . Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that i f they recommended denial, even with all of their comments, he could see nothing but that the City Counci 1 would send i t back to the Commission. Mr. Baldwin stated that he preferred the denial because of the time limits he was working under and the fact that he received a denial recommendation from the Commission on the first tentative map and the City Council acted to approve anyway. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit 1072 and Revised Tentative Tract 9605, because of the lack of information on geologic slide ~. problems. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Fifteen Commissioner Mickelson asked how long it would take to supplement an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Murphy answered that i t woul d take approximately 30 days . There was further discussion among the commissioners with regard to the time element. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson none none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Mickelson felt that there should be findings with this motion. Chairman Coontz felt that a synopsis of the comments of the Commission should go to the City Council. Question was asked by the audience if this material would be avai 1 abl e to the pub 1 i c before the meeting of the City Counci 1 . Answer was that information is always available to the public. It was explained that the publ i c can always come to the City Hal 1 and see the plans . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1073 - TAKETA: Request to allow two-story development i n the RCD Overlay district on the southwest corner of Grand Street and Culver Avenue. (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review.) (Continued from meeting of December 15, 1980 .) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, pointing out that this is a request to allow construction of a detached residence at the rear of the property on the southwest corner of Grand Street and Culver Avenue. A Conditional Use Permit is required to construct a two-story s tructure in the RCD Overlay. The property contains a .15 acre of land and is zoned R-D-6 (RCD). It contains a single family residence. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story detached residence at the rear of the property which will be partially over a two-car garage. An open parking space is provided adjacent to the alley and a new one-car garage i s to be 1 ocated next to the existing residence. The proposed second unit is to be 21 feet 1-3/4 inches in height, measured to the top of the pitched roof. There are several two- story residences in the immediate vicinity of this property. In addition, several of the one-story residences have high pitched roofs . The property is 1 ocated within the boundaries of the Mi 1 e- Square Old Towne area. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the area for low density (2-6 units/acre) residential development. Mr. Soo-Hoo stated that the Staff Review Committee has eval uated the proposal and has commented that a barrier should be constructed between the driveway and the alley to prevent cars from cutting across the corner. Staff recommends approval of Condi ti onal Use Permit 1073 for th e reasons that thi s applicant's proposal is compatible with the surrounding 1 and uses and zoning and i s compatible with the Land Use Element of the City of Orange General Plan; and that other properties i n the i mmedi ate vi ci ni ty have been developed i n a manner similar to that requested by the applicant. Staff recommends that Conditional Use Permit 1073 be approved with the 7 conditions set forth i n the Staff Report. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Sixteen There being no one to speak for or against this application, the chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1073, subject to the seven conditions set forth in the Staff Report. Commissioner Master questioned with regard to other two-story structures in the area and Mr. Soo-Hoo explained in more detail. It was explained that the roof line of this structure is consistent with those on Washington. i AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson none none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master commented that it might appear that he was inconsistent with his vote since he voted against the other appl i cati on simi 1 ar to thi s one. However, he thought there is a di fference i n the character of the area and the problem of the narrow alleyway, which they do not have here. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 80-774, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1075 - PACE: Request to allow development of an office condominium on the east side of Rampart Street, north of State College Boulevard. (Note: Negative Declaration 659 has been prepared in lieu of an Environ- mental Impact Report. ) ( Continued from meeting of December 15, 1980. ) This application was presented by Stan Soo-Hoo, who explained that thi s was a request to allow construction of a single-story, 40 ,744 square foot condominium office development. The property contains 3.222 acres of land located on the east side of Rampart Street approximately 830 feet north of the centerline of State College Boulevard. The property is zoned C-2 and is vacant. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the area for major commercial development. The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative. parcel map and conditional use permit in order to create an office condominium development. He proposes to develop the site with 5 si ngl e-story office bui 1 di ngs . Access to the site will be taken from two points on Rampart Street. 163 parking spaces are required for the 40,744 gross square feet of office space. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the Staff Review Committee has evaluated the proposal and has made the comments that adequate on-site maneuvering room be provided for fire fighting equipment; and that adequate turn-around space be provided at the end of the south- westerly row of parking. The Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 6 59. With regard to the Tentative Parcel Map 80-774 and Conditional Use Permit 1075, Staff feels that the applicant's proposal is acceptable and recorr~nends that i t be approved for the reasons that the proposal is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan; and that the proposal conforms to all applicable development standards for the C-2 zone. Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 80-774 with 6 conditions and Condi ti oral Use Permit 1075 with 14 condi - tions, as listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Seventeen Ron Wilson, Architects Orange, 144 N. Orange Street, Orange, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant, in favor of the application. He showed a rendering of the planned project to the Commission and stated that the applicant finds no exceptions with the condi ti ons stated i n the Staff Report. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Master, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 659. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1075 and Tentative Parcel Map 80-774, for reasons stated in the Staff Report, with the condi ti ons as 1 i sted i n the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT : Commi ssi oners none POTION CARRIED VARIANCE 1609 - ZEROUNI: Request to allow encroachments into required setbacks, greater number of compact parking spaces than code permits, and substitution of a 42 inch high iron fence in lieu of 6 foot high block wall for property located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue at Main east of Orange-Olive Road. (Note: Negative Declaration 637 has been previously accepted and no further Environmental Review is required.) (Continued from meeting of December 15, 1980.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to allow parking in the required setbacks; to allow a greater number of compact car spaces than permitted by Code; to allow a trash enclosure to be located in the required setback area; and to allow an iron fence in lieu of the six-foot masonry wall required on the property line between the subject property and the adjoining residentially zoned property to the east. He pointed out that the property contains .2 acre of land located on the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Plain Street. The property is zoned 0-P and is vacant. The applicant i s pro posing to cons truct an office bui 1 di ng on thi s property and requests a variance for the following: a. To allow 10 parking spaces to be located either partially or totally in the required setback areas along Lincoln Avenue and Main Street. b. To allow 36 percent of the parking spaces to be compact size (20 percent is allowed by code). c. To allow a trash enclosure to be located in the required setback area along Main Street. d. To allow an iron fence in lieu of the six foot masonry wall required on the easterly property line between the subject property and the adjacent residentially zoned property. Mr. Murphy explained that the proposed office building is a two-story structure with a gross floor area of 5,591 square feet. The required 22 parking spaces will be provided. The parking area at the north- east corner of the 1 ot, as wel l as the upper 1 evel of the bui 1 di ng are at the same level as the residential property to the east. A six foot masonry wall will be provided between the two properties Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Eighteen at this point, as required. The parking area at the southeast corner of the property and the lower level on the building are approximately 10 feet below the level of the adjacent residential property. It is in this area that a 42 inch iron fence is proposed i n 1 i eu of the block wal 1 . A detached garage i n the rear yard of ~ the residential property partially abuts this area of the shared property line. Mr. Murphy further explained that Variance 1589 was approved by the City Counci 1 on Augus t 26 , 1980 for the development of two smaller office buildings on this property, with a total floor area of 4,513 square feet. Variance 1589 allowed the partial encroach- ment of 5 parking spaces and a trash enclosure into the required setback areas as well as an increase in the allowed number of compact parking stalls. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the property for office-professional development. Mr. Murphy explained that the Staff has reviewed the revised plan which was before the Commission, which is a revision since December 15, 1980, and recommends approval of that revision, being similar to the original two-building plan approved by the Commission some time ago. He further explained that the Staff recommends 17 conditions with this approval, all of which are standard except the one allowing for the iron fence, which would be a modification to #13, which should say that an iron fence be provided along th e east property in lieu of a 6 foot view obscuring masonry wall. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Jack Ouzounian, 10835 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, the architect for this project, addressed the Commission in favor of the application. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have. Leonard Kruze, 1662 Main Street, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He objected to this project because it would take away his privacy. He stated that he would like to see a cinder block wall. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master asked for an explanation of the elevation of this property. Mr. Zerouni, the applicant, was asked to explain thi s matter. He explained that thei r reason for the wrought iron fence i n the aforementi oned area was for es theti c purposes , but if Mr. Kruze would like a block wall, they would put that in. Mr. Ouzounian, the architect, explained with regard to the upper and lower parking lots and where the fence in question is being proposed. The top of the fence will be 42" above Mr. Kruze's property. Mr. Kruze withdrew his objections after the situation was explained to him. Moved by Commissioner Ault, secon approve Variance 1609, subject to Staff Report, and with the change Mr. Murphy. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ded by Commissioner Coontz, to the 17 conditions stated i n the i n Condition #13 as stated by Master, Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Nineteen ZONE CHANGE 915, VARIANCE 1610 - EB ERLI NG~: Request to rezone property from RM-7 to OP and to allow modification of the parking requirement for an office proposal on the west side of Bush Street between Stewart Drive and Havana Place. (Note: Negative Declaration 610 has been prepared in lieu of Environmental Impact Report.) ( Continued from meeting of December 15, 1980.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission. He stated that the request is to allow a change of zone to 0-P (Office Professional) to permit construction of a school, clinic and medical office building. A variance is requested to allow a reduction in the number of required parking spaces and an increase in the allowed percentage of compact car spaces. The property consists of approximately .93 acre of land and is located on the west side of Bush Street between Havana Place and Stewart Drive. The property contains a number of single story structures originally constructed for residents al purposes, but now houses a speech and hearing center and is zoned RM-7. ~'` The applicant is requesting a zone change to change the zoning of this property to 0-P in order to more accurately reflect the proposed use as well as a variance in order to permit construction of a six (6) story (plus penthouse) office building with provision of fewer parking spaces than required by code. Lastly, a tentative parcel map has been filed in order to consolidate the six existing parcels which make up the site into one lot. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that specifically the applicant proposes to construct 121,000 square feet of gross floor area with use allocation of 15,000 square feet on the 1st floor for the Speech and Hearing Center and 3,800 square feet for possibly a pharmacy; 20,000 square feet on the second floor for a dialysis facility operated i n conjunction with St. Joseph Hospital ; and 82,200 square feet on the third through the sixth floor and penthouse to be used for doctors' offices . Entrance to the Speech and Hearing Center would be independent from the balance of the building and would be located at the southern end. Access to the office uses would be via the northern portion of the structure. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that all applicable development standards can be complied with excepts ng the parking requirement. Code standards require provision of 574 spaces while the applicant pro- poses to provide 394 spaces . A parks ng study conducted by the applicant's traffic engineer verifies that 394 spaces would adequately serve the site. A commitment has been received from St. Joseph Hospi tal to allow use of th ei r parking faci 1 i ti es immediately eas t (surface parking) and northeast (parking structure) of the subject site to satisfy the parking required for the proposal. It is noted that these existing parking facilities do not appear to be surplus spaces which may be reallocated to allow development of additional floor area. It was pointed out that St. Joseph Hospital indicates future plans to add two additional 1 evel s onto their existing parking structure which would yield an estimated 600 parking spaces, though a specific time schedule for construction has not been committed to. It i s stated that completion i s anticipated with completion of the proposal under consideration. In addition, 47 parking spaces can be provided on a vacant lot at the southwest corner of Bush Street and Columbia Place which is unimproved at the present time. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that Conditional Use Permit 973 was previously approved by the Planning Commission on July 16, 1979 to allow development of a two-story structure to replace the existing bus 1 di ngs . The Conditional Use Permit has not been i mpl emented Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Twenty since a more major development is now contemplated. The land use element of the General Plan designates the area for local commercial and high density residential use. Staff recommends that the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 610 be accepted. The city traffic engineer has reviewed the findings of the applicant's consultant and feels that they are acceptable. Staff recommends approval of the variance in accordance with the findings of the parking study and also approval of the zone change to 0-P, which is logical in this case, and finally approval of the lot consolidation request. The Staff is recommending one condition with the variance and that is that the parking proposed be provided prior to occupancy of the facility. A second condition is recommended which was proposed by the applicant's consultant, and that is that the compact spaces provided should be designated for use by employees and not by the general public. There is much 1 ess turnover i n parking use with employees than by being used by the general public. After discussion among the commissioners with regard to the in- adequacy of parking for this size building, the chairman opened the public hearing. Jim Taylor, Newport Development Co., representing the developer of this project, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He explained that the Conditional Use Permit was approved earlier for a two-story facility for Providence. He stated that basically the traffic study which had been conducted was not conducted just for the Providence building, but was authorized by St. Joseph Hospi tal to address the total means of the hospital faci 1 i ty i n conjunction with Providence, and open up the utilization of both the faci 1 i ti es . He explained that the request for the parking spaces to be reduced from the 594 required by the city to the 394 they are asking for, is a little difficult to understand until several facts which he was to mention were taken into consi derati on. Fi rs t of all , they are proposing a six-story structure. However, the parking for the first two stories is known. They know the employees and know the visitor and dialysis center traffic. He pointed out that parking for the dialysis center is already provided at St. Joseph Hospital. He pointed out that they are providing parking spaces for the additional four stories of the building, based upon the study that was conducted by the consul tant and the figures that he has developed are predicated on information that he has generated based upon his experience as a traffic consultant and in survey of similar type of facilities. He pointed out that the protection for the city of Orange lies in the fact that the existing parking structure is not being utilized properly at this time. Because of this, they are referring to a parking management program to better assign the facility. The building which they are proposing cannot be occupied until the structure is increased by two stories so that the parking facilities will be in place for Providence by then. Mr. Taylor felt that the reason the traffic engineer has concurred with this is that he has read the extensive traffic report and understands the entire si tuation. They think the faci 1 i ty wi 11 be adequately parked and i t wi 11 enhance the area. They feel they can answer any questions that the Commission might have in this regard. He then showed a rendering of the proposed building to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Twenty One Commissioner Master asked about the parking already being provided for dialysis patients. He wanted to know what would happen to the dialysis space being used now. P1r. Taylor answered that this space woul d be uti 1 i zed as a part of the hospi tat 's overal 1 plan, which has been accommodated in the traffic study. Commissioner Mickelson wondered if they cannot get the people to use the top floor of the parking structure now, how will they get people to use that and two more floors? Mr. Taylor explained that the parking management situation will take care of this. Geneva Fulton, 1801 N. Greenleaf, Santa Ana, addressed the Com- mission in opposition to this application. She stated that they are having problems with thei r parking now. They have nurses parking in their lot. In their leases, it is stated that none of the lessees can park in the main front lot. She explained that she built her buildings for profit and much of their parking space is taken up by nurses, etc. When they can park free on her lots, they wi 11 not park i n mul ti pl e parking bui 1 di ngs . I f th ey are bui 1 di ng a mul ti pl e parking garage, why not bui 1 d i t 1 arge enough now? She feels the project is good, but they must have adequate parking. She explained that she 1 i ves i n a condominium at Greenl eaf and 17th. There is a school around the corner. The parking is getting worse. They park on Flower and on 19th and cut off parking access for the condominium residents . I f there i s mul ti pl e parking they should build a few more floors of parking to make it completely adequate. Chairman Coontz asked Mr. Murphy to describe the boundaries of the study being done on high rise buildings. He replied that the boundari es would include thi s property. Loretta Cargell, Administrative Assistant at St. Joseph Hospital, addressed the Commission, stating that the employee parking lot is free and visitor parking i s free for the first two hours . Emergency type of parking is free also. She realized that when they insti tuted parking faci 1 i ties and busing to St. Joseph Hospi tal that there are some people abusing their parking privileges and the hospital en- courages the local people to have the offending cars towed away. Chairman Coontz asked about the shuttle and the hours it runs. It was explained that i t runs during the day only. It is not really needed at nigh t, since night time parking is not really a problem. Ms. Cargell went on to explain about the parking problems. She further explained that there is a concerted effort to provide parking for St. Joseph Hospital, Children's Hospital and 1201 La Veta, since they recognize that they all more or less share a common site and the problems that belong to one belong to all. They have been purchasing property and have had soil compaction tests in order to evaluate how much they could add to the parking faci 1 i ty they already have. I t was decided they could over bui 1 d two more floors, but it would not be cost effective to build more than that. Mrs . Fulton again addressed the Commission, stati ng that she does not feel that they should have to pay $500 to $600 per month to someone to patrol their parking lot. The people continue to park i n thei r 1 of and she feel s parking should be supplied whi 1 e the bui 1 di ng i s being bui 1 t. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Twenty-Two The problems relative to parking exist today and are not going to go away unless something is done about it. Ms. Cargell again spoke, stating that the addition of the two stories for 600 additional. spaces would more than adequately park the Providence when they are occupied. Parking problems will be the cause of poor management, not because of lack of space. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Coontz stated that you can manage the employees, but how do you manage the rest of the people who use the parking structures. There are many people who feel there is a safety problem when parking i n structured parking bui 1 di ngs . As far as people using Mrs. Fulton's parking lot, it is long overdue for a personal com- muni cati on between the business people and the hospital . Taking the matter into their own hands does not solve the matter. Chair- man Coontz commented that it would be important for the public relations people at St. Joseph Hospital to be more concerned about the surrounding residents. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to recommend acceptance of the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 610, AYES: Commissi oners Ault, Master NOES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Nickelson ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION FAILED Commissioners Coontz, Hart and Nickelson expressed dissatisfaction with the mi ti gation measures . Commissioner Nickelson stated that he was bothered by the fact in the study that 394 spaces are adequate, which is 1 ess than adequate for business and medical buildings need more parking spaces than business . The study does not talk about the overal 1 need for traffic. It really only justifies the parking on this area. He would feel more comfortable with firm commitments and some kind of agreement, other than just a condi ti on, that they would bui 1 d additional parking and that that parking i s demonstrated to be adequate for the complexity of usage assigned to it; and that they would commit to the additional property that they have in the event that i t doesn't work 1 ater. However, that i s not i n the report, nor i s i t part of the condition. Commissioner Coontz felt that they do not have a good overview of the entire complex. Moved by Commissioner Nickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that they find the Negati ve Declaration i nadequate i n that i t does not address the total parking demand of the area and how this project can be accommodated within that total demand; and does not address adequately the assurances of providing the additional space as i t becomes necessary. There was more discussion among the commissioners regarding this question. The applicant then asked a question before the Commission voted. He explained that the study has addressed the ultimate utilization of the hospi tal and the ul ti mate uti 1 i zati on of the Providence Hearing & Speech Center. He didn't know how they could address any other parking in the area because they have no idea as to how Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Twenty-Three the rest of the property, wherever that may be, will be utilized. They can only address to the use-which they have information on, which is the Providence Hearing & Speech Center and the hospi tal . The city has already placed a condition on them that they cannot occupy the building until the parking is in place. Commissioner Mickelson replied that there are no numbers stated in the report. There is no total number to see if the 394 spaces fit into the situation. Applicant further explained with regard to this situation. He pointed out that this is an extract from the total report which was prepared for the hospital. The parking consultant can speak to the fact that this section which deals with Providence is a part of a total report, the conclusion of which is that the parking for the hospital and the parking for Providence is sufficiently and adequately covered. Commissioners agreed that they did not have adequate information to vote on this application properly. It was explained that the report had been submitted to the city of Orange's traffic engineer for study and evaluation. Commissioner Mickelson withdrew his motion because he felt that this was important information to be considered. Commissioner Hart agreed. Jim Collier, of Therman, Stevenson, consultants retained by St. Joseph Hospital to analyze and prepare a comprehensive traffic plan for the area, addressed the Commission, stating that he felt there was some confusion with regard to the adequacy of parking being provided for this proposed building and also parking management. With regard to the parking spaces being provided for Providence, they prepared a very comprehensive report on that building. There is quite a bit of data available on hospitals and medical centers, but there was not much information with re- gard to high rise buildings. They were asked to state how much parking should be provided. They took the best of both worlds in their analysis and went through an individual analysis on the entire facility, floor by floor. They analyzed the 1201 La Veta Building for parking purposes. They indicated to the applicant, with regard to the second floor dialysis center, that if it is a case of displacing an existing facility and simply relocating it to the Providence Building that this displaced area may generate additional traffic. That particular need would have to be addressed. How- ever, the applicant pointed out to them that on that particular displaced area, the parking requirements for that would be provided by St. Joseph Hospital complex and should not have to be conditioned on what was going to happen with Providence. He further explained with regard to the first floor, because of the concern about the Providence Speech & Hearing Center possibly in- creasing the parking problems because of their occupying additional space, they were assured by the applicant that this would not be the case. They did a very thorough job on their parking analysis for this facility. The 394 spaces was a very conservative analysis. With regard to parking management, which is the use of incentives and decentives to meet the needs of those who use these parking faci 1 i ti es . Their study i ncl udes the entire area, i ncl udi ng St. Joseph Hospital , CHOC and 1201 La Veta complex. He stated that he had available, and thought that the information was being transmitted to the Commission, a one sheet summary of the current parking demands and state requirements and he also had a copy of the analysi s which was prepared for the entire faci 1 i ty. He ex- plained that the numbers are available and were made available to the traffic engineer for the city of Orange. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Twenty-Four Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that with the additional two stories on the parking structure, they would be 50 parking spaces short. He asked if he was correct in this assumption and h1r. Collier replied that this was not so - that this was the current situation. They do have some projected figures as to what the future requirements would be and they are primarily based on the future employment projections of the hospital. As the employment ratio at the hospital increases, there will be a proportionate increase in not only the parking demand, but the number of parking spaces that the hospital will have to provide. Regarding the parking impact on the neighbors of St. Joseph Hospital, Mr. Collier pointed out that the areas around Main Street and La Veta have a definite parking problem. However, this cannot be totally blamed on St. Joseph Hospital. Commissioner Hart questioned with regard to the leased space that they are busing their employees to. It was- explained that there are up to 600 spaces off site. About 400 employees are actually parking in that area. The agreement is for two years, starting in July of 1980, with a one year option which St. Joseph felt would allow enough time to solve their parking problems. Commissioner Mickelson asked i f the consul tants had reviewed the aggregate totals with Mr. Dennis and he was told that this was so. Mr. Murphy felt that there were a couple of al ternati ves avai 1 abl e to the Commission. If they should choose not to find the negative declaration unacceptable, then their only alternative is to deny the application. However, they also have the alternative of asking for additional information from the applicant and the Staff has encouraged the applicant to provide a comprehensive analysis of the parking in the complex itself, not just in terms of numbers, but in terms of the actual ability to provide parking spaces. They have seen some numbers, but they have not seen a copy of a compre- hensive report up to this time. Commissioner Mickelson felt that the Commission has been asked to make a decision on very sketchy information. Another alternative for the Commission is to change one of the conditions. Mr. Collier stated that h1r. Dennis has not seen a complete report on this yet. They cannot complete their analysis until they know more about how many parking spaces must be provided for Providence. Commissioner Master commented that if the parking management program does the job they say i t wi 11 do, they may not need two more stories . The applicant replied that as a general observation, St. Joseph does not have a parking facility problem, but they do have a parking management problem. They are trying to guarantee that they maximize the efficiency i n thei r current parking faci 1 i ti es . Commissioner h1ickelson asked Mr. Murphy if the Commission could change the condition stating that parking should be provided prior to occupancy of the building and suggest that the applicant submit their parking management plan to the city for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. He could not see allowing them to build a six-story building and then not allowing them to move in. Ch airman Coontz stated that she had a problem with the parking management plan. John P. Kelly, Administrative Director of Providence Speech & Hearing Center, addressed the Commission, stating that he is pleading that the Commission look at this project as an individual project only. They have been looking for 16 years for a home. They went on a fund drive one year ago when they were given permission to build a two-story building. They were approached by St. Joseph Hospital with a proposal to enhance the medical campus where they are on one side of i t, because they faced problems themselves and they fel t Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 19 81 Page Twenty-Five that there would be an enhancement totally of the medical complex by Providence putting up a 1 arger bui 1 di ng than the original one which they had planned. They had gone out with a goal of 22 million dollars and they have raised half of that from the com- muni ty. They stopped raising funds when they went i n a different direction to build a larger structure for the mutual benefit of the medical community. They have now started to gain momentum again in their fund raising to come up with their 22 million dollar requirement. He pointed out that once the momentum is lost in a fund drive i t is very tough to start up again. If they are delayed again, it will probably be impossible to start up again. He wanted the Commission to know how important this is to the Providence people. Commissioner Ault agreed with the applicant. There was further discussion among the Commissioners with regard to this application. The applicant stated that the condi tions suggested this eveni nq would be acceptable to them. Mr. Murphy stated that he was not comfortabl e with the Staff being put in the position of having to approve ordering a six-story building based upon future studies. Commissioner Mickelson asked if they approve the variance with the conditions as set forth in the Staff Report and the additional testimony given this evening, which he assumed to be correct and proper, and they build this building and get it ready to occupy, and they come to the conclusion that there isn't enough parking and the parking management plan is not adequate, will they be denied final occupancy? Mr. Murphy stated that Staff can live with the 394 parking spaces set up for this building if the overall. parking analysis shows that there is not a general parking problem i n the area. Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that this is all intertwined. He did not see falling into place the fact that they would take 394 spaces, which is barely adequate because they have made assumptions that no growth will occur in some of these areas, and he didn't be- lieve you can make that assumption. They are right at the minimum for this building. What if a new center comes in and wants to occupy space in the building? There is no leeway there and they do not know how the 394 fits i nto the total picture. Chairman Coontz suggested that the Commission continue this hearing and give the traffi c engineer the opportuni ty to review the whol e set of information. It was pointed out that the Commission is meeting next week on Monday for a study session acid the Commission wondered if the report could be made available to Mr. Dennis within the next week . Applicant replied that they could not give the complete report but figures could be given to him. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the important information needed is not only the numbers, but the layout as to how these parking spaces can be 1 aid out. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Chairman Coontz, to continue this hearing for two weeks to allow the applicant to review the parking demand and traffic circulation with the city traffi c engineer. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioner Ault ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Twenty-Six IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERK",IT 1079 - SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY: Request to al 1 ow operation of coin operated pi nbal 1 ma chines i n existing department store located at the northwest corner of Tustin Street and Meats Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 663 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this appl ication to the Commission, stati nq that this is a request to allow the use of a 405 square foot areav i n an existi ng store for the operation of coi n-operated pi nbal l ma chines and other el ectroni c games . He explained that Negative Declaration 663 has been prepared in lieu of an environmental impact report. The property contains 18.26 acres of land on the northwest corner of Tustin Street and Meats Avenue and contains a department store in a regional shopping center and is zoned C-2. The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a maximum of 25 coin-operated pinball machines and other electronic games in a 405 square foot area in the basement of the existing department store. Adjacent to this area are the toy and catalog departments and customer services counter. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that there are approximately 51 game ma chines presently i n operation at several other 1 ocati ons i n the store. These would be either removed or relocated to the proposed basement area if the conditional use permit is approved. If the conditional use permit is not approved, the existing machines could remain at thei r present 1 ocations . Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the Staff has reviewed the proposal and recommends that the hours of operation be limited to exclude operation during school hours. This is in response to the Police Department's concern that such a facility could encourage truancy from nearby schools. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 663. With regard to Conditional Use Permit 1079, since the operation of game machines is to take place completely within the confines of the store and in a relatively busy part of the store, the impacts often associated with 1 of teri ng around game rooms are not felt to be a problem in this case. Game rooms have been associated with truancy problems in the past and therefore a condition limiting hours of operation is recommended due to the close proximity of the junior high school. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1079 with the following conditions: 1. That the games will not be operated prior to 2:30 p.m. on days when school is in session. 2. That development be in accordance with the site plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Robert Frankl i n, Operati ng Manager of Sears , Roebuck & Company, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that the room for the game machines has been built. These machines are i n that room and i t is functioning. The kids are behaving wel 1 . They agree with all conditions set forth by the Police Department and the Staff. There being no one else to speak for or against the application, the chairman cl osed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Twenty-Seven .~ ~_~ a AYES : NOES ABSENT AYES NOES: ABSENT Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 663. Commissioners Commissioners Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, ~1i ckelson none none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1079, subject to the conditions set forth in the Staff Report. Commissioners Commissioners Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson none none MOTION CARRIED ZO~~E CHANGE 937 - PATS CHECK DEVELOPMENT C0~IPANY Request to rezone property from A-1 to O-P on the south side of Chapman Avenue, west of Newport Boulevard. (Note: Negative Declaration 664 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) This is a request to allow a zone change to 0-P (Office-Professional) district in order to construct a two-story office building. Negative Declaration 664 has been prepared in lieu of an environ- mental impact report. The property contains 1.43 acres and is located on the south side of Chapman Avenue approximately 420 feet west of the centerline of Newport Boulevard. Said property is zoned A-1 and contains a dog kennel and single family residence. included). The applicant specifically proposes to basically maintain the existing dual pad topographic characteristic of the site. The two- story office building with some amount of parking would be developed on the upper pad (approximately 25 feet above Chapman Avenue) and the balance of the required parking would be provi ded on the 1 ower pad (about 8 feet above Chapman Avenue). Total floor area proposed is 25,500 square feet for which 102 parking spaces would be provided (thirteen compact spaces which constitutes 12.8% of the total are An interpretation was made by the Advance Planning Division that the proposed use and zoning is consistent with the General Plan. Staff has reviewed the proposal and indicates that circulation should be provi ded between the two parking aisles on the 1 ower 1 evel and that a turn-around in a "hammerhead" configuration should be provi ded for the upper parking cluster. It was also felt that the Development should be architecturally compatible with the residential environment of the area. Staff recommends that the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 664 be accepted. Review of this application by the Orange Park Acres Planning Com- mi ttee i s s ti 11 pending . How ever, s i nce the proposed zoni ng i s felt to be consistent with the General Plan and since i t i s compatible with the C-1 zoning to the East and South and should not significantly impact the single family tract to the West, since the elevation differential is approximately 170 feet, Staff feels 0-P zoning is appropriate. Should the Planning Commission be sufficiently concerned about the design of the building, since the general area is almost exclusively low density, low profile single family residential in character, the intent to rezone procedure may be imposed. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Twenty- Ei gh t Those items which need to be modified on the plan per Staff comments may be done as part of the subsequent plan check pro- cedure and do not present a significant problem. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against thi s application, the chairman cl osed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 664. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend approval of Zone Change 937 with implementation of the intent to rezone procedure. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: PRIVATE VS. PUBLIC STREETS MEMO: This was a followon from the presentation given by Bruce Ramm and Chairman Coontz pointed out that there had been a study session with regard to this and she 1 ater met with Mr. Murphy and t~1r. Ramm, whereupon the project was enlarged as a staff project to include a number of other individuals. It was agreed that this was a good report. However, there were comments from Commissioner Master with regard to the fact that the ability to control and enforce was not included in the report. It was pointed out that this was not necessary as this is meant only to be a guideline. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to forward thi s report to the City Counci 1 for thei r review and consideration. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master spoke with regard to compact car parking. He felt that perhaps it was appropriate to have staff address a change in code to allow a larger percentage of compact car parking spaces i n parki ng 1 ots . Commission reques ted the Staff to do a s tudy on compact car parking. Commissioner Master then brought up the subject of Villa Ford sign and leasing office and asked the Staff for a status report. There was discussion among the Commissioners with regard to this situation. IN RE: NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 1981: Commissioner Mickelson was nominated by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart, as the new Chairman. Moved by Commissioner Master to nominate Commissioner Hart for Chairman, who ddclined in favor of Commissioner Mickelson. Commissioners voted unanimously in favor of Commissioner Mickelson for the new Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1981. P Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1981 Page Twenty-Nine Commissioner Hart was nominated by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mick elson, as the new Vice-Chairman. Commissioner Coontz was nominated by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart, as the new Vice-Chairman. Upon voting by Commissioners, Commissioner Coontz was accepted as the new Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1981. Commissioner Hart moved, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, to commend Commissioner Coontz on her three fine years as Chairman of the Planning Commission. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 a.m, to reconvene on Monday, January 12, 1981 at 5:15 p.m., after which it will then reconvene at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, January 19, 1981 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. u 0 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER SS. OF ADJOURNMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere 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 January 5, 1981; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time ,~ and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on January 6, 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 January 5, 1981 was held. b *~ f EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 5, 1981. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson ABSENT: None Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Master that this meeting adjourn at 12:05 a.m. on Tuesday, January 6, 1981 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, January 19, 1981 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere 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, January 5, 1981. Dated this 6th day of January, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. re Murphy, Ci tycJ Planne~ & Secretary the Planning Commission of the City Orange . ~.