HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/19/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
City of Orange
Orange, California
January 19, 1981
Monday, 7:30 p.m.
The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by
Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Master
ABSENT: Commissioner Hart
STAFF Jere Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission
PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene Mi nshew,
Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Lon
Cahill, Fire Prevention Bureau; Bert Yamasaki, Director of
Planning & Development Services; Doris Ofsthun, Recording
Secretary.
FLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
At this time, Chairman Mickelson asked for a moment of silence
in respect for the hostages' awaiting their imminent freedom.
IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 5, 1981:
Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Coontz,
to approve the minutes of January 5, 1981, as transcribed.
AYES: Commissioenrs Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commisisoner Hart MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS:
ZONING CHANGE 915, VARIANCE 1610 - EBERLING:
Request to rezone property from RM-7 to OP and to allow modifica-
tion 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
January 5, 1981.)
Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating
that th i s i s a continued hearing with regard to asix-s tory
bui 1 di ng to be bui 1 t for the Provi dence Speech & Heari ng Center.
The request is to allow a change of zone to 0-P (Office Professional)
to permit construction of a school , cl i ni c and medi cal office
bui 1 di ng. A Vari ance i s reques ted to allow a reducti on i n 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 P1 ace and Stewart Drive.
h1r. Murphy reviewed the request by the applicant for a zone
change to change the zoning of the subject property to 0-P i n
order to more accurately reflect the proposed use as well as a
variance in order to permit construction of asix (6) story (plus
penthouse) office building with provision of fewer parking spaces
than required by code. Lastly, a tentative parcel map has been
fi 1 ed i n order to consolidate the six existi nq parcel s which
make up the site into one lot,
Mr. Murphy pointed out that all applicable development standards
can be complied with excepting the parkina requirement. Code
standards require provision of 574 spaces while the applicant
proposes to provide 394 spaces. A parking study conducted by
the applicant's traffi c engineer verifies that 394 spaces woul d
adequately serve the site. A commitment has been received from
St. Joseph Hospital to allow use of their parking facilities im-
mediately east (surface parking) and northeast (parking structure)
of the subject site to satisfy the parking required for the pro-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Two
posal . I t i s noted that these existing parking faci 1 i ti es do
not appear to be surplus spaces which may be reallocated to
allow development of additional floor area.
Mr. Murphy then explained to the Commission that the continuance
was called i n order to allow the Staff to adequately review the
parking study and figures which have been provided by the applicant's
traffic consultants. The city Traffic Engineer, who is responsible
for reviewing that information, has not had an opportunity to
adequately study the information i n the two week period since the
hearing was continued and, therefore, Staff recommends a further
Conti nuance i n order to allow the Traffic Engineer to finish hi s
work. The Staff requests another two week continuance i n this
matter. However, it is their understanding that the applicant
might wish to address the Commission this evening.
Commissioner Ault questioned Mr. Murphy as to when this information
was submitted to the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Murphy wasn't sure
just when the Traffi c Engineer had received the information. He
i ndi Gated that he has ei ther received the information necessary
or can obtain it, but has not had time to review the information.
Commissioner Ault felt that this was exactly why the applicant had
not wanted a continuance and he felt it is unfair to the applicant
to continue this matter again.
Mr. Minshew stated that one reason the Traffic Engineer did not
get to this matter is because of the lawsuit with Santa Ana.
Chairman Mickelson asked the applicant to come forward and address
the Commission with regard to their feelings about a further
continuance.
r
Jim Taylor, Newport Development Co., representing the applicant,
stated that thei r major concern, aside from the fact that they
have provided the information in summarized form to the Staff back
when they submitted their appl i cati on, i s that after the i nforma-
tion has been reviewed by the Staff, if the Commission has any
additional questions that this would require the submission of
additional data. They would feel more comfortable if a continuance
is necessary, if their traffic engineer could have an opportunity
to go through a one page cover sheet which was provided to the
Commissioners this evening and to summarize what that information
demonstrates to the Commission adn the city Traffic Engineer, and
get a confirmation that this information is sufficient upon which
to base an analysis and a recommendation to this Commission. He
explained that they have lost 45 days now and with a further con-
tinuance, will lose 15 more. He felt that, based on the importance
of this project, that they should make sure that they have given
sufficient information upon which to base an analysis by the city
Traffic Engineer.
Chairman Mickelson then clarified the fact that the applicant
wished to make a summary of the information on this project in
order to get a commitment from the Commission that this information
would be adequate for an evaluation, then making a decision this
Evening or make a decision after the Staff has reviewed it. The
applicant agreed with this summation.
r~
Commissioner Coontz stated that she understood from what the
Planni ng Department indicated, that this was not just a necessity
for a number of parking spaces, but a plot plan to include all of
the buildings in the complex. She did not feel that this would
do the job. She explained that they are going to the Traffic
Engineer for his expertise since they are not experts in traffic
and parking faci 1 i ties and they need hi s knowledge i n thi s matter.
This was why she felt the need fora continuance.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Three
s
Applicant asked for more clarification regarding this, as it was
their understanding and that of their traffic engineer that this
information should be sufficient upon which to base a decision.
Chairman Mickel son pointed out that the applicant's reques t was
to go ahead and review their data with the Commission in the
hopes that after they have explained it sufficiently, that it
will satisfy the Commission's concerns and that they could make
a decision this evening. He then polled the Commission as to
whether they wished to proceed with the presentation of this
matter and then make a decision.
Commissi oner Master stated that he would like to hear the presenta-
tion, but at this point he is not in a position to make a decision,
even with further presentation .
There was further discussion among the Commissioners and then
Chairman Mickelson asked fora presentation from the applicant
at this time. He also asked the people in opposition to this
application to 1 i mi t their concerns to the traffic study .
Chairman Mickelson reopened the public hearing.
Jim Calmara, of Berryman, Stephenson, traffic consultants for the
applicant, presented a series of slides containing some of the
data which was not made available at the last hearing. He ex-
pl ai ned that i n their original parking anal ysi s which was prepared
for the applicant, they subsequently provided a report including
information as to where parking was currently provided for the
St. Joseph Hospi tal complex as a whole. This was the basis for
much of the analysis which has been presented to the Commission.
The first exhibit was a summarization of the parking demand and
space requirements for the St. Joseph Hospital complex. It showed
not only the parking spaces now available, but the space needed
for the complex of St. Joseph Hospital, CHOC, 1201 W. La Veta and
the proposed speech and hearing center. H e further explained that
they had used a 1 i near equation i n es timati ng traffi c figures and
told the Commission that this was a very accurate way of getting
these fi gures . He pointed out that the Providence Speech &
Hearing Center needs have been provided by the Center's adminstrator.
Commissioner Ault asked for an explanation of "parking demand",
"parking spaces based on demand" and "spaces by code". Mr. Calmara
explained that parking demand means to go out and actually count
the spaces needed for the area demand. They then identify a
parking utilization rate factor, in order to come up with th e
number of actual spaces which would be needed. H e further explained
how theycome up with their figures fora report such as this. He
pointed out that they used an 85% estimation for St. Joseph Hospi-
tal, which is considered somewhat conservative. For CHOC they
used a 90% estimation. He then explained the basic summarization
of parking - current and future.
Mr. Calmara then showed the numbers on the report and explained
why they considered the parking insufficient as far as St. Joseph
Hospital is considered, Based on the figures he quoted, and
assuming no further building goes in in that area, in their pro-
posal, they would be providing 150 spaces over and above the
estimated future parking demand and over 250 spaces over what they
estimate is needed far the complex as a whole.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Four
Chairman Mickelson wondered if that anticipated future con-
e struction for St. Joseph Hospital as it is anticipated right
now. Mr. Calmara answered that they have those figures avail-
able, but they do not have a report addressing this question.
What they did was make future estimations of employment at the
hoppital to a target figure of 2600. The future they are re-
ferri ng to i s the addition of the other faci 1 i ti es and the
addition of the speech and hearing center.
The second exhibit showed a breakdown. by parking 1 of and where
the actual parking is located.
Commissioner Coontz asked for clarification of the Orange Medical
Complex office building because she thought there was not complete
understanding as to where that was. Mr. Calmara explained this
to the Commission.
The next exhibit showed the Orange Medical Complex just adjacent
to the CHOC Tower and right on the corner of La Veta and Pepper.
Mr. Calmara explained that this exhibit was prepared to show the
walking distances from the various parking 1 ots to the complex.
They took the average walking distance, which is probably one
concern when parking off-site. He explained just how far em-
ployees would have to walk from the various parking sites.
The final exhibit was taken from a transportation research report
the data from which has been collected fora number of years.
Average walking distances are taken from various charts. Average
walking distances are for various hospital facilities and their
figure for the average walking distance i s 700 feet for the
medical staff and goes as high as 850 feet.
Mr. Calmara concluded his presentation by saying that this in-
formation had not been given at the previous meeting and they
had wanted to be sure that thi s information was made avai 1 abl e
to the Commission. He did wish to make special note of the fact
that thi s information was made avai 1 a bl e to Berni e Dennis , the
city Traffic Engineer, for any type of analysis that he may have
wanted to conduct. They provided Mr. Dennis with what they
thought was a fairly thorough document for his study and evaluation.
Commissioner Coontz stated that the Commission's concern is with
the long range plan for these facilities.
Commissioner Master wished to confirm the fact that in the traffic
consultants' original presentati on, i t was their opinion that there
were adequate parking spaces, but that i t was mismanaged. He
wondered i f thi s was, i n essence, what the current numbers show
or substantiate.
Mr. Calmara replied that the current numbers indicate this fact.
If there is only an on-site deficiency of approximately 56 spaces,
then perhaps there is a problem with St. Joseph Hospital. He did
wish to indicate, however, that this is not a problem that St.
Joseph has in particular, but this is generally the case for all
hospitals because of the unusual type of operation that they have
and the work shifts that they are required to have in order to
meet medical needs in the community. He explained that because
of this, there is an overlapping need for parking. The only time
you have a real parking problem is when there is a shift change,
the first shift i s sti 11 on duty whi 1 e the second shift i s coming
into the building to look for parking. Shift change requirements
present a problem to not only St. Joseph Hospital, but to most
hospitals of small to medium size. However, this problem is only
~, present for perhaps 15 to 30 minutes out of a 24 hour day.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Five
Commissioner Master asked whether this exhibit represented the
off-site parking a 1 so and h e was told that i t did not . Th es e
are strictly on-site parking spaces .
Mr. Calmara also indicated that, in actual fact, the 600 spaces
that woul d be provided with two ad di ti onal 1 evel s of parking to
an existi ng parking structure would actually be i n excess of the
code. St. Joseph Hospi tal is not currently deficient i n meeting
the code requirements for any of the facilities that they have.
Practically speaking, they are providing 600 additional spaces
and the code is requi ri ng 574. He felt that the reason that the
applicant has made an effort to identify what the speci fic needs
would be for this facility is quite likely to eliminate the un-
necessary waste of space to provide parking that, in all probability
would not be utilized.
Chairman Mickelson further commented on future development in that
area, stating that he didn't know specifically what has been
proposed as far as additional buildings are concerned, but that
he has been informed that there are additional buildings being
proposed.
Commissioner Master wondered if the Staff has any way of deciding
that the code requirements are as stated in this presentation.
Mr. Murphy replied that th ey have not had a chance to study the
information given tonight, and therefore have no way to analyze
the i nformati on at thi s time.
Robin Ravgiala, Director of Planning for St. Joseph Hospital,
addressed the Commission, stating that she would like to remind
the Commission that health care facilities are under very strenuous
health care planning regulations . Anything that costs more than
$200,000 must go through a strenuous health care planning agency
evaluation. She explained that with the current overbedding in
Orange County an addi tional facility is not likely. Their current
planning incorporates any proposed new buildings and any proposed
new structures or added services. All of these things are in-
cluded within the current parking study that they commissioned
to be done. If they should be allowed to, at some future time,
bui 1 d or add space, then they would have to come back to the
Commission and the Commission would be able to regulate parking
at that time. For right now, they have no other buildings or
projects pending.
P-ir. Taylor's final comment was that he i s a pl anner, not a traffi c
engineers. He has come to the conclusion that, based upon what
is being proposed to be built and the mitigation measure of two
extra stories of parking, that the figures show that there wi 11
be more than sufficient parking for the uses. Their conclusion
is that there is more than ample parking for the proposed building
that they wish to build. If the Commission cannot concur with
this they need identification of where the problems are.
Geneva Fulton, 1801 Greenleaf, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission
with regard to the 400 block an South Main Street in Orange.
She had one question. If St. Joseph Hospital has enough parking,
why are they 1 easing 500-600 parking spaces at Fashion Square and
busing thei r employees -nd why are they not providing parking for
the first two floors of the six-story building? She pointed out
that any office bui 1 di ng changes tenants . Now they are having a
school. Student counts can be doubled up one year and dropped the
next. She alluded to the traffic analyst's explanation with re-
gard to the fact that multiple parki ng was further away than the
west park lot and they would have to walk north or south to the
corner. She felt that if the west park lot were made into multiple
parking, then give them the permit to build. Just one floor of
parking is not enough.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Six
Loretta Cargill, Administrative Assistant for St. Joseph
Hospital, addressed the Commission, stating that they had
relocated their parking spaces for day shift employees off-site,
anticipating thi s parti cul ar project, anti ci pati ng the con-
struction on the site and the fact that they will be overbuilding
that particular structure that now parks employees two levels
above. She explained that the third 1 evel of that structure i s
now vacant because of employees parking off-site. She further
explained that insofar as the provision of parking for the 1st
and 2nd 1 evel s, these are servi ces that are already on-site and
their parking spaces on-site would be vacated. She pointed out
that compact car parking spaces are based on actual counts of
smaller cars.
There being no one else to speak for or against this application,
the chairman cl osed the public hearing.
Chairman Mickelson explained that the Commission has several
alternatives. They could deny or continue this matter, as the
S taff has suggested, allowing the Traffic Engineer to review the
information provided by the applicant, or they can approve with
~,, conditions. He reminded the Commission that if they approve the
application, it would go to the City Council.
Corr~nissioner Ault thought that this has gotten caught in a
bureaucratic mess. He could not understand why the Traffic
Engineer did not .have time to study this situation. He couldn't
see why the applicants would want to foster minimum or unavailable
parking when they are putting i n such a n investment into th i s
building. This has been continued long enough and he didn't want
to see i t deni ed. He felt that i t should be approved with certai n
conditions. He stated that he is aware that the Commissioners
are not parking experts.
Commissioner Master had some of the same thoughts which Commissioner
Ault had expressed. The applicant has been caught i n somewhat of
a catch 22 situation ....the fact that there has been a problem
with parking i n the area, which the applicants have already
identified, and the fact that the problem has become quite visible
and is highlighted because of a previous hearing before the
Commission when those opposing a major development in the nearby
area cited St. Joseph's parking problems . He felt that i f they
can condi ti on the application to be i n concert with the plan, he
felt that at some point i n time i n the approval process h e woul d
like to see something more firm in the way of plans for a commit-
ment to adequate parking i n the entire complex. He would also
like to see some conditioning regarding timing and some hard
planning regarding parking lots .
Commissioner Coontz asked the Staff wh en the Traffic Engineer
might be able to finish his review. Mr. Murphy replied that he
believed Mr. Dennis had stated that it would be ready for the
next Planning Commission meeting. He also pointed out that the
normal hearing time for Council would be from three to five weeks
after the Planning Commission hearing.
Commissioner Coontz stated that she would not mind recommending
to the City Council that this application be approved with certain
conditions expressing the concerns heard tonight.
Chairman Mickelson agreed with these statements. He suggested
that whatever action as t k that a specific request be made of
the applicant to be prepared to gi ve a rev-i-e~--t~-~re
o-f .-t-#~f presentati on to the City Counci 1 0-~
`.,`
~~~
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Seven
Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Master, to
accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file
Negative Declaration 610.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz,
to recommend approval of Zone Change 915, for reasons as
stated by Staff.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED
Mr. Murphy pointed out that there is a supplementary report to
the original Staff Report that suggested a condition that the
Planning Commission may wish to require the 394 spaces to be
i n effect prior to the bui 1 di ng being occupied.
Mr. Soo-Hoo also pointed out a condition added orally at the
last meeting to the effect that all compact parking spaces be
used by employees.
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Ault,
to recommend acceptance of Variance 1610, with the two condi-
tions as stated, one offered by the Staff and the other offered
by the traffic expert.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED
It was then brought out that the tentative parcel map should be
attached to the variance and, by consent, this was added to
the variance motion.
Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Master, to
approve the tentati ve parcel map, subject to the condi ti ons
set forth in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Mickelson explained that this constitutes a recommenda-
ti on to the City Counci 1 and the applicant has been cautioned
to be wel l prepared when th ey go before the City Counci 1 to re-
view the entire traffi c si tuati on with the Traffi c Engineer and
present that to the City Council.
RECONSIDERATION OF C01\!DITIONAL USE PERMIT 970 AND VARIANCE
1543 - LINDBERG:
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 Street. ( Continued from
meeting of January 5, 1981.)
•
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Eight
Jere Murphy presented this application, explaining that this is
a request to reconsider conditions imposed on the approval of a
conditional use permit and variance allowing expansion of an
exis ti ng 45 run dog kennel to al 1 ow 67 runs which vary from
development standards contained in the Orange Municipal Code
for dog kennels. Negative Declaration 567 was accepted at the
time of the original approval and no further envi ronmental review
is required. The property contains 8,250 square feet and is
located on the south side of Collins Avenue, approximately 207
feet east of Parker Street.
Mr. Murphy pointed out that the property presently contains a
45 run dog kennel and single family residence in the M-2 zone.
Twenty-two additional runs were under construction at the time
this application was filed and have since been completed.
On December 11 , 1979, Condi ti onal Use Permit 970 was approved to
allow expansion of an existing 45 run dog kennel by 22 runs.
Seven conditions were imposed with approval , tNhi ch include:
1) That the 22 proposed runs, which were recently built, will
be allowed to remain i n place as they represent a recent
significant investment and are among the best in the kennel.
2) That the 17 0l der existing runs along the south and wes t
property line shall be removed. This would reduce the number
of dogs and provide for a buffer zone between the dog kennel
facilities and the neighborhood residences.
3) That the maximum number of dog runs shall be 50.
4) That the exposed wall surfaces where runs are to be removed
shall be surfaced with sound-absorbing materials such as
outdoor carpet, plastic egg cartons, acoustic the or wood.
5) That a roof of 2" plywood and asphal t rol l roofing with the
undersi de of the roof 1 i ned with 2" soundboard shal l be con-
structed over all runs. This shall be accomplished immediately
for the proposed 22 runs and within one year for the balance.
6) That a parking lot design which does not require the backing
of cars onto Collins Avenue shall be incorporated. This
design shall be to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer.
7) That applicant shall install landscaping as required by the
Planning Staff.
Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant has complied with Condi-
ti ons (1) and (5) and i s reques ti ng relief from or modification
of the balance. Specifically, the Planning Commission and City
Council acted originally to allow the applicant to construct 22
new dog runs with a condition that 17 0l der existi ng runs be
removed. The applicant now feels that such a condition cannot
be economically met and seeks to keep the total 67 runs. They
point to the fact that a 12 foot high block wall has been erected
along the southern property 1 i ne and feel that i t wi 11 adequately
control. noise. Also requested is waiver of condition (4) since
it is claimed that the new wall will sufficiently buffer noise and
condition (7) since the landscaping was proposed to be located to
replace the 17 runs which were to be eliminated. The applicant has
stated that they intend to contact the Traffic Engineer regarding
condition (6). Therefore, the question of compliance with this
condition is still pending.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Nine
Because of the applicant's desire to alter the terms of approval
of Conditional Use Permit 970, Staff felt that another public
heari ng was appropri ate.
Mr. Murphy explained to the Commission that they key issue in this
case revolves around the applicant's desire to maintain the total
of 67 dog runs i n 1 i eu of the City's condi ti on that 22 new runs
may be developed if 17 older runs are removed, thereby allowing
a total of 50 runs .
The applicant argues that, in order to comply with certain con-
ditions of approval and also, in constructing a 12-foot high
block wall (which was done voluntarily), all 67 dog runs need
to be maintained to generate the income needed to pay for the
i mprovements .
Mr. Murphy explained that Staff certainly agrees that the volun-
tary provision of the wall is a desirable asset to the kennel and
that i t wi 11 help i n mi ti gati ng the problems between the kennel
and its neighbors. However, Staff does not agree that the cost
of the improvements justi fi es additional runs to offset these
costs. Further, if the cost was truly such a factor so as to
jeopardi ze the financial viability of the kennel itsel f, Staff
must question why the applicant did not approach the Commission
with the wall concept prior to construction in order to seek
relief from the dog run limitations. In that way, the costs would
not have been incurred without assurances for expansion. It was
pointed out that the County Health Department i n its study pre-
sented to the Commission at the last meeting and in their discussion
with the applicant had 1 earned that the operation of the kennel has
changed i n that i t i s now primari ly a dog guard facility rather
than a hotel for dogs and cats. This may tend to reduce the noise
because of the fact that there are only certain times during the
day that the dogs are excited by people entering the rear portion
of the property. That fact may tend to reduce the irritation to
the residents of the area .
The Staff then feels that other than the block wall having been
created, the circumstances are basically the same as they were
at the original decision of the Planning Commission and City
Council and they would recommend that Planning Commission pass
any recommendations on to the City Council since this was a
Council action the first time around.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
Bob Vedel l , 629 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, the attorney for
Arf Bark Kennels, addressed the Commission on behalf of the
applicant. He explained that when the Li ndbergs were before the
Commission the first time, an ordinance which covered dog kennels
had all of these conditions as mandatory. Since then, the Planning
Commission and the City Council have adopted a new ordinance and,
to his understanding, the only mandatory parts of that ordinance
are the animal patrol ordinance of the County and the County's
noise or sound ordinance. The other items are guidelines, which
were mandatory at the time. He explained that the applicants
feel that they have substanti al ly complied with the conditions
set forth for them. They received a letter from the County Health
Department stating that they were in violation of the noise
ordinance. This letter is dated January 8, 1980 and it indicated
that Mr. Bricks en, the Environmental Health specialist who did
the sound study, did a noise monitoring on September 2nd. H e then
came back on November 15, 1979 and at that time he said that due
to the noises produced around the area, making the kennel noises
unidentifiable, the study was considered to be inaccurate at the
time. (Mr. Vedell quoted Mr. Bricksen's statements from his
letter). Mr. Bricksen went back on December Z, 1979 and found
the kennel was in violation of the noise ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Ten
Mr. Vedell then explained that this kennel is in the M-2 zone,
where, except for the fact that there was a non-conformi ng
residence, there would be no ordinance.
Mr. Vedell then went on to point out that the wall was built to
cut down the sound. Mr. Lindberg hired a sound consultant and
their ideas were discussed with Mr. Bricksen. Thereafter, the
wall was built and a roff built over the kennels. This wall,
which is on the west side, has a roof over the kennels in that
area. If they are required to remove the over runs in that area
they will be in trouble again with the county regarding the
noise control. H e explained that night time noise control is
that less noise can be generated during the night. They feel
that they have complied with the sound ordi Hance by doing the
work they have done. They are asking to be relieved of Condition
#2. They are also asking to be relieved of Condition #3, since
they have spent $20,000 to build a wal 1 and insulating the roof
to delete the sound. They ask for deletion of Condition #4,
since they feel that they have substantially complied with thi s
condition by keeping the sound down. They have a setup now where
it will work to keep the sound down and it meets the County noise
~' ordinance. With regard to Condi ti on #6, they asked Mr. Dennis,
the Traffic Engineer, to come out and look at their situation,
but Mr. Vedell does not believe that he has come out to look at
the property yet.
Re Condition #7, they are asking for approval of the 67 runs and
not require them to remove 17 older runs and not require the
buffer zone. They are also asking for approval of an entrance in
the front of the property, rather than at the side, which they
feel would help cut the noise down. He pointed out 'that when
Mr. Bricksen testified before the City Council, he stated that
the number of dogs does not raise the decibel level of sound.
All it does is fill in the areas in the cracks. So reducing the
number of runs is not going to reduce the decibel 1 evel . It may
lengthen the space out between the highs and lows, but it will
not actually reduce the decibel level itself.
Mr. Vedell stated that basically the consideration for which they
are asking is set out in a memo to the City Council dated 2/5/80
from the Planning Commission regarding Amendment 48-79-Dog Kennels,
which he read from.
Commissioner Coontz questioned Mr. Vedell with regard to the
statement he had made that now that the applicant has built the
wall and spent $20,000, that it would not be economical for him
to have to get rid of the 17 older runs. She pointed out that at
the time Mr. Lindberg came before them, he indicated that he
could not put out money to do anything. Then he bui 1 t a wal l
costing $20,000, which is probably an improvement. But now that
he has put the wall up he needs the extra runs. This doesn't
all fit together.
Mr. Vedell explained that the runs were already i n when he
appeared before the Commission.
Commissioner Master commented that the Staff had indicated that
the kennel had changed from a pet hotel to housing for guard
dogs. He questioned what the difference would be in sound at-
tenuation because of this change. He also asked what would stop
them from reverting back from housing guard dogs to a pet hotel.
Mr. Vedell explained that this is still a boarding facility.
Commissioner Master stated that he was impressed with the fact
that the applicant had gone out and found more information re-
gardi ng noise reduction. But he felt that they should have come back
to the Commission with thei r findings .
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Eleven
Mary Barson, 638 W. Collins Avenue, Orange, addressed the
Commission in opposition to this application. She thanked the
Commission for extending this hearing so that Mr. Becker could
represent himself. She stated that she felt that we are falling
into a pattern here. Here are these kennels, plus another kennel
next door to them. That kennel was supposed to have 10 runs and
thei r dogs were to be housed i n bad weather. She felt that the
biggest probl em is that there has been no policing of this
situation. Over the holidays the dogs howled so badly that she
had to go to her son's home to stay. She pointed out that this
goes back to 196 2. According to what each owner has stated,
since that time $200,000 has been spent over the years on this
kennel . She 1 i ves on the east side of i t. This kennel went
from 9 to 67 runs with no permits. She did say that she didn't
know which kennel makes most of the noise. She has soundproofed
her home as much as she could and can still hear the dogs howling
every night. They keep adding and then sell the kennel to the
next owner. They have done nothing but expand rather than abide
by the rules set down for them. The kennel s went i n without a
condi ti onal use permi t or hearing or anythi ng. She feel s that
the city of Orange is to blame. The city set up an ordinance
and the first time i t decided, i t i s thrown out. She tries not
to disturb anyone, but the dogs get to her.
Chairman Mickelson asked if there was any noise reduction since
the wall has been built and Mrs. Barson explained that there was
less noise, but the noise is still bad.
Wilmer Becker, 873 N. Parker, Orange, addressed the Commission
in opposition to this application, stating that he has been
playing around with this situation since 1961. If the dogs are
up against the wall you can hardly hear them. But there is a
space in the middle of the kennel that is uncovered, and when
they are i n that area, the noise is very bad. The area i n the
center has not been topped with a roof or any soundproofing. He
thought that perhaps if they would cover the entire back yard,
it might cut down more of the noise. This would mean that the
whole yard would be roofed.
Mr. Becker explained that the noise is very bad when the guard
dogs are taken to their workplace and then about 3:30 p.m. when
they are returned. He thought the kennel should be monitored for
about 48 hours rather than one or two hours.
Mr. Lindberg, the applicant, then addressed the Commission,
pointing out on the diagram where the roofing has been placed.
He also explained where he has used soundproofing board. He
showed that all of the kennel. has been roofed over except for
one smal l hole, using asphalt and plywood, with fiberglass
insulation. He further explained that according to the con-
sultants he has gone to for advice, the sound does not rise and
go up and out, but comes back to the house, rather than going
out over the wall. H e stated that they have been in the guard
dog business for about two years and they have about 30 guard
dogs. However, they sti1T maintain the boarding kennel also.
He pointed out the hours that they take the dogs out and bring
them back in.
Chairman Mickelson asked if he had implemented all of the things
which the sound consultants had suggested and Mr. Lindberg ex-
plained that he had done what they had asked.
Commissioner Coontz asked if they had submitted a document in
writing as to what they had done. Mr. Li ndberg explained that
he did have a document and he could give a copy to the Commission.
Commissioner Coontz suggested that they give a copy to the Staff.
There being no one else to speak for or against this application,
the chairman closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Twelve
Commissioner Coontz stated that she would like to see a change
in the ordinance and wondered what the variables were regarding
the number of dogs.
Commissioner Ault sympathized with the applicant i n his di 1 emma,
but pointed out that the M-2 zone makes fora problem regarding
sound. He couldn't see much difference between 50 and 67 runs,
if the middle area were covered.
h1r. Murphy read from. the ordinance statements which could be
used as guidelines, areas including coverage to establish a
maximum of 30% of the parcel to be occupied by the dog kennel
foci 1 i ti es . There wi 11 be a 10 ft. setback from any property
line not abutting another kennel. He also read the guidelines
for cooling, parking, a 24" high masonry wall to separate ad-
jacent runs; animals being maintained should be obscured from
surrounding properties; and addi tional requirements that might
be placed on individual applications by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Coontz thought that this particular application
looks like 45 to 50% coverage of the property.
Commissioner Master commented that there are sound requirements
even on M-2 zoni ng when i t is adjacent to residential property.
Mr. Murphy explained that any noise ordinance relates to resi-
dential use regardless of the zoning in the area, so that any
industrial area that generates noise must comply with the notse
ordinance. This is why some manufacturers have had to spend
extensive amounts of money in modifying blowers, etc. in order
to meet that noise ordinance.
Commissioner Mickelson commented that he agreed with Commissioner
Ault that the applicants have gone to some trouble to reduce the
sound. His point way back was that it was not the number of dogs,
but the sound that was generated. He was inclined to agree that
perhaps they could reduce the sound 1 evel to a more acceptabl e
1 evel to the neighbors . Perhaps thi s one 1 i ttl e hole i n the
kennel could be plugged.
Commissioner Coontz commented that they do not have a report from
the sound experts. They also have the problem of intent. If they
let the condi ti ons sl i p through , i f th ey have no enforcement,
th ei r decisions cannot hold. She would consi der 1 imi ti ng the number
of runs in concert with looking at what the sound experts want
done. She suggested recommending these things to the City Council.
Commissioner Master did not understand the County report. Com-
missioner Mickelson agreed with this statement.
Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson,
to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 970, with the
condition that the open space in the roof 6e enclosed with the
same type of soundproofing board used in the other areas and that
all runs are covered.
Commissioner Master was concerned with the possibility that the
applicant may do all. of this at some expense and if the noise is
not mitigated, then what?
Chairman Mickelson requested that an additional condition be
added that the applicants submi t a report from the sound con-
sul tant, demons trati ng to the City Counci 1 the 1 evel of sound that
will be accomplished by the first condition.
~J
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Thirteen
Commissioner Ault agreed to the addition of this condition.
Commissioner Coontz commented again regarding the fact that
the Commission needs to stick with their ordinances.
Mr. Murphy asked if the Commission wished to put a time limit
for the conditions to be accomplished.
Commissioner Coontz thought that the proposed recommendation
could be added that the City Council consider a limited time
period. This was agreed upon by the maker of the motion.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1078 - WILLMON:
Request to allow conversion of an existing residence to office
at the northeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Lester Street
(1111 West Chapman Avenue). (Note: Negative Declaration 660
has been prepared i n 1 i eu of an Envi ronmental Report. )
Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission,
explaining that this is a request to allow conversion of a
residence to office use. The property contains .34 acre of
land located on the northeast corner of Chapman Avenue and
Lester Street. It is zoned C-2 (Commercial) and R-M-7 (Residential,
Multiple Family, 7,000 square feet minimum lot size) and contains
a two-story house that is currently being converted to an office
and a garage.
The Planning Commission did not require Staff to make a presenta-
tion on this item because of the late hour.
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1078 with
the 18 conditions set forth i n the Staff Report.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public heari ng.
There being no one 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 660.
AYES : Commissioners Mickel son, Coontz, Ault, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Ault,
to approve Conditional Use Permit 1078, for the reasons stated
i n the Staff Report, and subject to the 18 conditions set forth
i n said Staff Report.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED
I]
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Fourteen
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1082, VARIANCE 1612 - THE PAINTED
PONY
Request to allow an arts and crafts school and limited retail
sales in M-2 on the west side of Glass ell Street, north of
Taft Avenue (1774 North Glass ell) . ( PJote: Negative Decl arati on
665 has been prepared i n 1 i eu of an Envi ronmental Impact Report. )
Again, Planning Commission did not require a presentation by
Staff on this item.
Therefore, Staff recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit
1082 with the three conditions as set forth in the Staff Report.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
There being no one to speak for or against this application,
the chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Ault,
to accept the findings of the Envi ronmental Review Board to
file Negative Declaration 66 5.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson,
to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1082 for
reasons as outlined by the Staff and with the three conditions
as set forth in the Staff Report.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED
CONDITIONAL USE PERPIIT 1084 - LAMPPOST PIZZA:
Request to allow operation of 22 coin operated electronic games
i n an existi ng restaurant located on the north side of Katel la
Avenue, east of Tustin Street (1737 East Katel la) . ( Note:
Negative Declaration 667 has been prepared in lieu of an
Environmental Report. )
The Planning Commission did not require a presentation by
Staff on this item.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
There being no one to speak for or against this application, the
chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master,
to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to
file Negative Declaration 667.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master,
to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1084, with the
five condi tions as set forth i n the Staff Report.
Commissioner Master commented that this seems to be the start
of a trend toward putting electronic game machines into public
places.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Fifteen
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP - 80-773 - SADDLEBACK ASSOCIATES:
Request to allow a 23 lot industrial subdivision on the west
side of Batavia Street north of Taft Avenue.
Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, ex-
pl ai ni ng that thi s i s a request to al 1 ow creati on of 23 industrial
parcels. The property contains approximately 18.5 acres and is
located between Batavia Street and Main Street, approximately
1056 feet north of the centerline of Taft Avenue. It is zoned
N1-2 and is presently vacant. The site is generally surrounded
by industrial uses in the M-2 zone.
Mr. Murphy pointed out that the proposed parcel sizes ranged
from .347 acre (parcel 16) to 1 .097 acres (parcels 13 and 14) .
A larger parcel will also be created (2.182 acres), however, it
i s not proposed to be developed at thi s time. Fifteen parcel s
are proposed which would contain approximately .5 acre or less,
while 8 parcels would be larger.
He explained that Grove Avenue, which is presently shown as
dedicated right-of-way, but which is not fully physically im-
proved, is proposed to be vacated and incorporated into the
applicant's subdivision.
The Staff has reviewed the request and indicated that some 1 oadi ng
doors are not adequately set back from the driveway and would thus
obstruct traffic movement. The applicant was advised of then e
deficiencies and has chosen not to correct them. Also indicated
was the need for on-site fire hydrants and additional trash
facilities. These latter two deficiencies can be corrected in
the plan check process.
Mr. Murphy stated that the Staff feels that the deficiencies noted
in his presentation should be corrected in that they present
functional problems which will be difficult to solve after
construction. The problem of loading door locations on some of
the parcels would entai 1 modi fications to the si to plan i n order
to correct. He pointed out that the applicant was advised at a
very preliminary stage of their planning that loading doors should
be set back at least 8 feet from driveways in order to prevent
obstruction. It was pointed out, for example, that on parcel 23
obstruction of the driveways by loading vehicles would prevent
use of virtually the entire parking lot.
Staff also rei terates its cauti on that industrial sub divisions
which propose smaller lots should be discouraged in favor of
larger lots which would act to attract larger industrial users.
f~lr. Murphy pointed out that, as has been explained with previous
industrial subdivisions smaller lots tend to promote fencing in
of parking areas for outdoor storage, access problems due to
obstructions i n joint or reciprocal driveways, etc .
Should the Planning Commission find this proposal acceptable, the
eight condi tions of the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet are
recommended.
Comr~issioner Coontz questioned the statements in the Staff Report
with regard to deficiencies i n cul de sacs and architectural
wings and Mr. Murphy explained that these had been taken care of
through a revised plan, which was just submitted the end of last
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Sixteen
1~ week. The Staff Report referred to problems with the initial
plan. There were more questions asked with regard to the space
needed for the loading doors and P~1r. Murphy explained that the
Staff has requested that there be an additional 8 feet adjacent
to those doors so that a car or truck could park at the door and
the parking space would still be usable opposite the door. There
were further questions by the Commissioners with regard to the
overh ead 1 oadi ng doors , which were explained by P1r . Murphy .
Chairman Mickelson asked about future development which is not
a part of the tract. He wondered if the owner of the parcel is
cutting off that part and retaining it. Mr. Murphy replied that
he believed that this is the existi ng intent. t~lr. Johnson
pointed out that this plan assumes that the existing road right-
of-way will be abandoned. The road in the middle will take its
place as access to parcels to the west.
Commissioner Coontz wondered what kind of recommendation the
Planning Commission could make with these unresolved problems.
Mr. Murphy replied that the Commission can ask for a continuance
to resol ve these problems .
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
George Bernharth, Thiebord Engineering Company, addressed the
Commission on behalf of the applicant. He pointed out that it
appears that after three staff hearings, there are only two items
unresolved. There appears to be a philosophical difference. He
explained that the size of the bui 1 di ng has no correlation with
the fact that there will be outdoor activity. The question of
the proper utilization of the building is a matter of the simplicity
of the development. If you have a less intensive development, the
need for outdoor storage does not arise.
Mr. Bernharth pointed out that these buildings, by their very
nature, have very small office area and will be basically light
manufacturing and light warehousing.
With regard to the overhead loading doors, he explained that they
have utilized, since they don't know what the actual occupancy
wil l be, the city criteria for parking, which is one parki ng
space for each thousand square feet. He pointed out that the
parking need far this type of development is far less than what
the city requires . The parking rati o i n th i s city i s much higher
than i n any other area. He expl ai ned that i f you average i t out,
you will want to go with one parking space for every 800 square
feet. This is a good rule of thumb. The parking provided is far
in excess of what they will need.
He brought up the Staff's statement that parking opposite the
loading door is improper, feeling that this flies in the face of
the whole rationale of the aisle. H e wondered why an aisle is
required if they cannot put their loading door there. The loading
door is served by an aisle.
He explained further that they have much exnerience in this field
and in their opinion this rationale does not apply here. It was
their thinking that teh owner must police thi s area to ensure that
these problems will not surface.
He then stated that the Staff had a valid complaint about the
loading doors being too close to the driveways. They are working
with these areas . They can 1 ive with the other conditions .
Commissioner Master asked if Mr. Bernharth had toured the city of
Orange to look at parking in the industrial areas. He answered
that they had designed two industrial parks in this city. Com-
missioner Master then asked if the Staff had commented on parking
problems i n these i ndustrial parks . Mr. Bernharth replied that
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Seventeen
they had. They had driven around and found two areas where a
problem was created. However, he does think that this is a
matter for zoning enforcement.
At this time questions were asked of Mr. Bernharth by the Com-
missioners. Commissioner Coontz asked if the other two developments
were a mirror of this development. The answer was no - that no
development is a mirror of another, They are all individual.
They do not try to get the highestpossible density. This is not
the most economical way, but it makes a better looking park.
Commissioner Mickelson stated that he tended to support the Staff
in their recommendation, because he counted 22 such spaces where
the loading door is backed up to the parking srace. He also saw
many 1 ots which had single 1 oaded parking aisles, which also can
create a problem. If you can double load the parking aisle, you
gain a great deal of efficiency.
Mr. Bernharth replied that these are wide doors. He went on to
explain that people delivering to these places of business go in,
drop something off, and continue on their way. There is no long
term parking. He went on to say that i f i t would solve the
problem, he would have no objection to eliminating the parking
spaces opposite the loading doors. But then he thought they would
get into trouble with the parking ordinance. If the Commission
can accept a compromise by assuming a reasonable parking ratio
then perhaps these problems can be solved. However, if they are
tied i n to certai n parameters, then their hands are tied.
Commissioner Coontz felt that industrial business are not the
only businesses to come into industrial parks - some are pseudo
industrial. It makes sense to follow the ordinance and recommenda-
tions of Staff because there are higher utilizations of the
parking areas.
There being no one else to speak for or against this application,
the chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner h1aster commented that he is now involved in converting
industrial buildings to office use and the parking areas can make
a very big impact on such a conversion..
There was further discussion among the Commissioners in this regard.
Mr. Mi nshew spoke with regard to Condition #6 on the Engineer's
P1 a n Check Sheet, s tati ng that he wished to insert the words ,
"acceptable to the city attorney", so that Condition #6 would
read: "Subject to reciprocal ingress-egress easements acceptable
to the city attorney being recorded between the following parcels
prior to transfer of parcel title: 12-13-14; 15-16-17-18-19-20-23."
This was acceptable to the Commission.
Commissioner Ault felt that the applicant's explanation was quite
logical and acceptable. He pointed out that when he goes out to
these various parking areas, they are empty and no one is using
them. He felt that the various owners in such a park will watch
their property so that it won't be messed up.
Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner 1~1i ckel son,
to recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 80-773, subject to
the conditions set forth i n the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet, with
the wards suggested by Mr. Mi nshew added to Condi ti on #6.
Chairman Mickelson stated that he does not have a problem with
the small lots, primarily that they have looked at this many times
and have never gotten the Ci ty Council to do any thing about i t.
0
Planning Commission Minutes
January 19, 1981
Page Eighteen
However, he felt that i t i s relatively easy to design the project
" to avoid the condition that has been created and he even thought
that some extra square footage could be picked up of building.
He would like to see the applicant take another look at their
plan in order to improve it. Commissioner Master supported this
reasoning. The Staff is not necessarily against the project.
They are merely pointing out the problem.
AYES: Commissioner Ault
NOES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Master
ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION DEFEATED
Chairman Mickelson then pointed out that the Commission has two
alternatives. They can deny the application or move for a
continuance and ask for a redesign. He asked the applicant to
speak to a continuance of no more than two weeks .
Mr. Bernharth replied that they are not agai nst a continuance.
However, they see a bigger problem in the parking and loading
doors. In double loaded aisles you cannot have secure parking,
which is a big hindrance to sell a property. Therefore, you
try to 1 i mi t this . Al l of these aisles cannot be doubl e 1 oaded.
You must give a buyer a certain privacy. You cannot accomplish
this by double loaded aisles. He is concerned that they will go
back and try to come up with something acceptable - some kind
of a mix that is acceptable to the Commission, and the Commission
wi 11 not be happy because they wi 11 sti 11 be facing some si ngl e
loaded aisles. He did feel. that if this is what they are striving
for, the loading should not be hindered by parking. Ei ther they
should put in compact parking spaces, or no parking at all behind
the loading doors. He pointed out that they do have some control
with the occupancy permits. When a buyer comes in with an
occupancy permit, he must state the nature of his business. If
an owner has business which needs a large parking area, they can
deny the permit.
Mr. Bernharth then asked for a little more time this evening to
discuss this si tuation with the Commission and come up with some
solution rather than a continuance.
Commissioner Master painted out that they have made their concerns
known to the applicant weeks ago. They do not see any reason for
continuing discussion this evening.
I t was then explained that i f thi s appli cati on i s denied i t can
be taken to the City Council.
Pr1oved by Commissioner Master to deny Tentative Parcel Map 80-773
for the reasons as stated by Staff.
Motion was withdrawn when the applicant stated that he would prefer
a continuance.
Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz,
to continue this matter unti 1 February 2, 1981 , so that Staff and
he applicant can get together to resolve their differences.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Master
NOES: Commissioner Ault
ABSENT: Commissioner Hart P~10TION CARRIED
Chairman Mickelson brought up a notice which he had received
announcing a seminar for Planning Commissioners, There was
discussion among the Commissioners with regard to the seminar,
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m, to reconvene on Monday,
February 2, 1981 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East
Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.
~'' STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) OF ADJOURNMENT
Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning
Commission of the City of Oranae; that the regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Orange was held on January 19, 1981; said meeting
was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of
adjournment attached hereto; that on January 20, 1981, at the hour of
2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or
near the door of the place at which said meeting of January 19, 1981 was
held .
~~
~J
EXCERPT FROP1 THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY
PLANNING COPIP1ISSION HELD ON JANUARY 19, 1981.
The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Ault, Coontz, Master
ABSENT: Commissioner Hart
Ploved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Plaster that this
meeting adjourn at 10:30 p.m. on Monday, January 19, 1981 to reconvene
at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, February ?_, 1981 at the Civic Center Council
Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.
I, Jere P~urphy, 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 19, 1981.
Dated this 20th day of January, 1981 at 2:00 p.m.
-.~u
/~
,Jer P. P1urphy, Ci t Planne &
i Sec etary to the Planni ng C mmission
~~of the Ci ty of Orange.
C