HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/17/1983 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
City of Orange
Orange, California
January 17, 1983
Monday, 7:30 p.m.
The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning, Commission was called to order by
Chairman Hart at 7:30 p,m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master
ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Vasquez
STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission
PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant
City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Doris Ofsthun,
Recording Secretary,
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 3, 1983
Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart to
approve the minutes of January 3, 1983, as transmitted.
AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN:
ZONE CHANGE 990, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1255, REVISED
TENTATIVE TRACT 9608 - RICHARD KENNETH BROOKS, JR.:
A request to rezone property from A-1 to R-0, R-1-40, R-1-10,
R-1-7 and RD-7 to allow development of 381 units as a Planned
Unit Development, permitting zero lotlines on property at the
northerly terminus of Crawford Canyon Road, north of Chapman
Avenue, (NOTE: A supplement to EIR 496 has been prepared on
this project.)
Jere Murphy explained that Mr, Brooks had requested, in a letter to
the City, a continuance to January 31, 1983. He pointed out that the
next Planning Commission meeting will be February 7, 1983.
V
Commissioner Vasquez entered the meeting at this time.
Chairman Hart opened the public hearing,
Richard Brooks, 1705 Redhill Avenue, Irvine, addressed the Commission
explaining that it would be satisfactory to him if the matter were
continued to the next Planning Commission meeting on February 7th.
Commissioner Master asked for his reason for requesting a continuance
and Mr. Brooks responded that he was requested by the Orange Park
Acres Homeowners Association to meet with them and discuss his new
plan.
George Rach, member of the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee,
addressed the Commission, stating that they have had two meetings where
Mr. Brooks has not .been able to attend. They would like Mr, Brooks to
attend both the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee meeting and a
meeting of the East Orange Implementation Committee and address both
of them,
Mr. Brooks stated that he would be available to meet with both of
these committees. He also stated that he would work with the Staff
on this.
There being no one else to speak to this issue, the Chairman closed
the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 1983
Page Two
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to
continue Zone Change 990, CUP 1255 and Revised TT 9608 to February
7, 1983.
AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1253 - BATAVIA-KATELLA ASSOCIATES:
A request to permit retail sales as an accessory use to exceed 25%
of total volume in the industrial zone on property located at the
northeast corner of Batavia Street and Katella Avenue (805 West
Katella Avenue). (NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental
Review . )
Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant has requested a continuance
to February 7, 1983. There being no one in the audience in attendance
for this application, there was no public hearing.
Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to
continue Conditional Use Permit 1253 to February 7, 19 83.
AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS:
TENTATIVE TRACT 11349 - AMALGAMATED PROPERTIES:
A request to convert a 260-unit apartment complex to condominiums on
property located at the southwest corner of Prospect Street and
Spring Street (offices at 3138 East h1aple Avenue). (NOTE: This
project is exempt from Environmental Review.)
Norvin Lanz presented this application to the Commission, stating
that this property contains approximately 17.9 acres and is located
at the southwest corner of Prospect Street and Spring Street (office
at 3138 East Maple Avenue). The property is the site of a 260-unit
apartment complex and is zoned R-M-7. The applicant is requesting
permission to convert the 260-unit apartment complex to a condominium
subdivision.
Mr. Lanz explained that the applicant proposes to convert the 260-unit
project in five phases of 40-60 units each, over a period of five
years, in six-month intervals. 390 parking spaces have been provided
on-the site, which excludes street parking spaces. However, by closing
the gates and using the streets, 174 more spaces could be provided,
.for a total of 564. All units contain 1,100 square feet of floor
space with a living room, kitchen, dining area, half bath and a
washing machine space on the first floor, two bedrooms and a full bath
on the second floor. All units are located within 77 total buildings
and each building has an attached combination laundry room/storage
area.
Mr. Lanz pointed out that the existing apartment project was designed
in 1962 and completed in three phases in the County of Orange. It was
incorporated into the City of Orange in 1980. This area is designated
for Medium Density Residential Use (6-15 units per acre).
He said that the 1980 census revealed an apartment vacancy of 0.05%
or 560 units of the 10,503 in the City. Of the 2003 single attached
dwellings (condominiums in most cases), 0.04% were vacant and 57.7%
of those occupied (1155) were renter occupied. Of the 19,309 single
detached units, 2.7% were vacant, and 13.6% or 2,631 units were renter
occupied. More current data is not available, but in the current
housing market, few additional units have been constructed, Thus
it is likely vacancy data is similar today.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 1983
Page Three
Mr. Lanz then pointed out that the applicant has submitted an
"Orange Park Villas Tenant Protection Program" which proposes, among
other things, such as a relocation center, tenant relocation assistance
payment, special. protection for the elderly, the disabled and
handicapped, etc., that a 15% discount on an "as is" unit will be
offered to any tenant in receipt of, and who has not waived the benefits
of, the 180 days notice of intent to convert. "As is" units shall be
cleaned and all major defects repaired and appliances will be in
operational condition. No painting, replacement of floor covering,
and window coverings will be done unless required by repairs to units.
Mr. Lanz explained
since many tenants
explained that the
on file:
a. The 180 day na
of tenancy due
that the tenant information data will be updated
have moved since the July 1982 survey. He further
following copies of correspondence to tenants are
Lure of intention to convert prior to termination
to conversion, dated July 15, 1982.
b. The 60 day notice prior to filing a Tentative Tract Map to
convert to condominiums, dated July 15, 1982.
c. The notice to prospective tenants commencing 60 days notice
to filing a tentative tract map that such a map is to be filed
for conversion to condominiums.
d. A letter dated July 22, 1982 to tenants, responding to six
most commonly asked questions.
e. A letter dated December 23, 1982 inviting tenants to a
meeting on January 3, 1982 at McPherson Jr. High School.
Also, the applicant has filed Building Survey and Report of the
project proposed by Theodore Barry and Assocaites.
hlr. Lanz then pointed out that the applicant proposes to provide
security gates on the project, .reconstruct parking areas, streets
and gutters, sidewalks and drives, provide 33 trash enclosures, replace
fencing in and around the project, provide peripheral wall landscaping
and upgrade interior landscaping, repair and paint structures, provide
interior and exterior lighting as needed, provide fire detectors and
a new antenna system, refurbish air conditioning units, provide
security hardware, upgrade carpeting and drapes and refurbish pool
and recreation areas.
Staff has reviewed the proposal and among their concerns are:
1. Tenants in all phases of the project should receive notice
to vacate units needed for refurbishment to condominiums no
sooner than 30 days after expiration of their 90 day right of
first refusal to purchase the unit they occupy or their waiver
of right to purchase, whichever is sooner.
2. A date has not been established to open the relocation center
and commence relocation payments.
3. The 42" high wall proposed by the applicant at Center Street
reach exposes carports to residential uses on the south side
of Center Street. Staff has proposed that this will be 6' high.
4. The condition of the circulation, utility systems, drainage
systems and structures will need to be reviewed and brought up
,` to City standards.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 1983
Page Four
5. Security systems will be required at gated entrances, storage
and laundry rooms, near trash enclosures, common recreation areas
and at the proposed picnic area (now a children's play area).
6. Vehicles frequently cross Prospect Street from Spring Street
and damage the fence at the children's play lot. The fence and
the children need protection, such as the use of boulders in-
stalled in the landscaping.
7. The proposed picnic area will tend to attract teenage gatherings
whereas the present tot lot is self-policing. The latter use
is preferred.
8. The structures must be brought to building code levels.
Staff recognizes that this is a good opportunity to rehabilitate
20-year old units in the City. However, it appears to be a sizable
loss of low income rental housing in the community which is so con-
veniently located near shopping, public transportation and schools.
About 40% of the tenants have retained occupancy through at least two
sizable rental increases. Yet about 16% to 25% of the units (41 to
65 units) appear to change tenants in a year. The applicants propose
to convert some 90 to 110 units each year. To soften the abruptness
of the loss of rental units in the community, it may be appropriate
to extend the phasing of the project to nine-month periods which
would approximate the normal rate that units are now vacated. Otherwise,
it is recommended that Tentative Tract 11349 be approved for several
reasons:
1. That upon completion of the conditions of this approval the
applicant has or will meet requirements of Section 66427.1 of
the State Subdivision Map Act.
V
2. That the provisions of City Code 17.83 have been met.
3. That the project is consistent with the City General Plan.
4. That adequate comparable rental housing will be made available
to tenants.
5. That the project does not severely diminish rental housing stock.
6. That the applicants relocation plan is adequate.
7. That the off-street parking and circulation in the project is
adequate.
8. That the rehabilitation and upgrading of the project helps the
City's housing stock.
9. That public improvements, driveways and landscaping are to be
upgraded and repaired as needed.
10. That an effective homeowners' association will be established.
11. That the project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
City Code Section 17.83.
Approval of Tentative Tract 11349 is recommended, subject to the 53
special conditions and 9 standard conditions set forth in the Staff
Report.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 1983
Page Five
Commissioner Coontz commented that the applicant, in his letter of
January 14th has only objected to .three conditions, where there are
quite a few special conditions which are different than the usual
conditions.
Commissioner Master asked for clarification regarding the dedication
of land on Spring Street for a possible extension and Mr. Lanz
gave further details in this direction.
Chairman Hart opened the public hearing.
Robert Sundstrom, 17782 Sky Park, Irvine, representing the applicant,
addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that
they have gone through the Staff Report in detail and have worked with
the City Staff, police department and traffic department each step
along the way of submitting this application. He brought up a letter
which had been provided to the Planning Commission, dated January 14th,
prepared by Richard Coontz, legal counsel for Amalgamated Properties,
which expressed a few requests for some modified language in the Staff
Report, along with objections to a few of the conditions. He then
pointed out that they are objecting to Special Conditions #l, 2 and 7,
and asking for elimination of these conditions upon approval of the
Tentative Tract. He explained that Condition #1 would add an additional
three months to each phase, which would end up adding another year to
the entire project. Special Condition #2, relating to establishment
of a sales price, is objectionable because the applicants feel that
market conditions should dictate the price of the units. This project
is not using any local, state or federal programs where price controls
normally apply. If the method of price control suggested by Staff
is placed on this project, it can only have the effect of increasing
the initial sales price in the first phase. Applicants felt that there
is no provision in state or local law allowing Special Condition #7 and
the developer should not be required to give special protection to people
who do not like to drive or to single parents who are not poor.
Mr. Sundstrom explained that Staff suggested that they meet with the
tenants, which they did. There were approximately 130 people at this
meeting and after a short informal presentation by the applicant, the
session was mostly a question and answer period. They have provided
a notice as prescribed by the state and local law. Other than just
outlined, applicant has no other objections to the conditions in the
Staff Report. He did ask that the wording be changed in Item "g"
on page 4 of the Staff Report to read: "minimum of 5% and not to
exceed 15%" with regard to an "as is" unit.
Jim Bryan, 2939A Orange Park Villas, Orange, addressed the Commission
asking for clarification of the statement with regard to a 180 day
notice by phase. Mr. Sundstrom replied that tenant relocation will be
available at the beginning of the 180 day notice for phases 1 through 5.
Commissioner Master asked Staff about the statement on page 4, item "g"
with regard to a 15% discount, if this is typical of previous conversions.
Mr. Lanz explained that this varies with each conversion. He has seen
it 5% more often than 15%. However, there has also been as high as
25%. Mr. Sundstrom pointed out that this was an error and should read
"5 to 15% depending on the "as is" situation.
Commissioner Vasquez asked for clarification regarding the 15% discount
on an "as is" unit as opposed to whether the party was a resident. He
asked if this is strictly an "as is" with no other benefits other than
the 15%.
Tom Young, Irvine, representing the applicant, explained that the 15%
discount would be the maximum a]lowed if a tenant purchases his unit
"as is". Ther-e would be a discount of somewhere between $1,000 and
$1500 for a,tenant buying an "improved" unit.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 1983
Page Six
There being no one else to speak for or against this application,
the Chairman closed the public hearing,
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to
recommend approval of Tentative Tract 11349 for the reasons given in
the Staff Report, and subject to the 53 special and 9 standard con-
ditions as outlined in the Staff Report, deleting Special Conditions
#l, 2 and 7, per request by applicant, as follows:
1, That timing between phases be extended to a minimum of 9
months to preclude undue shortage of rental housing in
the area.
2. That the sales prices of units in Phase II through V not
increase more than the Los Angeles Regional Cost of Living
Index over sales prices established in Phase I.
3. That the Special Protection group shall include Single Parent
Families and families who do not drive vehicles.
and adding another Special Condition to read that if a tenant
purchases an "improved unit" a special discount of $1500.00 wi~l.l
be paid. Conditions should also include the• modifications suggested
by applicant in a January 14th letter from Knox & Coombs, attorneys
for the applicant.
AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1254 - CENTURY AMERICAN CORPORATION:
A request to construct a two-story bank/office building that exceeds
a height greater than four times its distance to a residential zone
and to provide compact parking spaces in excess of 40% as allowed by
City Code on property located at the northwest corner of Almond
Avenue and Main Street (170 Main Street). (NOTE: Negative Declaration
812 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.)
Norvin Lanz presented this application of the Commission, stating
that this property is an irregular shaped parcel containing approximately
1.18 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Almond Avenue and
Main Street. The property is zoned C-3 (Commercial) and contains a
temporary bank facility. The applicant proposes to construct a
20,352 square foot combination office and bank building to be located
at the southeast corner of this property.
Mr. Lanz explained that the proposal requires a conditional use permit
for incorporating greater than 40$ compacts in the parking requirement
(Sec. 17.78.060); and for constructing a building in excess of 30 feet
in height which exceeds in total height 4 times the distance between
the building and a residential zone. (Sec. 17.44.070). The proposed
structure is to be located within 125 feet of the residential zone to
the west and have a height of 35 feet. The applicant proposes to
construct the structure along the Main Street side of the property with
the end of the building abutting Almond Avenue. The parking will be
situated to the north and west sides of the structure. Access to the
parking will be via one driveway on Main Street at the northeast corner
of the site and two driveways on Almond Avenue at the southwest corner
of the site.
~ The Staff has reviewed the project and has no major concerns.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 1983
Page Seven
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of
the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 812.
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1254 for the
reasons that: (1) the proposal is consistent with the existing
zoning and General Plan Designation and is compatible with the
surrounding land uses; (2) the proposed increase in compact stalls
(from 40% to 46%) will not have any significant adverse impact; and
(3) the 5 foot increase in height does not create a significant in-
trusion on surrounding uses. Should the Planning Commission approve
CUP 1254, 11 conditions are recommended, including one special con-
dition which reads: "That all banking uses are restricted to the
6000 square feet approved in this application or the 6000 square feet
be restricted to a use that requires equal or less parking."
Chairman Hart opened the public hearing.
Jack Selman, of Architects Orange, representing the applicant, addressed
the Commission in favor of the application. He explained that the
30 ft. height limit was designed to allow for a two-story office
building. They are designing a two-story office building with the bank
use, wherein they are planning a 12 ft. high lobby area. The other
portion of the building includes a 5 ft, high roof parapet which will
conceal all of the mechanical equipment. This ties in better with the
design of the building. The second floor area is in a normal location
for a two-story office building. They have placed the building right
to the lot line at the street so that there will be as much space as
possible between the building and the residential area.
James Hanley, 1302 W. Chapman Avenue, Orange, owner of the Travellodge
Motel, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating
that he is 100% in favor of the bank because it is needed in that part
of Orange.
Thera Hazelwood, 1521 W. Almond, Orange, addressed the Commission in
opposition to the application, expressing concern because they feel
that they are being encroached upon by business already and this will
add to the problem. They are worried about the overflow parking on
their block and they are also worried about too much traffic congestion
in the area.
Scott Slate, 1521 W. Amond, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating
that he did not object to the plan, but was concerned about the extra
5 feet in height. He thought that if they get that extra 5 feet, the
building should be esthetically pleasant. According to the drawings
he has just seen, he felt that they have accomplished this. He pointed
out that Almond is becoming another Chapman, but he would rather see
a nice bank building rather than some other commercial project.
Robert J. Moore, 1810 N. Westwood, Santa Ana, owner of the apartments
next door to the proposed project, addressed the Commission, expressing
concern with regard to the parking problem in that area. He explained
that he had been in favor of La Brasserie three years ago when they
came in, but they are so successful now that the parking problem is
horrendous. He was in favor of the bank but he thought the City should
take heed of the problems in that area regarding parking, traffic
congestion, etc.
Mr. Selman responded with regard to the parking situation, pointing out
that normal parking requirements for an office building is 4 spaces per
thousand sq, ft. and there is also a requirement in Orange for a bank
to have 1 parking space per 150 sq, ft., or 6 spaces per thousand. He
pointed out that this is higher than many other cities in the surrounding
areas. He felt that they have met the requirements more than amply.
He did not think that this project would add to the parking problem
in that area. He felt that they have complied with on-site circulation
for the project and it is as good as it can be for any kind of development.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 1983
Page Eight
n
L~J
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mr. Slate asked where the driveways would be located and was given
a map showing where they would be located.
There being no one else to speak for or against this application,
the Chairman closed the public h Baring.
Commissioner Vasquez asked whether there would be a drive-thru
facility at this bank and hir. Selman responded that there would not be.
Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to
accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file
Negative Declaration 812.
Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez
Commissioners none
Commissioner Mickelson
MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to
approve Conditional Use Permit 1254 for reasons as given by Staff and
subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez
Commissioners none
Commissioner Mickelson
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1252 - WILLIAM S. FRANTZ:
h10TI0N CARRIED
A request to permit residential use and retail sales in a residential
structure previously used for office use on a C-2 zoned parcel located
at the northeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Little Main Street
(1305 West Chapman Avenue). (NOTE: This project is exempt from
Environmental Review.)
Jere Murphy presented this application, stating that this property
contains .17 acre of land located on the northeast corner of Chapman
Avenue and Little Main Street. It has approximately 99 feet of primary
frontage on Chapman Avenue and approximately 64 feet of secondary
frontage on Little Main Street. The property contains an existing
one-story building that is residential in character, with surrounding
asphalt parking area. The existing building was constructed in 1956
and, until 1982, has been used as a real estate office. The applicant
proposes to occupy the premises as a resident and conduct a retail
business in part of the structure (selling antiques and furniture).
Total square footage of the building is 1489 sq. ft. and applicant
is proposing to use 710 sq. ft. commercially and 779 sq. ft. as a
residence.
Staff has reviewed the proposal and had several concerns:
1 . Pa~ki ng spaces 1 through 4 (per the site plan) shoul d be at a
90 angle and all align adjacent to the westernmost wall of
the building. (Space 4 will not function as now designed.)
2. A reciprocal access agreement with property to the east for
the 30 foot access on Chapman Avenue should be recorded on the
property on fi 1 e with the Ci ty,
3. The enclosure of the patio area should be prohibited due to
the site's parking limitation.
4. There is a lack of adequate landscaping on the site.
It is the Staff's opinion that approval of Conditional Use Permit 1252
is appropriate for two reasons: (1) that the proposal is consistent
with the intent of the City of Orange General Plan; and (2) that
the proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning.
Staff recommends approval of CUP 1252, subject to the 13 conditions
listed in the Staff Report, 5 of which are special conditions.
Planning Commission hiinutes
January 17, 1983
Page Nine
r..~
Chairman Hart opened the public hearing.
Bill Frantz, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of
this application. He corrected some of the figures in the Staff
Report with regard to the square footage of the residential and
commercial sections of the building in question. He requested that
Condition #3 be deleted - "That the present and subsequent users of
the site, either through sale or lease, be enjoined from enclosing
the patio area (due to the site's parking limitation) per this
Conditional Use Permit.", since he did not think this would affect
the parking, as Staff seems to think. He then explained where the
parking spaces would be located and pointed out that another parking
space could be added, if needed, on the east side of the building.
He said that the other conditions are acceptable to him.
Commissioner Hart asked Mr. Murphy if Staff would agree to this and
Mr. Murphy responded that Staff's position remained the same.
Commissioner Coontz asked for clarification regarding the parking
spaces and Mr. Frantz explained this in further detail.
James Hanley, 1302 W. Chapman, Orange, owner of the Orange Travelodge
Motel, addressed the Commission, stating that he was concerned that
this property is going to retail sales. He questioned the fact that
there is adequate parking for retail sales. He went on to explain
that he had had a problem with Crocker Bank for abusing the parking
situation next to his property and had to sue them in this regard.
He was concerned about the same kind of situation occurring in this
property and wanted to know how much is commercial and how much would
be residential. Commissioner Hart explained the exact figures to him.
It was also explained to him that regardless of being part residential,
the whole building is considered for the parking requirements. The
requirement is for nine spaces and the applicant is providing nine
spaces.
Mr. Murphy explained that the parking codes are based on past experience.
The codes are adjusted as times and uses change, based on experience
in the city and other surrounding cities in California.
Mr. Hanley asked if this building goes to retail sales could any retail
~ use come in and he was told that this was so.
`r
Commissioner Vasquez spoke to Mr. Hanley's remarks regarding the
problem of overflow parking in his lot, pointing out that there are
remedies to take care of this kind of a problem via appropriate posting
of signs. He explained. that the California Vehicle Code authorizes
people to post their lots appropriately and the owner is entitled to
have any vehicle illegally parked on his property towed away.
Commissioner Coontz pointed out the difficulties of crossing the street
at that point to park in Mr. Hanley's lot, with the signal at that
point, and did not think people would take the trouble to do that.
Commissioner Vasquez felt that perhaps the Southland Ambulance property
should be looked into for the congregation of vehicles in that area
which causes some congestion there.
Mr. Frantz responded that there is no zone change involved in this
matter, as Mr. Hanley seemed to think. It is already zoned C-2 and
the only reason for this application is that they wish to use part of
the building for residential purposes. He assured Mr. Hanley that he
was protected as far as parking is concerned.
Mr. Hanley explained that he is concerned about legal problems with people
parking in his lot who don't belong there.
,•
Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 1983
Page Ten
There being no one else to speak for or against this application,
the Chairman closed .the public hearing.
Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to
approve Conditional Use Permit 1252 for reasons as stated in the
Staff Report and subject to the 13 conditions listed in the Staff
Report, with the deletion of Condition #3.
AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS:
Commissioner Coontz asked for an update on the Transportation System
Improvement Program. Commissioners were told that Bernie Dennis
has charge of the project. Gary Johnson spoke to the subject,
explaining that the committee was formed to review the transportation
needs in that area. He did not know exactly where they stand on
properties as far as projects are .concerned in that area. However,
he believed that the area which would be paying the 1% would be
from Chapman south and from Glassell Street west. This is a pretty
substantial area which will eventually generate enough money to do
some meaningful transportation projects. He thought that the first
thing to be done is for an evaluation to be made as to needs and
priorities. He pointed out that there are also some members from
Santa Ana on this committee. He thought that at this point in time
there is not enough money to do anything even if priorities are set.
This will be an ongoing thing.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular
meeting on Monday, February 7, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center
Council Chambers, 30U East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.
n
C