HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/3/1982 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
City of Orange
Orange, California
May 3, 1982
Monday, 7:30 p.m.
The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order
by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez
ABSENT: Commissioners none
STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission
PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant
City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bert Yamasaki, Director
of Planning & Development Services; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording
Secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 5, 1982
Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to
approve the minutes of April 5, 1982, as transmitted.
,~
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Master
NOES : Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none
ABSTAIN: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 19, 7982
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to
approve the minutes of April 19, 1982, as transmitted.
AYES: Commissioners Nickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1064 - JAKE VANDERSLUIS:
Request for a six month extension of the time of approval to allow
the sale of used automobiles in the M-2 zone on property situated
on the north side of Katella Avenue, approximately 465± feet east
of the centerline of Batavia Street (741 W. Katella Avenue).
Original approval granted November 3, 1980,
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to
approve the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, h1aster, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Master asked a ques ti on with regard to bring the city
rules in line with state law concerning extensions of time on tract
maps, etc. Mr. Murphy clarified the fact that a state law adopted
last year changes the extension period for tentative tract maps from
18 months to two years . The city 's recently adopted code amendment
brings our rules i n 1 i ne with that 1 aw. Commissioner Master pointed
out that he thought perhaps this item fell in line with that law
and therefore would be granted an extension without coming before
the Planning Commission, He wondered if extensions such as this one
for a Conditional Use Permit could be granted a first time extension
with admi nistrati ve approval only, rather than coming before the
Commission.
PLANNING COP~MISSION
PIINUTES
The Commissioners requested a Staff Report regarding administrative
authority on a first extension.
F!lanning Commission Minutes
May 3, 1982
Page Two
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS:
AMENDMENT 2-82 A, B & C -PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE (EXISTING AND REVISED) CONCERNING:
A) Commercial storage
B) Residential parki ng and storage
C) Signs and promotions
(Continued from Apri1.5, 1982 Planning Commission hearing.)
Jere Murphy presented this amendment, explaining that as a result
of the Planning Commission Study Session discussion on April 26,
1982, the Staff was instructed to prepare several possible alternatives
to the third portion of the amendment on "Special Promotions", as
well as voicing their comments and concerns. He explained that the
original Staff proposal was to allow four 15 day periods and the
month of December for special promotions, with 60 day intervals be-
tween periods . He explained that this would contain no additional
problems for the Staff.
Mr. Murphy then went on to expl ai n the other three alternatives
which had been discussed, as follows:
1. Allow Special Promotions for up to X days per year. The timing
and number of days of the "Special Promotions" to be up to the
discretion of the applicant as long as a total of X days is not
exceeded.
Mr. Murphy explained that this type of system would be extremely
difficult to administer unl ess the overall number of permit days
is limited to a maximum of 45 to 60 and the unit increments are
requested in increments of 15 day periods.
2. Allow three 15 day periods and the month of December with 90 day
intervals between periods as a standard guideline. Exceptions
to the guidelines to be permitted i f adequately j us ti fi ed. Maximum
deviation bei ng a total of 2- 2 months all taken on consecuti ve days .
Mr. Murphy then pointed out that the exceptions may outnumber the
standard requests under this system, thereby negating the attempt tc
set a workable standard, as suggested in the Staff's recommendation.
The results would be as described i n Al ternati ve #1 .
He then explained that the last alternative would be to do nothing and
the Staff felt that this alternative does not provide a solution to
the present problem of the code not addressing "Special Promotions",
thereby not allowing them in any form. He told the Commission that
there is significant interest by the business community in being
permitted to hold special sales in some form and fashion. A "do
nothing" action is not to anyone's benefit.
Mr. Murphy then poi nted out the additional matters which had been
discussed at the April 26th Study Session, which the Commission might
wish to include along with a recommendation on Amendment 2-82;
1 . That the Staff prepare a progress report one year after its
adoption and i mpl ementati on to i denti fy any special problems
and cost-effectiveness of the proposed program.
2. That the ordi Hance changes be noti ced to the business communi ty
through special newspaper advertisements , noti ces with business
license applications, etc.
3. That the City Council consider the hiring of additional personnel
to help enforce not only the proposed code, but to assist in
other enforcement efforts as well.
.Planni ng Commission Mi nutes
May 3, 1982
Page Three
Commissioner Coontz pointed out that Alternative #1 indicates to
the discretion of the applicant as to the number of days and timing.
However, she questioned Al ternati ve #2. If December i s given and
we know that so many businessmen begin their Christmas advertising
and promotion duri ng the month of November, would that mean that
the 60 or 90 day interval would interfere wi th the use of the month
of November? Mr. Murphy responded i n the affirmati ve, unl ess the
Council were to specify that the time period between the last request
and December be reduced to something less within the ordinance.
Commissioner Hart favored the first alternative, but did not see what
difference it makes when the days are used. He felt that every person
in business has a different need. He did not think this should be
limited.
Commissioner Vasquez wondered how 75 days was arrived at and h1r.
Murphy explained that the present proposal is for the month of
December, which i s roughly 30 days , as wel 1 as three opportuni ties
for 15 days' request during the year, which would total 75 days. He
pointed out that the Staff's recommendation is that if Alternative #1
is chosen that this 75 days be reduced to something less because of
what might otherwise be a total of 2z month time period at one time
during the year, which the Staff feels would cons ti tute too 1 ong a
period of time for a s i ngl e event.
Commissioner Vasquez brought up the concerns he head expressed at the
Study Session last week regarding the actual application process and
the design of the signs i n question and asked that they be addressed.
Mr. Murphy responded that they had not addressed this in their report
but i t coul d be addressed. If the review for estheti cs is to take place,
it could be added into the process and either the Staff or the Design
Review Board would take the res pons i b i 1 i ty .
Commissioner Master brought up the comment made by one of the applicants
regarding applying for special occasions and the question came up that
i f you have additional staff, where does the fundi ng come from. He
thought that a comment had been made that for special occasions that a
fee be charged. Mr. Murphy replied that the Staff's feeling i s that
enforcement should be separated from general revenue production. This
program may be paid for by the fees charged for a special occasion
permit. However, Staff did not see the suggested daily charge as being
a good thing to mix with the enforcement of the ci ty's ordinance. He
further expl ai ned that the business 1 i cense tax is a revenue genera ti ng
function and is not used any longer as it once was. He thought that
the question of the amount of the fee to be charged for processing
requests for these special promoti ons i s a val i d place to consider the
amount of the fee., rather than talking specifically about a daily fee
to act as a discouragement to an individual holding a special promotion
for an extended period of time.
Commissioner Mickelson asked Commissioner Master whether he was recom-
mending aspecial fee to be charged for these special events and Com-
missioner Master replied that this was his intention, until he heard
what Mr. Murphy had to say about keeping the expenditures and the use
separate.
Commissioner Coontz pointed out that the processing fee was set at
$5.00 and she wondered how this was determi ned. Mr. Murphy explained
that the $5.00 fee was determined arbitrarily, with the Staff attempti ng
to make it large enough to make it economically recoverable on an
individual basis, and yet not so large that it would discourage people
from maki ng application for the permit.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 1982
Page Fo u r
Commissioner Hart thought that there was something ludicrous about
pl aci ng a restricti on on a busi nessman which he does not want and then
chargi ng him a fee '.also. He felt that he purchases a busi Hess 1 icense
every year and there should not be another fee added to this .
Chairman Mickelson said that he has a business license also and he
thought that probably the city puts out more money for paper work
regarding that 1 i cense than he pays . He was inclined to think that
an added fee of $5.00 was very minor. Perhaps we should take a look
at the entire fee structure.
Chairman Mickelson then opened the public hearing.
Carrol Johnson, representing the Downtown Merchants' Association,
addressed the Commission, stati ng that he differed i n the amount of
days which was stated, figuring that i f they have four 1 5 day periods
with 30 days during. December, this would be 90 days. He thought that
this should be adjusted per merchant. By dictating the amount of days
whi ch a merchant might use, i t woul d be i mpugni ng the reputati on of
the merchants. He pointed out that there was no ordinance in the
early days of Orange and the city grew and prospered wi thout this .
He felt that possibly the Commission does not realize what is happening
in the retail business right now. He pointed out that enterprises as
large as Gemco and Fedco and The Broadway are in financial trouble.
He urged that of the four alternatives that it should be at the dis-
cretion of the merchant if Alternative #1 is chosen. The second
alternative would be to do nothing . When things pick up agai n
fi nanci ally i n the retail business , then have an ordi Hance -but put
i t aside for now .
Guy Reese, President of the Original Orange Antique Association,
addressed the Commission, stati ng that he agreed wi th Mr. Johnson's
statements and if it is necessary to choose, he would choose Alternative
#2, wi th no 60 day interval . He also felt there shoul d be no ordinance.
This ordinance just causes more bureaucratic red tape. He felt that
the ordi Hance should be repealed completely .
There being no one else to speak for or against this amendment, the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Coontz was concerned as to why this has been brought up
at this time. She thought in the future we could come back to one of
these al ternati ves, but business condi tions are such at this time
that people are very emotional about this. She did not see why this
should be done at this time.
Commissioner Hart agreed with. Commissioner Coontz' comments. He
would like to see this tabled. Commissioner Master agreed also,
stati ng that the whole thing should be tabled wi th a date set for
bringing i t up again.
Commissioner Vasquez said that he was sensitive to the comments which
had been made, however, he thought that there is a down side to tabling
this at-this time. This could create an air of desperation whereby
some merchants mi ght resort to some extreme ways of publi ci zi ng thei r
business, which could cause a problem.
Chairman Mickelson asked if the Commission were to take the option
of tabling this for a period of time, even wi th a speci fi c date set,
what would the Staff's posi tion have to be wi th regard to enforcement
of the present ordinance. Mr. Murphy explained that the City Counci 1
has the right to tell the Staff that ordinances are not to be enforced.
However, this kind of action could have long term ramifications for
the business community, i .e . i f the use of temporary signs i s not to
be enforced by the ci ty, there could be all types of signs erected
some of which could be permanent and thereby be possibly subject to
grandfatheri ng the ones they have establ fished. They could also negate
some of the permanent signs whi ch have already been erected.
Planning Commission P1i nutes
'May 3, 1982
Page Five
Chairman Mickel son asked i f we have just been ignoring the current
~ ordinance and Mr. Murphy replied that this was correct. Chairman
Mickelson then said that if we do nothing and are then called upon
to enforce our current ordinance, it would be stricter than what is
being proposed at this time. Mr. Murphy explained that if the
City Council decides to do nothing, it would mean that the Staff
must go out and require that all temporary signs be removed. He
would assume that the Commission will also ask the City Council
to direct the Staff not enforce the present limitation on temporary
signs.
Chairman Mickelson then said that he would 1 ike to see the Commission
pi ck a shorter time such as 90 days to hold up on this ordi Hance,
since he felt that this would say to the community that we do intend
to do something about this , but we are showi ng a posi tion of under-
standing at this time.
Commissioner Coontz stated that when they spoke of tabling the ordinance
she did not think i t should be tabled fora iong time. The Commission
is not saying they are against any of the ideas which have been pre-
sented. They just would like to see more time for study.
Commissioner Hart did not feel comfortable putting in more restrictions
on the business communi ty at this time. He felt i t should be held for
a period of time and if the Council wants action they can say so.
Commissioner Vasquez wondered that if we take a nothing position do we
have to qualify that action with a statement that it should be compli-
mented with an order of extension of enforcing the current ordinance.
Mr. Murphy responded that the Commission or Council must give the
Staff direction as to how the present ordi Hance should be enforced.
For the past 30 days, because of public concern, the code has not been
enforced as it had been prior to that time.
Chairman Mickelson asked if there has been a proliferation of signs
since there has been no enforcement. Mr. Murphy replied that there
have been quite a few more signs put up in the area recently.
Commissioner Coontz felt that if they let the City Council know what
the concerns are of both the Commission and the business community,
they might go along with a setting of time.
Commissioner Hart wondered when the enforcement started if it was
started at the request of the Council or did someone just decide to
start enforcing the code. Mr. Murphy answered that the original
reason for the enforcement of the code was because of complaints by
the business community about other members of the community blocking
their permanent signs with temporary signs, etc. These complaints
began comi ng i n toward the end of 1 as t year. Chairman Mickelson
wondered i f that coi nci ded with the hiring of the enforcement officer
and Mr. Murphy explained that he was hired last summer and initially
took over on other ordinances.
Commissioner Master was not i n favor of ending at this 1 evel . He
did not want to rely on what is right in the minutes by the Council.
There must be a heari ng process . There should be a recommendati on of
tabling the ordi Hance, which should go on to the Council . Commissioner
Hart thought that the Council should be more aware of what the Com-
mi ssion i s doi ng, other than by the minutes and i f they wish the
Commission to take some action, they should review the four alterna-
tives and send them back to the Commission, di ecting ome action.
Commissioner Master felt there i s a di chotomy Mere. T~ere are two
factions in the business community, those who go by the rules and those
who do not. There was further discussion among the Commissioners in
this regard. Commissioner Vasquez asked if the complaints which
started this whole thing are documented. Mr. Murphy was not sure
whetfr.er all of them are documented, however, all formal complaints
are.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 1982
Page Six
Commissioner Vasquez pointed out that there were very few people
i n the audience toni ght to talk about this situation. Perhaps
there is an over-concern here on the part of the city.
Mr. Johnson again addressed the Commission, statina that he would
like to hear one of the Commissioners make a comment to the effect
that due to the condi ti ons that are now i n the retail community
that they would encourage the Counci 1 to resci nd any of the enforce-
ment of the banners and signs in a period of 90 days, as long as
they do not interfere wi th any permanent signs, i n order to encourage
the. business communi ty to expand and help itsel f come out of the
present recession. This would be on a positive note rather than
a negative one.
Commissioner Hart commented that by doing what they are doing, this
mi ght be accomplished i ndi rectly because of all of the paper work
that must be done in connection with this amendment.
Mr. Reese again addressed the Commi ssion, stating that he would be
i nterested i n knowi ng how many compl ai nts have been received by
the city. He also pointed out that he represents 400 business people
and Mr. Johnson represents 50.
Moved by Commissioner Vasquez to recommend to the City Council that
Alternative #4 be used and, furthermore, that enforcement of the
existing ordinance be rescinded for a period of 30 days, subject to
a review by the current enforcement officer at the end of 30 days,
pending a final determination on this .amendment which was proposed.
Commissioner Vasquez expl ai ned that his rationale for this moti on
is the fact that it is an untimely occasion to bring this kind of
an ordi Hance for implementation and, secondly, he thought that the
economic conditions are prevai 1 i ng enough that there. should be some
consideration of that fact. He believed that the fact that Staff
has abstai ned from enforci ng the ordi Hance for 30 days, he did not
see where great damage would be caused by further abstaining from
enforcement for a period of another 30 days.
There being no second to this motion, the motion failed.
Commissioner Hart offered the same motion with a 90 day abstention,
seconded by Commissioner Coontz, her reason for seconding the motion
bei ng that we are not i nto a 30 day recession.
Commissioner Vasquez commented that his rationale for 30 days is
that he feels th at a peri od of 90 days i s a longer period of time
and he thought that the Council should have an opportunity to review
i t should things get out of hand.
Commissioner Master had mixed emotions on this motion. He thought
that the enforcement officer might have his hands full at the end
of 90 days .
Chairman Mickelson offered an amendment to the motion from 90 days
to 60 days, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez.
Commissioner Hart felt that if the situation gets out of hand within
the 90 day period we could cut i t off at any time. Commissioner
Vasquez said that Staff has indicated a need for specific direction
and the 60 days would be that di rection. Commissioner Coontz com-
mented that the reason she suggested 90 days is that the public plea
is the recession. Chairman Mickelson's reason for 60 days is to give
the Ci ty Counci 1 a sense of urgency.
The Commission then voted on the amendment to the motion on the floor.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 1982
Page Seven
AYES: Commissioners
NOES: Commissioners
ABSENT: Commissioners
Mickelson, Vasquez
Hart, Coontz, Master
none
P-LOTION FAILED
The Commission then voted on the motion by Commissioner Hart,
i ndi cati ng a 90 day abstention period.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS:
VARIANCE 1683 -GOLDEN WEST POOL SUPPLY:
A request to permit the display of pool/spa merchandise outdoors
for sale in a C-2 (General Business) District and delete 5 of 45
parki ng spaces to do so on land located on the northeast corner
of Chapman Avenue and Feldner Avenue (1639 West Chapman Avenue).
Norvi n Lanz presented this application to the Commission, stati ng
that this property contai ns a .79 acre of 1 and 1 ocated on the
northeast corner of Chapman Avenue at Feldner Avenue, having ap-
proximately 165 feet of primary frontage on Chapman Avenue and
approximately 210 feet of secondary frontage on Feldner Avenue.
The property contai ns a smabl shoppi ng center wi th ei ght merchant-
occupants . I t i s surrounded by C-1 and C-2 zoning, with mul ti pl e
family housing to the north.
The Staff has reviewed the proposal and expressed some concerns:
1. That the parki ng spaces currently provided wi 11 be further
lessened by the proposed removal of 5 spaces, leaving 40
spaces remaining for tenant use, when 53 spaces are actually
required per Ci ty Code. This 1 eaves the parking deficient by
13 spaces overall , i n an area where current uses show that
the shoppi ng center does not qualify fora 15% reduction
all owed by code for common faci 1 i ti es i n centers of this size.
2. The project area has the potential for safety problems
with regard to large volumes of unenclosed water adjacent
to an electrical panel and uti 1 i ty pole; and unauthori zed
trespassing (specifically, children using the pool) from
nearby residential housing.
3. Illumination of the pool display area, i f for security reasons
only, could potentially be intrusive to nearby residential
housing.
Staff, therefore, cannot recommend the approval of Variance 1683
because: (1) the parti cul ar hardship claimed by the applicant
has been self-imposed; and (2) the porposal is potentially detrimental
to the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing
or working i n the neighborhood of the proposed project.
However, if the Planning Commission thinks the applicant's request
for Variance 1683 i s reasonable, Staff recommends 15 condi ti ons , as
set forth i n the Staff Report. Also fencing was not addressed i n
the condi tions ans should be added i f the variance is approved.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
. Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 1982
Page Ei gh t
Ri chard Johnson, owner of Golden West Pool Supply, the applicant,
addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated
that he has been i n business i n Orange for 12 years . He pointed
out that the main objection to the display seems to be 1 ack of
parki ng spaces. The parki ng space is i n the rear of the center and
if more spaces were to be added in front, customers would not be
aware of the parki ng i n the rear. With regard to the el ectri cal
panel on the building, the poops are 8 feet away from the electrical
panels and the pole i s at 1 east 18 feet high , with cable to hold i t
up. Therefore, i t cannot fal 1 . With regard to trespassing, the
submi tted plan shows a 6 foot block wal 1 behind and a 6 foot chaff n
link fence with a barbed wire extension around the whole perimeter.
There will be aself-closing gate which will be padlocked after
hours . During the wi nter there wil 1 be a pool cover placed on the
pools , Regarding 1 i gh is for s ecuri ty purposes , Mr, Johnson explained
that there have been 1 fights i n the center since i t was built.
He asked the Commission to keep i n mi nd that the pools are portabl e
and can be moved at any time.
Joe Secard, who owns and occupies the building at 1525 W. Chapman,
approximately 100 feet to the east of the center in question, addressed
the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he is
concerned about the parking. In the immediate area across from
Feldner i s Adrays , which does a tremendous business and uses much
of the parki ng faci 1 i ti es there. This property was originally eight
spaces short, which means i t wi 11 now be 13 spaces short. Therefore,
there wi 11 be an overflow of parking into other busi Hess areas .
Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. Secard what kind of a business he
operated and he replied that i t was a pool business .
Rolf Di Vito, owner of Two Guys From Italy Restaurant, addressed
the Commission i n opposition to this application. He was of the
same opi ni on as Mr. Secard, with the same probl ems and concerns about
parking. His restaurant is open from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m, from Monday
through Saturday.
Mr. Secard also pointed out that there is no on-street parking on
Chapman Avenue.
There being no one else to speak for or against this application,
the Chaff rman closed the public heari ng.
Commissioner Coontz pointed out a cumulative problem in the whole
area as far as parking i s concerned . This has nothing to do with
the applicant only.
Mr. Murphy commented that regardl ess of whether Adrays has adequate
parki ng or not, they would still need more parking for the business
they do. Commissioner Vasquez agreed with the concerns of the Staff.
Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master for
denial of Variance 1683, for the reasons as outlined i n the Staff
Report.
Commissioner Coontz did not feel that strongly about denial, nor
positive about approval. She felt that everyone has a parking
problem in that area.
Commissioner Hart felt that it still came back to the question of
how we can ultimately vote for a variance if there is no hardship
proven. He did not feel there i s a h ardsh i p here.
I~
.J
•~ Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 1982
Page Nine
Chairman Mickelson also supported the motion because there has
been no demonstration of adequate parking for the businesses on
the street.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
RECOMMENDATIONS OR COMMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE
PHASE IV REPORT OF HOUSING CONSULTANT, ENVISTA.
Mr. Murphy explained that the Housing Committee had met last
Wednesday night, but did not have a quorum, so they have been
scheduled to meet again this coming Wednesday night, May 5, 1982
to discuss the report which is in the hands of the Commission
and take action on the 4th phase of the housing consultant's
report. There are five members on this committee.
This report was received and filed by the Commission.
Commissioner Hart mentioned the UCI meeting on June 5th. Chairman
Mickelson asked that all commissioners be registered for this
conference.
Chairman Mickelson commented that the City Council/Planning Commission
Subcommittee on East Orange is proceeding toward recommending to the
City Council that they are putting out an RFP for a consultant to do
a study on the Irvine property.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. to be reconvened to a regular
meeting on May 17, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council
Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.
^~
EXCERPT FROM THE MLNUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 3, 1982.
The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez
ABSENT: Commissioners none
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, that this
meeting adjourn at 9:00 p.m, on Monday, May 3, 1982, to reconvene at
7:30 p.m, on Monday, May 17, 1982 at the Civic Center Council Chambers,
300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.
I, Jere P. Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission,
Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true,
full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, Hiay 3, 1982.
Dated this 4th day of May, 1982 at 2:00 p.m.
Jere P, urp y, City Tanner an
Secretary to the Planning Commission
o.f the City of Orange.
0
n
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER
SS OF ADJOURNMENT
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the
Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting
of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on
May 3, 1982; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time
~.
and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto;
that on May 4, 1982, 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 May 3, 1982 was held.
Je e P. Murp y, Secret ry