2003 - January 20
MINUTES
APPROVED
Planning Commission
City of Orange
January 20, 2003
Monday - 7:00 p.rn.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
Jeffry Rice, Planning Manager/Secretary
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Khanh A. Le, Recording Secretary
IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN:
(1)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-01, ZONE CHANGE 1208-00,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15750, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 249-02,
VARIANCE 2113-02, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 30-02, AND
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1647-00 - FIELDSTONE
COMMUNITIES, INC.
The project is the subdivision of 109 acres into 183 dwelling units with lot sizes
ranging from 6,000 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft., providing a 6 acre park site, adding a
bridge for a recreational trail over Santiago Creek and reserving land for a grade-
separate recreational trail crossing for Santiago Canyon Road. The proposal
includes a project alternative that dedicates 2 acres for a private equestrian center
and reduces the size of the proposed 20,000 sq. ft. proposal to 8,000 sq. ft. The
zoning classification for approximately 12.60 acres located in the central area of
the northerly half of the site is zoned Residential, single-family, minimum lot
size 8,000 sq. ft. (R-I-8), while the remainder of the subject site is zoned Sand
and Gravel (S-G). This item was continued from the October 7, 2002, October
21, 2002, November 18, 2002, and December 2, 2002 meetings. This item is
proposed to be continued to Wednesday, February 19, 2003 per applicants
request.
NOTE: Environmental Impact Report 1647-00 was prepared for this project in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Article 7 - EIR Process. The
Planning Commission's review will include consideration of a
statement of overriding consideration for environmental impacts that
cannot be mitigated.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Continue the item to the meeting of February 19,2003.
Chair Smith addressed the item for a continuance.
APPROVED
January 20, 2003
Planning Commission Minutes
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue the
agenda item to the February 19,2003 meeting.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR:
(2)
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 18, 2002.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman, and seconded by Commissioner Bonina approve the
Minutes from the November 18, 2002 meeting as submitted.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
INRE:
(3)
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
CONTINUED HEARINGS:
VARIANCE 2114-02 - TONY & LETICIA TRABUCCO
A request to allow the expansion of an existing single-family residence without
the required on-site parking that would cause the demolition of an existing
historically contributing garage structure. The General Plan land use designation
for the site is Low Density Residential - 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre (LDR).
The zoning of the site is Duplex Residential (R-2-6). The site is located at 450
South Orange Street. This item was continued from the January 6, 2003 meeting.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities Accessory
Structures).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution PC 02-03 approving Variance 2114-02.
Mr. Rice presented project by recapping what had happened during the last meeting concerning
this item. Based on the last meeting's split vote, the staff had prepared four (4) optional designs
that the Commission had requested for consideration. Mr. Rice explained the differences
between the four (4) options.
Chair Smith asked for clarification as to why item was continued.
Mr. Rice explained that the result ofthe voting for the item was a split-two (2) votes for approval
and two (2) votes for denial. Procedurally, a tie vote is considered as a denial. The applicant had
2
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes January 20,2003
the option to request to bring the project back to the commission with a five (5) member
attendance to break the tie, which he chose to exercise.
Commission Bonina asked ofMr. Rice if the applicant is aware of the four (4) options available
to him; Rice replied that Project Manager Chuck Lau has worked with the applicant and the
applicant is aware of his options.
Commissioner Pruett asked what the code requirement is for the minimum distance between the
garage and the house structure. Mr. Rice replied that it is five (5) feet.
Commissioner Brandman asked if Chuck Lau could discuss the decision with the applicant. Mr.
Rice replied that Chuck Lau is not available to speak, Commissioner Brandman may ask the same
question of the applicant later.
Commissioner Bonina asked whether the drawing is indicating the required set back for the
garage off ofthe alley, on the side, in option number four (4). Mr. Rice replied that the zoning
code does not have a required set back; however, in the Old Towne area, because of the
architectural requirements for wood siding, from a building code standpoint, the three (3) foot
side and rear yard set back for the structure would satisfy California building code requirements.
Chair Smith invited the applicant to speak.
Mr. Tony Trabucco (450 S. Orange St.) explained that there was opposition to the project
previously because of the parking situation. Mr. Trabucco presented some data he had collected
on the number of cars parked on the street between 9 am and 10 pm for about two (2) weeks. He
concluded that since there are a total of forty-six (46) parking spaces and he observed a maximum
of twenty-five (25) parked vehicles, there is not a big parking issue. He explained that the
original intention is:
1) To restore the front porch of house and losing a bedroom.
2) Keep the original single-ear-garage, with some storage space added.
3) Add an additional single parking pad in the back of the property.
Mr. Trabucco confirmed that he did speak to Chuck Lau concerning the options. His preference
is to keep the project as the way it was originally presented. His second preference would be to
put a driveway on the side of the house, which is not an option offered by staff, but he is
proposing, presenting new drawings to the commission. He added the obstacle with this option is
the fire hydrant that is currently located in front of his house, which would require to be moved in
order to accomplish the addition ofthe driveway.
Chair Smith asked several questions of Mr. Trabucco:
1) The age of the garage. Mr. Trabucco expressed that he believes it's around eighty-nine
(89) years old, he's assuming it's the same age as home. There have been some
modifications to the garage.
2) Number of cars in his household. Mr. Trabucco replied that there are two (2).
3) Will the current garage hold a car? Mr. Trabucco replied that it would hold one of the
two cars they own; one of the cars is too large.
Commissioner Brandman explained that whatever the commission approves, it has to go with the
lot, so if the owner moves, the rules goes for the next tenant. She continued to ask if there was a
hypothetical driveway in the front, how many cars could be accommodated on that driveway.
Mr. Trabucco replied that he believes three (3) or four (4) cars can be accommodated.
Commissioner Brandman continued to ask if the fire hydrant is directly in the way of the
driveway, or what would happen to the number of parking spaces ifthe hydrant was moved. Mr.
Trabucco replied that the fire hydrant is ten (10) feet on the inside of his property line. Mr.
3
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2003
Hohnbaum continued to explain that Mr. Trabucco would have to move the hydrant to have
enough space to accommodate a driveway. One option is to move the fire hydrant across the
street, where there is already a red curb, which will negate the need for deleting an additional
parking space. The presence of a parking spaces causes a parking space to be lost because of the
set back requirements, so where-ever the hydrant gets moved to, it will take its lack of parking
space with it, so there would not be any net loss of parking spaces on the street.
Chair Smith asked who would be responsible for paying for the moving of the hydrant. Mr.
Hohnbaum replied that ifMr. Trabucco desires to have the hydrant moved to gain the driveway,
he would be responsible for the cost.
Mr. Trabucco added that he was informed the cost would be around $6500 or more.
Chair Smith asked Mr. Trabucco ifhe would like to give the alternative he has presented as an
additional option to what the staff has presented. Mr. Trabucco replied that he would like his
newly presented option to be considered, but only if the city would share in the cost for moving
the hydrant.
Commissioner Brandman asked Mr. Trabucco ifhe had a preference, first or second choice, of
the four (4) options presented by staff. Mr. Trabucco replied that he would prefer to go with his
original proposal because the four (4) new options presented by staff requires him to lose a good
portion of his backyard, which he feel strongly about keeping.
Mr. Trabucco suggested another option, which is to put a parking strip on the south side of the
property. Chair Smith asked for advice from staff concerning code regarding stacking or tandem
parking. Mr. Rice explained that the zoning requires that a driveway be provided from a street to
a required parking. Required parking is a two-car garage, then the driveway would come into that
garage. The alternative would keep the existing garage and have a driveway go down the north
side or the south side, which is another variance issue--a driveway that does not lead to a required
parking stall.
Commissioner Pruett commented he feels the commission is making this an unusual complex
issue when it's not. The applicant wishes to request for the variance because he wants to keep the
character of the house, as it relates to the neighborhood of Old Towne. All the discussion
concerning cutting into the driveway and such will have significant change to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Pruett is concerned about the nature of the changes staff has presented. He feels
the focus should be on the applicant's original proposal-the commission should vote yes or no
on the applicant's original applicant. If the vote is no, then the applicant will have the decision to
either build a two-car garage as required by code, or to appeal.
Chair Smith asked for clarification concerning the presence of a variance request and four (4)
additional options to the design. Mr. Rice replied that the original request is just for the variance
to the two-car garage code requirement. The four (4) options were presented in response to the
previous meeting's discussion concerning parking and design options the commission had
explored. Staff recommends approval of the project based what is submitted in exhibit 3-29.
Chair Smith asked Mr. Trabucco ifhe is losing some of the backyard space is because the
proposal includes an addition to the house at the backyard. Mr. Trabucco replied that he would
lose both the backyard and front yard.
Commissioner Bonina asked staff where would the applicant bring the project back to in the
event that the variance gets denied, back to the Planning Commission or to the Design Review
Committee. Mr. Rice replied that if the new proposal meets zone codes, then it does not come
back to the Planning Commission.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 20, 2003
Commissioner Brandman expressed that she thought the purpose was to provide additional
parking to the property that would enhance the applicant's property, along with the changes the
applicant is requesting. She asked if the applicant has the option to put bricks down on the
proposed pad so it can either be used as a parking space or as a patio. Also, she inquired whether
the Design Review Committee had reviewed this project and had they determined that the
existing garage should be demolished. Mr. Rice replied that the charge of the DRC is an
architectural review board. They have reviewed the project as presented and recommend the
approvalofit. The policy call about should this property, the circumstances of this property in
Old Towne, at this location, are such that the granting of the variance of reduction from city's
development standards is the purview of this body only.
Chair Smith asked why the applicant's proposal is not included as a proposal. Mr. Rice replied
that it should be the primary option.
Chair Smith asked Mr. Trabucco what his favorite choice would be. Mr. Trabucco replied his
preference would be the original proposal.
Chair Smith invited for comments from the public.
PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDED:
Janet Crenshaw (464 N. Shaffer)
COMMENTS INCLUDED:
. In favor of project because precedence has already been set, it limits FAR, and it maintains a
historical structure.
Chair Smith closed the public hearing and brought the discussion to the commissioners.
Commissioner Pruett expressed that he does not have any problems with this project, he has a
question for staff concerning what would happen if the historical structure in question "goes
away", what would be required after that. Mr. Sheatz replied that a new structure would have to
be reconstructed to current code, which is a two-car garage. But there is a time frame to rebuild
under the pre-existing code if the structure were to be demolished by force of nature. If that time
lapse, then the new structure has to comply with current codes. Commissioner Pruett added he
wanted to bring that up so the property owner would have incentive to maintain the structure in
question in good condition or he would be subjected to the new requirements.
Commissioner Bonina asked what the size of the basement in the house was on the report. Mr.
Trabucco replied it's around eight feet by eight feet.
Commissioner Bonina continued and expressed his concerns pertaining to this project:
1) The possible contribution ofthis project to the parking problem in the Old Towne area. The
increase square footage of the home is going from 884 sq. ft. to 2400 sq. ft., increasing the
footage by 1471 sq. ft., yet not allowing the proper number of parking spaces.
2) The alley is small and it is close to commercial areas, with a lot of traffic around the area,
which could be a contributing factor to the parking problem.
Commissioner Romero expressed he can understand Mr. Bonina's concern about parking. He
also had concerns with the parking situation and the question whether the garage is being used for
storage or for parking. But he expressed he trusts the opinion of the professional architects and
the residents of Old Towne, as expressed by Ms. Crenshaw, who are in support ofthis project. So
in conclusion, he supports this project.
5
APPROVED
January 20, 2003
Planning Commission Minutes
Commissioner Brandman expressed that her position is based on the parking situation, which she
feels is very important-which looks at the benefit of the many versus the few.
Commissioner Bonina wanted to clarify if this variance is allowing for one (1) covered and one
(1) uncovered parking space; in which Mr. Rice replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Pruett commented that this creates a problem because there are a lot of properties
in the city that are non-conforming.
Commissioner Brandman commented that the two (2) projects that were approved had a total of
four (4) available parking spaces on site.
Chair Smith expressed her opinions concerning the project:
1) She is fine with the plans the applicant has submitted because it allows for three (3)
parking spaces.
2) She supports the project because the applicant has done extensive work to get the house
back to the original form, as support by the original owners who are now in Oregon, and
presented pictures and many details.
3) There is value in retaining the existing garage.
4) She does not agree with Commissioner Bonina concerning the increase in footage since a
large part of number was for the attic, which is left with 885 sq. ft. of living space.
5) She commends property owners who invest in properties next to an alley and commercial
properties.
6) Her understanding is that the commission is not supposed to do tandem or stacking
parking, so she would support the applicant's original proposal.
Commissioner Brandman expressed that she does not see the three (3) on-site parking spaces that
Chair Smith had expressed in her comments. She believes the garage is too short and the parking
slab space behind the garage is also too short. She feels the garage may be able to accommodate
a small or compact car, which the applicant does not have.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, and seconded by Commissioner Romero to adopt resolution PC
02-03 approving Variance 2114-02.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman
None
MOTION CARRIED
Mr. Rice explained the policy for appeal is the applicant or any interested body may apply for an
appeal by contacting Mr. Chuck Lau, the case planner, and file with the Community
Development Department within fifteen (15) days.
6
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 20, 2003
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS
(4)
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16332, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2420-
02, AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 233-02 - FIELDSTONE / HElM
STREET
A request to subdivide a 5.7 acre site and allow for the development of
approximately 3 acres with 24 single-family residences. The proposal includes
an application to create a PUD (Planned Unit Development). The zoning of the
site is R-2-6 (Residential, Duplex, minimum lot size 6,000 square feet). The
General Plan land use designation for the site is LMDR (Low-Medium Density
Residential, 6 to 15 dwelling units per acre).
NOTE: The environmental impacts of the proposal have been reviewed per
approved Negative Declaration No. 1560-99.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution PC 07-03 approving Tentative Tract Map 16332,
Conditional Use Permit 2420-02, and Minor Site Plan Review 233-02.
Chair Smith addressed this item and asked ifthere were any opposition to this project. Since
there were none, Mr. Rice was waived from reading the full staff report.
Mr. Rice read the proposal as presented in the agenda item. He introduced Mr. Chris Carnes, the
case planner, to continue to explain the project.
Mr. Carnes explained that the proposal before the commission is the development of half of the
vacant parcel up at the southeast comer of Heim and Canal. The tentative tract map proposes to
divide the tract map into twenty-five (25) lots. Lot twenty-five (25) is the westerly half, which is
being reserved for some future development, either as residential, as allowed by the general plan
zoning or by the church, which owns the property. Staff recommends approval of proposal with
thirty-three (33) conditions. There is a request for change to condition number twenty-six (26), if
the project is approved, to be revised to read, "dedicate Canal Street to the City of Orange for
street and utilities purposes", but currently reads, "dedicate and construct Canal Street to the City
of Orange for street and utilities purposes." Mr. Carnes concluded his presentation and invited
questions.
Commissioner Pruett asked of Mr. Carnes:
1) Is lot number twenty-five (25) is included in the CC&R, which is an agreement for the
entire site outlining specific responsibilities? Mr. Carnes replied in the affirmative.
There is a ten (10) foot wide landscape easement to buffer the appearance of the proposed
property and lot twenty-five (25) and there is a drainage easement that goes across the
south side oflot twenty-five (25) that is being developed for the proposed dwelling
development. They are all tied together.
2) Is there shared parking. Mr. Carnes replied that staff does not know what lot twenty-five
(25) is going to be developed as.
3) Is there access between the proposed project and lot twenty-five (25)? Mr. Carnes
replied that there isn't.
Commissioner Bonina asked ofMr. Carnes:
1) These are two (2) separate lots? Mr. Carnes replied that it is not currently, but is being
proposed as two (2) separate lots.
2) Why would the city require a dedication of Canal Street, as stated in condition number
twenty-six (26)? Mr. Carnes replied that it is because the total proposal includes both the
7
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2003
twenty-four (24) lots for the homes and the undeveloped lot, which would require
development at a later point in time, which will relate to Canal Street.
3) Would the dedication along Canal Street also affect the lot that is not a part oflot twenty-
five (25)? Mr. Carnes replied in the negative.
Chair Smith invited applicant to speak.
Mr. David Greminger (14 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach) the project manager for project used
a power point presentation to present the project. He gave a quick overview of the project,
including:
1) The location of the project.
2) A comparison of the newly proposed project and the previously proposed project
(approved in January 2000.)
3) The site engineering:
a. Site entry.
b. Improvement of Heim and Canal streets
c. Addition of storm drain.
d. Improving on existing boundary walls.
e. Study of traffic, which states no significant impact.
f. Meeting the parking requirements.
g. The landscape plan.
4) The architecture of the project--two (2) floor plans, with three (3) elevations.
5) Project benefits:
6) Down-zoning of previous plan,
7) Installation of street improvements on Heim Ave.,
8) Enhanced landscaping,
9) Diversity of architectural styles,
10) Quality single-family housing.
Mr. Greminger concluded his presentation and invited questions from the commission.
Chair Smith asked:
1) What is the approximate square footage of the houses? Mr. Greminger replied 2,449 to
2,686 sq. ft.
2) What are the minimum and maximum lot sizes? Mr. Greminger replied that average lot
size is 3,775 sq. ft. Mr. Rice added that the smallest lot size is 3,344 sq. ft., and the
largest is 5,848 sq. ft.
3) Concerning the landscape that is running north and side of the property, in light of the
increase in crimes, she would like to address the landscaping with that issue in mind.
Commissioner Bonina asked:
1) Is there any kind offencing on lot D? Mr. Greminger replied that there is fencing along
the backside of the tot lot, but the front of the tot lot is not currently planned to have
fencing along the street edge.
2) What improvements are planned for the tot lot? Mr. Greminger replied that there is play
equipment planned for the tot lot, and then there are some passive areas-turf and such.
3) Concerning lot number twenty-five (25), once the development has commenced, is there
any provision to have the larger lots fenced off? How will it remain? Mr. Greminger
replied that the church will continue to have ownership oflot twenty-five (25) after the
proposed development, and he can not speak on their behalf and do not know what the
church's plans are, other than their plans to keep the site fenced off until it is developed.
4) Concerning the average lot being 3,775sq. ft., does the design allow enough space for a
two (2) car garage and two (2) driveway spaces? Mr. Greminger replied in the
affirmative.
8
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 20, 2003
Commissioner Romero asked what the proposed refurbishment to the block wall on the south and
east would entail. Mr. Greminger replied that it would be either sandblasted or added stucco for
aesthetics, but the structure is sound and there are no plans to change the height of the structure.
Chair Smith asked for the location of the ten (10) additional parking spaces on the street, and the
length ofthe driveway. Mr. Greminger pointed them out on the drawing and added that the
length of the driveway is a minimum of twenty (20) feet.
Commissioner Brandman asked the applicant ifhe was making any adjustment for security on the
wall that backs up to WalMart. Mr. Greminger replied that the project is not offering any sort of
fencing for those homes, but offer a security system that can be added during construction.
Chair Smith reminded everyone that the action of the commission concerning this project is to
decide whether they recommend the project to City Council or not, the Commission's action is
not final. She also commented that she would like to add to the conditions that the tot lot on the
curve be required to have fencing for safety concerns.
Chair Smith invited comments from the public.
PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDED (In Alphabetical Order):
H. A. Boehner (8891 N. Canal St.)
June Kunkel (2592 N. Canal St.)
Pastor Martin (1250 E. Heim Ave.)
Trip Reinke (15666 Hesse Dr., La Mirada)
Joyce StOry (2525 N. Bourdon)
COMMENTS INCLUDED:
. This is the best project out of all the ones that have been seen.
. This proj ect will enhance the land value in the area.
. Would prefer to see lighter colors on the exteriors of the properties.
. This project could potentially create a lot of income for the city.
Mr. Greminger addressed the public's comment concerning the color, stating that the color
scheme presently shown, which are light in tone, has been reviewed and approved by the DRC,
and they are indicative of the architecture.
Chair Smith asked if the applicant is open to putting a fence at the tot lot. Mr. Greminger replied
that he is.
Comments from the commission included:
. Commissioner Bonina is pleased with the proposal. He does not see any issues except the
fencing at the tot lot area.
. Chair Smith asked for staffs opinion of the addition of the fencing to the tot lot. The
consensus is that other commissioners agree.
. Commissioner Brandman echo the sentiment of Mr. Bonina.
. Commissioner Romero concurred.
. Commissioner Pruett concurred.
9
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 20,2003
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Smith, and seconded by Commissioner Romero to recommend to City
Council the adoption of resolution PC 07-03 approving Tentative Tract Map 16332, Conditional
Use Permit 2420-02, and Minor Site Plan Review 233-02 with these modifications to conditions:
1) Condition number twenty-five (25) to read, "dedicate and construct Heim Avenue
frontage to city standard."
2) Condition number twenty-six (26) to delete "and construct", to read, "Dedicate Canal
Street to the City of Orange for street and utility purposes."
3) Amending the landscaping and irrigation plan to include fencing of the exterior perimeter
to lot D.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
(5)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-0002, ZONE CHANGE NO.
1214-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2428-02, MAJOR SITE
PLAN REVIEW NO. 259-02, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 1704-02 - ORANGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (ROBERT MICKELSON) WITH COOPERATION
FROM THE CITY OF ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
(CITRUS COMMUNITY APARTMENT)
The proposed project involves the construction of a 29-unit multi-family
affordable housing development on property involving six parcels, two of which
are presently vacant. Total project site area is approximately 1.45 acres. The
project is intended to provide housing for low- and very-low income residents.
Based on State guidelines, a four-person household in Orange County with a
household income of $54,400 is considered low income. A similar size
household with a household income of$37,800 is considered very-low income.
Project implementation would involve the demolition of two small commercial
buildings at 1005 and 1031 W. Chapman Avenue, a single-family residence at
1037 W. Chapman Avenue, and a residential duplex at 112-116 N. Citrus Street.
A total of 62 parking spaces would be provided to serve the site. A common
open space area would be provided as an amenity for the apartments. The site is
located at the northwest corner ofW. Chapman Avenue and Citrus Street (1103
W. Chapman Avenue.
NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1704-02 has been prepared for this
project in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070
et seq. The public review period for the Mitigated Negative
Declaration is December 21, 2002 through January 10, 2003.
Written comments must be received in the office of the City of Orange
Community Development Department by 5:30 p.m. January 13,2003.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution PC 06-03 recommending that the City Council
approve General Plan Amendment 2002-0002, Zone Change 1214-02,
Conditional Use Permit 2428-02, Major Site Plan Review 259-02, and
Mitigated Negative Declaration 1704-02
10
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 20, 2003
Because there was opposition from the public regarding this project, a full staff meeting was
required.
Mr. Rice introduced the item, then Ms. Karen Sully, Planning Manager, presented the staff report.
Ms. Sully gave a power point presentation of the material that is presented in the staff report
concerning the project. In summary, the project characteristics include:
. Twenty-nine (29) units on six (6) parcels,
. 1.45 acres,
. Affordable to low and very-l ow-income facilities (per County Federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development affordability guidelines.)
. Sixty (62) parking spaces (18 carport, 42 open),
. Density bonus to allow twenty (20) units per acre.
. 24,706 sq. ft. of use able open space.
. Building complies with all code setback requirements.
. Lot coverage is 25%, 45% is maximum allowed under R3 Zone
Ms. Sully also explained the Density Bonus:
. Requested GP land use designation ofLMDR would allow 6-15 units per acre (representing a
maximum of22 units on the project site.)
. Municipal code provides for density bonuses for affordable housing projects.
. Applicant is requesting 7 additional units over what would be allowed under LMDR land use
designation.
She explained that this project would provide a small portion of the city's need for affordable
housing.
Questions from Chair Smith included:
1) Which of the lots are to be demolished or are new acquisitions. Mr. Rick Otto replied
that Lot 39 is currently a retail business, Lot 12 is vacant, Lot 38 is retail, Lot 10 is a
single-family home, and Lot 9 is vacant.
2) Why was Lot 14 not acquired? Mr. Otto replied that Lot 14 was not acquired because it
was not available.
3) Is there ingress and egress on both Citrus and Chapman? Ms. Sully replied in the
affirmative.
Ms. Sully continued with her presentation, explaining:
. There is an interior recreational area, laundry room computer room, and leasing office.
. The elevation of the design reflects a contemporary version of the Spanish Colonial Revival
style, based on Old Towne and local area wide architecture and architectural influences along
Chapman.
. The landscaping compliments the architecture.
. Traffic and parking studies show little or no adverse impact to be expected.
. Statements from Orange PD, Orange Fire, Water, and utility companies state they have
reviewed the project and would be able to serve the project site.
. A letter from Orange Unified School District said student generation rate would be 5 students
for the site.
. Project has been reviewed by the SRC and the DRC, whom were in favor ofthe project with
conditions.
11
Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 20,2003
. There was a neighborhood meeting held November 13,2002 where input from the neighbors
was gathered. Most of the neighbors oppose the project based on crime, traffic, parking, and
overcrowding of schools.
Ms. Sully summarized the project and stated that staff is recommending that the project move
forward with conditions. She then asked Ms. Linda Boone, Economic Development Director, to
continue the staff presentation.
Ms. Boone addressed the following issues:
. The state mandates that 20% of state economic development funds be dedicated to affordable
housing.
. There is need for decent affordable housing in California.
. Why this project has taken the direction it has and how the OHDC came to choose this
location.
. Why the selection of Spanish Colonial Revival style.
. Goal to obtain March's tax credit deadline, to bring $2 million in addition to the normal tax
money.
. Studies that supported property values of homes surrounding affordable housing increase at
the same rate as homes in other areas.
. Management includes incentives for people in units and managers to be good neighbors and
good managers.
. Past projects proved projects are not overcrowded.
. Questions and Answers to common questions:
Q: Why don't you build senior units instead?
A: We are required by law to build based on need. We've assisted over 200 senior
units and 7 family homes, and the numbers need to be proportional based on state
requirements.
Q: Will this affect values of homes in adjacent neighborhoods?
A: This project is Tax Credit housing, not HUD projects or
Section 8 housing. Students' show that Tax Credit Projects do not cover property
values if they are well managed. Values raise equal to similar neighborhoods
without Tax Cut Projects.
Q: How do you know the units will be well managed?
A: We have projects OHDC has done in the past that will prove OHDC has been
able to manage units.
Chair Smith asked who would monitor who will live in the apartments? Ms. Boone replied that
OHDC would make sure trees are trimmed, trash is taken care off, and the tenants will follow city
rules. They also have their own rules for the tenants to live by.
Questions from Commissioner Bonina included:
I) Are all the units designated as affordable housing and what is the length of time of that
designation? Ms. Boone replied that all the units are affordable housing and new rules
states it has to be for the "life of project."
2) Please explain the ten (10) years tax credit. Ms. Boone replied that the investors receive
ten (10) years of tax credit, and fifteen (15) years expenses off of passive income.
3) What is the capacity per unit? Ms. Boone replied the formula is two (2) plus one (1),
meaning if there are two (2) bedrooms, then the capacity would be five (5) (for every
bedroom, there are two capacity, plus one). However, none ofOHDC's projects contain
as many people as allowed by that formula.
12
Planning Commission Minutes APPR 0 VED January 20, 2003
4) Please clarify the school impact analysis, which stated the number of increased students
would be five (5). Ms. Boone explained that they had met with the school and this was
the number the school district provided. Many of the children in units already go to
Orange Unified Schools.
5) Statistically, how many children would be expected in each home? Ms. Boone referred
to Mr. Eunice Bobert to address that question.
6) Why do so many units need to be built? Ms. Boone replied that the goal was to build the
maximum number of units that would block view and noise from Chapman for the
existing homes, but small enough to look good in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Romero asked if Ms. Boone can explain the state mandate on redevelopment
funds--buy properties, sell to partnership-process. Ms. Boone replied that the redevelopment
agency is a separate agency than the city. There are designated redevelopment areas in Orange,
and a certain amount of tax money goes to the redevelopment agency to be used for economic
development. Twenty (20) percent of that money has to be for affordable housing or else money
has to be returned to state.
Commissioner Romero asked if the Redevelopment Agency has purchased the properties and sold
it to a developer. Ms. Boone replied Redevelopment Agency only works with nonprofit agencies,
whom would have the same goals the Redevelopment Agency, does. The nonprofit agency, in
this case, OHDC, would manage the project, including obtaining the financing, develop the
project, and manage the project.
Commissioner Pruett stated the nonprofit organization was formed due to Orange being found in
noncompliance of the state's requirement for affordable housing. He also asked if Ms. Boone
knew the formula for calculating those requirements. Ms. Boone replied that Commissioner
Pruett is correct about the forming of the nonprofit organization and that she does not know what
the formula is for the calculation.
At Commissioner Pruett's request, Ms. Boone re-explained what affordable housing is, compared
to Section 8, HUD, and other housing programs.
Ms. Boone then introduced Mr. Eunice Bobert to continue the presentation.
Mr. Bobert is the CEO ofOHDC, a nonprofit organization with a fifteen (15) volunteer member
board. He briefly explained some of OHDC' s past projects and their success.
Chair Smith asked what is the process for the selection of tenants, what would cause someone to
be passed up, and when do people risk being evicted. Mr. Bobert replied that the applicants go
through a thorough criminal background check, credit check, employment verification, interview,
and a visit to their current residence before they can be selected. A number of reasons can cause
someone to be passed up, including bad credit or criminal records. The policy for eviction for
these tenants is the same as everywhere else, with the addition that they may be evicted if they
violate ground and/or lease rules.
Chair Smith expressed that affordable housing normally goes into older neighborhoods, but it is
not so in this case. Mr. Bobert replied that they build wherever they can obtain property.
Mr. Rick Otto cited samples of the Redevelopment Agency's past projects:
. Garden Community Apartments at Memory Lane,
. Casa Ramon - 75 units, rehab units -located at Batavia and Walnut,
. Pixley -- south of Chapman - senior, 15 units,
. Triangle Terrace - senior project,
13
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes
January 20, 2003
. Tustin - Harmony Creek, Chestnut Creek - senior project,
. Tustin - rehab acquisition, Wilson, Adams, Rose - duplexes and four-plexes,
. East of 55, the Knolls, Prospect, north of Chapman - 20 units on Prospect,
. Escondido - 25 units,
. Villa Modena - 5 units
Chair Smith commented that when the city refurbished the properties, they do not count,
statistically, as affordable housing, but they do exist.
Commissioner Brandman asked whether the tenants know they have to be good neighbors not
only to their immediate neighbors, but also to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Bobert replied
that the tenants have to sign a list of rules that include guidelines on how to be good neighbors. If
there are questions, the property manager's handle it first, ifit doesn't get resolved, then comes to
him.
Commissioner Romero asked how many properties his organization handles and what are the
history of the complaints. Mr. Bobert replied his organization handles around fifteen (15)
projects and the complaints include loud music at night, or storage problems, things of such
nature. They have all been resolved.
Mr. Bobert introduced Mr. Cottle, who is the manager, who added that pictures of the tenants are
taken before they move in, so the managers know who can live in units. Over crowding is not
tolerated.
Commissioner Brandman asked what the ratio of apartment and parking was, and if the spaces are
assigned. Mr. Cottle replied that there are sixty-two (62) parking spaces for twenty-nine (29)
units, which translates to about two (2) parking spaces per apartment. He added an existing
twenty-seven (27) unit project in Orange has only thirty-eight (38) parking spaces and it is
sufficient.
Chair Smith asked to verify some numbers: twenty-nine (29) units, including manager's unit, and
sixty (60) or sixty-two (62) parking spaces. Mr. Cottle replied there are twenty-nine (29) units
total and sixty-two (62) parking spaces.
Chair Smith asked if the management would be open to conditioning that all the tenants are
required to park onsite. Mr. Cottle replied that he would be.
Commissioner Bonina asked that in event that someone has to be evicted, is it a different process
than market units? Mr. Cottle replied that same exact eviction laws apply here as everywhere
else, and the managers do not hesitate to take action.
Mr. Bob Mickelson was then introduced and added to the presentation. He reiterated some of the
same points that were presented earlier and made himself available for questions.
Chair Smith addressed members from the public for comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDED:
IN FAVOR (in alphabetical order):
Darlene Alvarez (723 W. Chapman)
John Aust (219 E. Chapman)
Fred Barrera (2724 E. Lakeside)
Toni Carlton (3106 Hillcrest Ave.)
Cesar Covarrubias (1033 E. Cumberland Rd.)
14
APPP~'TJ:D
January 20, 2003
Planning Commission Minutes
Isabel Crist (2819 E. Walnut)
Sister Marie Gaillac (480 S. Batavia)
Janice Mickelsa (Box 270, Running Springs)
Betty Murril (603 E. Almond)
Sister Nancy O'Connor (480 S. Batavia)
Scott Parker (1040 N. Elizabeth PI.)
Ernestine Ransom (2608 Park Lake, Santa Ana)
Judy Reynolds (842 Fairmont Way)
Cheryle Rout (2411 N. River Trail Rd.)
Larry Sallinger (203 E. Monroe)
Robert Torres (4525 Aqua Way)
Bill Utter (806 N. Batavia)
COMMENTS INCLUDED:
. In favor of project to provide the state's required affordable housing units.
. There is a great need for affordable housing.
. Neighbor who lives close to project and is for the project.
. This project is good for the community.
. Not enough remaining land in Orange to develop affordable housing.
. Impressed with quality of construction and management of all organizations involved.
. Likes design and aesthetics ofproject.
. Have seen how thankful tenants of affordable housings are and want to provide more, through
projects such as these.
. Most people would be opposed to project until it is developed and they see how successful it
IS.
. Experience with OHDC staff has been excellent.
. Project will serve immediate community and provide housing for local work force (St.
Joseph's Hospital).
. There is no statistical evidence that supports the concept that properties like these will cause
depreciation of the surrounding areas.
. Single mother with four children, homeless, living in motels; wants safe, affordable housing;
works in a family law office nearby; would walk to work, and her kids could walk to school.
IN OPPOSITION (In alphabetical order):
Lois Barke (2022 W. Spruce)
Cindy Baker (1051 Arbor Way)
John Baker (1051 Arbor Way)
Kimberlv Bottomly (1005 Arbor Way)
Scott Bottomley (1005 Arbor Way)
Randv Debson (181 Jewel PI.)
Terry Jackel (140 S. Citrus St.)
David W. Kent (1111 W. Almond Ave)
Mark Malheim (1217 W. Maple Ave)
Jerry Mayes (1049 W. Arbor Way)
Kim Minter (180 S. Lime St.)
Vasanthi Okuma (173 N. Jewell)
Deann Pacheri (1111 W. Chapman)
Laura Pacholl (335 S. Glassell)
Wendy Pacholl (238 N. Jewell PI.)
Ron Peterson (172 S. Lime St)
Janet Schmitt (1033 W. Arbor Way)
Scott Sheeks (157 N. Citrus)
15
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 20, 2003
Jenny Shih (2104 W. Palm Ave)
C. Smith (119 N. Jewell PI.)
Mary St. Marseille (1060 W. Arbor Way)
Gene White (155 Jewell PI.)
Dick Yarger (939 W. Chapman)
Sheryl Young (1135 W. Maple Ave)
COMMENTS INCLUDED:
. Do not want apartments in area.
. Chapman is entrance to city, so should not be lined with apartments.
. Housing density is too large and the open space too small.
. The neighbors have been mislead to think there would be less children.
. It would be preferred that there is senior housing in this place so there would be no traffic--
less cars.
. The high density of homes will cause the air quality to decrease -- emissions from all the
vehicles
. The thirty-six (36) inch boxed trees will not help and insulate from emissions.
. Comparison of this proposed project and past projects--neighborhood impacts from past
projects are not as adverse because: 1) past projects were refurbished, 2) less traveled streets,
3) condos set up, 4) does not share backyard with homes, 5) not next to busy intersection, and
6) entry driveways do not travel through single family homes.
. Two (2) story project will impede view of stars from neighbors.
. Kids will be on Chapman, which is a big street with much traffic.
. Schools are already overcrowded in area.
. Will cause parking problems.
. Applicant has not given surrounding businesses proper notice.
. The character of the neighborhood is being damaged by this project, it's "denuding" and
"hardening" the image of the neighborhood.
. The potential of crime in open parking and carports.
. This project would be counterproductive to the neighbor's quality oflife.
. Welcome commercial properties, but do not want this project in this neighborhood.
. The computer room would mean a cyber cafe, where people get shot.
. The redevelopment agency proposing this project doesn't care about the community, but only
cares about the tax shelter it provides.
Mr. Mickelson addressed the issues that the public speakers had spoken of:
1) Regarding inadequate open space and play area - the project exceeds the requirement by
code, and is an enclosed and secure area.
2) The lighting will meet code.
3) The overcrowding of schools has been addressed.
4) The project will enhance the neighborhood, not diminish it.
5) Traffic can be addressed by the traffic study.
Commissioner Pruett stated there was one neighbor asking about the placement of the trash
receptacle. Mr. Mickelson said they could relocate it and make sure it would not be next to the
neighbors' backyard.
Commissioner Bonina stated there is a public comment card addressing the height of the building
and the impact on views. Mr. Mickelson responded that a conscientious effort was made to keep
apartments fifty-five (55) feet from the residences. Higher walls were discussed, but did not want
to give the impression that this complex has to be walled off from rest of world.
16
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 20, 2003
Commissioner Bonina asked:
1) Is the opening to Chapman lined up with Lime St. or offset? Mr. Hohnbaum replied that
it was addressed, but it's not lined up, there's no need to line up.
2) Are there any plans for striping or enhancing a crosswalk on Chapman Mr. Mickelson
replied that there is currently a pedestrian crosswalk at Chapman.
3) Does the widening of Chapman affect this project? Mr. Hohnbaum replied that the
widening will not occur along this stretch.
4) Raised carport and open space safety issues. Mr. Mickelson replied that enclosed garages
would create more problems because management will not be able to control whether it's
for storage or parking.
5) Has a noise analysis been performed? Mr. Mickelson replied that it could be addressed.
6) Asked about project access to Chapman. Mr. Mickelson replied that the play area is
secured and supervised, but there are pedestrian access points, as requested by the DRC.
When asked by Chair Smith if the applicant would be willing to take a continuance of the item
Ms. Boone and Mr. Bobert explained that they are on a very tight schedule and because of the tax
credit deadline by the state, the applicant is looking for an action by the Planning Commission
tonight.
Commissioner Bonina asked what is the time frame for tax credit. Ms. Boone replied that it is
March; but there are a lot of things that need to be done between now and then including
spending $75,000.00, which the redevelopment agency is not willing to spend until it knows that
it can obtain entitlements.
Concerning the lateness ofthe hour, Chair Smith asked Mr. Sheatz for counsel. Mr. Sheatz
suggested the commission call for a recess to ask the applicant of the next project whether they
would be willing to take a continuance until the next meeting; then to go back and take action on
this item.
MOTION
Moved by Chair Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to take a brief recess from the
discussion of this agenda item.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Mr. John O'Brien, who represented the next agenda item was addressed by Chair Smith and was
asked ifhe would be willing to continue his project until the next Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. O'Brien replied he would like to have this item heard and acted on tonight.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue with
agenda item number five (5).
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
17
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes January 20,2003
Commissioner Brandman asked if a decision cannot be made, could the City Council make
decision without the commission's approvals. Chair Smith replied that the City Council can, but
would suggest that everyone state their feelings to the Council concerning the pressure for time
and all the concerns they may have over this project.
Commissioner Pruett expressed that this applicant is like any other--asking for a thumbs up or
thumbs down-so the Commission should concentrate on the issues and take action based on
that.
Ms. Boone added that no matter how the commission votes, a list of concerns would be helpful
for the agency to use to respond to City Council.
Chair Smith expressed her concerns:
1) Children's access to Chapman,
2) Condition that tenants must park on site,
3) Keep children out of their own parking lot,
4) Thirty-six (36) inch box trees may be large enough for mitigation to north neighborhood,
5) What happens when tenants exceed their income level,
6) Open space not easily accessible to east end of apartments,
7) Trash enclosure's location,
8) Ingress and egress on Chapman Avenue,
9) Crosswalk from property to Chapman and Main commercial stores,
10) Uncovered parking spaces on back wall being noisy to neighbors,
11) Clarification of number of units and parking spaces.
Commissioner Brandman's concerns:
1) Clear screening for adjacent housing--Iow level lights, car ports with tops, etc.,
2) Traffic circulation,
3) Would prefer to see less units and one (1) story structure,
4) Promote more neighborhood participation.
Commissioner Pruett's comments include:
1) Good project, lots of work,
2) Environmental report [MND] has addressed all issues,
3) Circulation is good with the location, as far as the property allows,
4) Parking issue is not a big problem,
5) Safety of children on Chapman - ask Mr. Hohnbaum to give number of occurrences,
6) Location of trash bins need to be addressed,
7) Like where the common open space is--under supervision of management.
8) Doesn't see a need for low-level lights, as long as they're directed properly. There is a city
code that allows only so much lighting to bleed into surrounding areas.
Chair Smith asked for clarification of the number of units and the computer room. Mr. Mickelson
replied that there are sixty-two (62) parking spaces and twenty-nine (29) units. The computer
room is part of an after school program that is required to help children with their schooling.
Commissioner Romero comments included:
1) Observe that existing projects that have been done; shows they've done a good job, managed
well.
2) Traffic - retail has much more visits than residential.
3) Asked for clarification on how tenant's income will be monitored and how it will be dealt
with.
4) Don't see concern of Citrus access.
5) Agree about trash enclosure.
18
APPROVED
January 20, 2003
Planning Commission Minutes
6) Concern about children's safety.
Mr. Mickelson replied to some of the comments:
1) They will commit to double-glazed windows, to help with the noise level.
2) There are twenty-nine (29) units, which does not generate a lot of traffic
3) There would be no off street parking because there is sufficient parking to be managed on
site --assign one (1) space per unit, then open space for first come first serve.
4) There are other projects on E. Chapman that have applied a density bonus, and
management is the key.
5) The thirty-six (36) inch box trees were increased from twenty-four (24) inch already,
which was approved by the DRC. Larger boxed tree's growth may be stunted in the
boxes.
6) Trash locations will be moved.
7) Will participate with city to explore options and/or needs for crosswalk.
8) If project has to be one story, it would not be feasible and there would not be a project.
9) Concerning neighborhood participation - there will be a full time onsite manager, plus
Mr. Bobert has his number posted everywhere.
10) Tenant's income is tracked every year as they must go through a re-qualification process,
as long as they don't exceed 140% oftheir income. But if they can't pay their rent, then
they get evicted.
Chair Smith closed the public hearing and brought the discussion to the commission.
Commissioner Pruett asked Mr. Hohnbaum if there is a historical problem on Chapman Ave. Mr.
Hohnbaum replied that there have had accidents on Chapman, but nothing exceptionally high,
comparatively.
Commissioner Bonina stated that there are a lot of questions still not answered, but the
commission needs to rely on the applicant's history--who has done it right in the past.
Chair Smith explained she's going to vote against the project because:
1) The density is too intense for the site;
2) Wants to see fewer units;
3) Doesn't like the open parking behind the residences;
4) Doesn't like the openness to Chapman Ave-there should be childproof gates, play area
is inadequate for range of children; and
5) Doesn't want to be rushed to make decision when issues have not been addressed.
Commissioner Brandman concurred with Chair Smith.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett to recommend to City
Council the adoption of resolution PC 06-03 approving General Plan Amendment 2002-0002,
Zone Change 1214-02, Conditional Use Permit 2428-02, Major Site Plan Review 259-02, and
Mitigated Negative Declaration 1704-02 with the added conditions:
1) The trash enclosure shall be moved from its current location;
2) The windows shall be double-glazed as appropriate for sound measures.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero
None
Commissioners Brandman, Smith
None
MOTION CARRIED
19
APPROVED
January 20, 2003
Planning Commission Minutes
(6)
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16443 - GUTHRIE DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY
A request for a tentative tract map for condominium purposes to allow the
individual sale of tenant spaces within a multi-tenant industrial building. The
subject site is zoned M-1 (Light Industrial). The General Plan land use
designation for the site is I (Industrial).
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provIsIons of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15305 et seq.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution PC 05-03 approving Tentative Tract Map 16443.
Since there were no objections from the public regarding this project, Mr. Rice read the brief
summary of the project from the agenda. He added that staff recommends approval of this
proj ect.
Chair Smith addressed Mr. Rice stating that he said the DRC did not review the proposal because
it did not involve changes to the existing structure landscaping, but yet, Mr. Rice had cited there
are going to be some changes made.
Mr. Rice replied that a discussion with an architect is in the process to address this.
Mr. John O'Brien explained that there is a demand for smaller buildings to be managed by an
association, maintained by single body.
Commissioner Brandman asked for a clarification on what a condominium business associations
is. Mr. O'Brien explained that it is exactly like a homeowner's association.
Commissioner Brandman asked if the applicant has any other projects in Orange. Mr. O'Brien
replied they have one (1) in Orange and two (2) in Anaheim.
Commissioner Bonina asked if there would be separate meters. Mr. O'Brien replied that the
electric will be separate, but the association will pay for water.
Commissioner Bonina asked what project is Tustin and Vine. Mr. O'Brien said that it is a multi-
family project.
Chair Smith closed the public hearing.
There were no public comments.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to recommend to City
Council the adoption of resolution PC 05-03 approving Tentative Tract Map 16443.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
20
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 20, 2003
INRE:
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to adjourn to the next
regular Planning Commission meeting February 3, 2003.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 1 :00 am January 21,2003.
21