Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California November 16, 1981 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene h1inshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bernie Dennis, Traffic Engineer; Bob Beardsley, Assistant City Engineer; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEPIBER 2, 1981 Commissioner Vasquez asked for a correction to be made on page 20, paragraph 3 of the minutes, where reference was made to "...the indication was that if that site is confirmed as the SCAG people indicated...". Statement needs to be clarified to read "...the site as outlined by the SCAG people...". Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to approve the minutes for November 2, 1981, as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: GLASSELL STREET WIDENING AND RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN WALNUT AVENUE AND KATELLA AVENUE. (Note: Negative Declaration 590 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) (Continued from meeting of October 19, 1981.) Mr. Johnson presented this project, stating that at the October 19th meeting the Glassell Street widening from Walnut Avenue to Collins Avenue and maintenance project from Collins Avenue to Katella Avenue was introduced. Staff recommended that this street be widened in accordance with the Master Plan. They alluded to studies which had gone on for approximately two years, i.e. the Downtown Core Study, which spoke particularly to the implementation of traffic in the Plaza area. This study began a couple of years ago with the widening of Chapman Avenue. Mr. Johnson felt that it is virtually impossible to explain the downtown circulation problems without going into the core study which, at this time, they are not in a position to do. He further explained that opponents of this project felt that if they could get support of opponents of other street widening projects in the city, they would be in a stronger position. Chairman Mickelson thought it would be useful if Mr. Johnson would give an explanation of the Master Plan and the development of the projects coming out of that. Mr. Johnson explained that back in 1960 the County of Orange, in co- operation with the cities in the County, established a Master Plan of arterial highways. This road system was established to try to gain countywide circulation so that the cities would not be entirely depen- dent upon the freeway systems. This Master Plan has been in operation for some time. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the downtown area of Orange presents a significant problem because, in 1960, they adopted Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Two ~" streets such as Cambridge, Walnut, Chapman, La Veta, Batavia, Glass ell, which had curbs and gutters set at what were considered interim locations. In other words, too many roads existed where, under the Master Plan, four lane roads would eventually be built. Recognizing that houses and businesses already existed, at some point in time it was envisioned that there would be street widening in the downtown area. Since then there have been various amendments to the Master Plan, but generally the amendments have been in the area where the growth has been taking place and where new streets are needed, there have been some occasions where older streets have been removed. Mr. Johnson said that little by little, they have been implementing these arterials. Some of the streets in the outlying areas have been built to their limit and new development occurred. The area in the downtown Orange core has not redeveloped to the same extent as some other areas. He pointed out that Glassell Street is an integral part of this system. It is now a two lane road and the Master Plan calls for it to be a four lane road, with a center left turn lane. Mr. Johnson explained that they are not proposing to widen this street just to be widening it. They are talking about doing this in places to accommodate the traffic which is there now and to utilize the Master Plan to accommodate that goal. They are talking about improving streets which are already designated as arterial highways. Commissioner Coontz asked if this was approved about 1960 and was told that it was. She then asked what the concept was for the Plaza at that time, pointing out that the Plaza is not shown on the arterial map. She wondered if it was planned to go straight through as shown on the map. Mr. Johnson explained that this may have been the concept at the time. He was not with the city at that time, but he thought that per- haps this problem was not dealt with at that time. Commissioner Hart pointed out that there are people here who are obviously concerned about the fact that traffic is going to be diverted onto their streets. He did not think that these people have been fully apprised of what is going to happen to the other streets which are of concern. Chairman Mickel son asked Mr. Dennis, the City Traffic Engineer, to give a summary of the core study. Mr. Dennis explained that approximately two years ago the Staff, in conjunction with a consulting firm, undertook a sub-regional transpor- tation study. The bounds of this study were Katella, Main, Tustin, and the Garden Grove Freeway. Shortly after this study was started the Old Town concept came up. This arose from the proposed widening on West Chapman Avenue. As a result of the concern of the citizens living within the areas, plus further study by Staff, the transportation study was reduced somewhat in scale to encompass primarily the area bounded by Walnut, La Veta, Batavia and Cambridge. The outgrowth of the study was to determine what the traffic characteristics in respect to traffic volume and distribution were going to be within this area for the study years 1985 and 1995. First they wanted to determine if the existing circulation system could accommodate the traffic antici- pated and secondly, in conjunction with the Old Town area redevelopment, would the traffic volume allow economically or feasibly the development? The study included the categorical development of all land use within the study area, a variety of traffic characteristics, primarily turning movements, traffic volume street capacities, tolerance levels on a number of the streets within this particular area. Mr. Dennis then explained the difference between tolerance level and capacity level. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Three The conclusion of this study, based on known facts, indicated certain characteristics that would occur in 1985 and 1995. As traffic in- creased on the main arterial streets, mainly Katella and Chapman, a spillover effect would occur and the tolerance level would be exceeded on certain streets, mainly Cambridge, Walnut and Glassell. Then further spillover would occur, affecting other streets, such as Palm, Maple, etc. Mr. Dennis stated that the main recommendation of the core study was to improve the arterial streets, mainly Cambridge and Chapman, to the point that would first of all accommodate the traffic volumes, and secondly reattract the arterial type of traffic back to the arterial streets and out of the local residentially developed areas. Another part of this recommendation was that within a 10 to 15 year period the peripheral streets, namely Cambridge between La Veta and Walnut, Walnut between Cambridge and Batavia, Batavia between Walnut and La Veta and La Veta between Batavia and Cambridge, could be considered for improvements to accommodate that traffic which would be required at that time. This recommendation is not intended to occur immediately, but within a 10 to 15 year period, Commissioner Hart wondered if nothing were done to the four streets mentioned, what exactly would happen. Mr. Dennis explained that the spillover effeft would occur and it would occur at a continuing increased degree. The Traffic Department is already hearing comments from people on Maple and Palm about the increase of traffic on those streets, If Chapman becomes more difficult to use, then Palm becomes a viable alternative. On the other hand, if the other arterials are redeveloped there will b e no need to spill over into the local street system. Mr. Johnson then again presented the alternatives for the widening of Glassell Street which had been presented at the previous meeting as follows: Alternative A would necessitate acquisition of 10 feet each side of Glassell Street, resulting in an 86' wide street with two full-width sidewalks; two 8' wide parking lanes; four 11' wide travel lanes; and one 10' wide continuous left turn lane. Right-of-way would be re- quired from 55 parcels and three structures would be physically impacted by the widening. With traffic signal relocation work, pavement rehabi- litation between Walnut and Katella, and installation of a storm drain between Walnut and Mayfair, the cost estimate for Alternative A is $1.4 million. Alternative B would limit immediate right-of-way acquisition to the west side of Glassell Street. A second phase at an undetermined future date would allow completion of the widening in conformance with Alterna- tive A by acquiring 10 feet along the east side of Glassell. Immediate improvements under this option would leave the easterly curb and sidewalk unaffected. The westerly curb would be moved 13 feet closer to the adjacent structures and a full width (8') sidewalk would be constructed on the west side. The features of the street under Alternative B would include 8' parking lanes on each side of Glassell Street, two 15.5' travel lanes and one 10' continuous left turn lane. In effect, this would be very similar to the existing street except that with the continuous turn lane, the vehicular capacity and safety of Glassell Street should increase substantially. Alternative B necessitates immediate acquisition of rights-of-way from 22 parcels; two structures would be impacted by the widening. With similar pavement rehabilitation, signal relocation, and storm drain installation work, as in Alternative A, this project is estimated to cost $600,000. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Four ~' Alternative C offers a maximized use of the street right-of-way to provide ultimate vehicular capacity with minimum right-of-way needs. With this option, 10' of property would be acquired from 22 parcels along the west side of Glassell (as in Alternative B); however, it would be un- necessary to widen the east side in the future. By eliminating street parking and reducing the sidewalks to widths of 6 feet, four full travel lanes and a continuous left turn lane can be accommodated. Alternative C would provide for street rehabilitation, signal relocation, storm drain construction, and modifications to the two impacted structures on the west side of Glassell. A total cost of $900,000 is estimated for this alternative. Alternative D is a proposal to remove the parking from the street, but not widen the street at this time. This would provide the two lanes which are already there, but also give us the continuous left turn pocket that would protect cars getting into and out of the driveways. The traffic would still be affected somewhat because of the turning radius for getting into and out of the driveways would not be as great as those on the previously mentioned alternatives, but there would be an increase in the flow of traffic and an increase in the maneuverability on the street. Alternative E is not to have a project. Leave the street the way it is. Commissioner Coontz explained that the Commission had had a study session last week and the additional alternatives were developed at that study session. She referred to the November 13th memorandum from the City Engineer and that there was information in this memorandum that would be informative to the people at this hearing. Commissioner Vasquez asked a question with regard to the cost breakdown for Alternatives B and C, wondering how much the AHFP funds would pay for. Mr. Johnson replied that as long as these were in the guidelines of the program that thi s would be a 50/50 spl i t on al 1 of the al terna- tives, except D. Alternative D would be for the work that needs to be done, for restriping and some maintenance work, that cost would be the responsibility of the city and it would come to approximately $75,000. Commissioner Coontz asked if it was possible, under Alternative B, that traffic volume may not necessitate the east side being widened at a future date. P1r. Dennis indicated yes. Chairman Mickelson said that at the last hearing there were 15 questions identified by the Department of Public Works. He then asked if these questions and answers should be read for the benefit of the audience. The Commissioners gave their viewpoints as to whether these should be read. It was suggested that copies of the questions and answers should be made availab le to anyone coming in to the City offices and requesting a copy. Chairman Mickelson thought that this could be made available by Staff for the public. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Verdon Craig, 825 E. Barkley, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this project, pointing out that the City has a responsi- bility to the landowners of those properties to be notified of these proceedings, rather than the residents of the properties involved. She explained that she was speaking on behalf of many residents. She read from a prepared statement, stating that the residents of Orange are at this meeting to oppose, not only the widening of Glassell Street, but also the widening of the outer loop. She submitted petitions signed by over 500 residents of Orange opposing the widening of Glassell Street, between Walnut and Collins; Cambridge, between Katella and La Veta; La Veta, between Cambridge and Batavia; Batavia, between La Veta and Katella; Walnut, between Tustin Avenue and Main. She spoke with regard to the quality of life in the City of Orange and the fact that the widening of the streets will cause the town to die just as many other towns have died. People will move away when the quality of life here is gone. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Five ~ Mrs. Craig did not feel that progress had the right to take away people's homes and jeopardize the children's lives by bringing more traffic into this area. The people have the right to decide their future and the appointed and elected officials must listen to what the people want. Mrs. Craig quoted from an article in the newspaper, written by Councilman Don Smith, the Chairman of the OTd Towne Steering Committee. She also quoted from another article in that same newspaper of comments made by Gary Johnson, the City Engineer. She pointed out that these two men are expounding totally different opinions regarding the reason for the core stody. She tended to agree with Mr. Johnson's comments. In speaking with the residents who live on the proposed arterial high- ways, she discovered that the widening of these streets has come up many times and has been successfully fought down. She said it was time for the professionals, merchants and elected and appointed officials to listen to what the people want. She believed that the democratic process in this city is at stake. She felt that a small handful of people on the Old Towne Steering Committee are trying to deal with the past, and forgetting about the people who support this community. When you take away the quality of life from the residents living around the Old Town area, the quality of life will deteriorate, people will move away and Old Town will fail, as many other towns have failed, no matter how unique they were. Mr. Johnson then answered some of the questions brought up by Mrs. Craig's statement, first explaining that the city's policy has been to notify the people who are being impacted by a project. He saw no reason why the City couldn't make it a policy to not only notify the residents, but the owners as well. Mr. Beardsley explained that it is required by State law that legal owners within 200 feet of property in question must be notified and that is what is being done. Earl Raymer, 203 S. Cambridge, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this project, stating that the notices sent out in 1960 regarding arterial highways came in a fully open page letter, rather than in an envelope. Many people got these notices after the meeting had taken place. Mr. Raymer further explained that this town was established many, many years ago by two men who left a trust that should not be broken. The people told the city officials sometime ago that they did not want HUD. The fountain in the Plaza is in trust from long ago. No one can break the trust to hold the fountain in the Plaza in good condition forever. He also pointed out that small city streets still ;thrive throughout the United States and will continue to do so if the officials mill only stay out of the way. Automobiles are getting smaller and the streets are not going to need to be widened. He felt that none of the officials in the City care about the people of the City of Orange. Mary Ling, formerly Mary Parsons (old name in Orange) a resident on Cambridge Avenue for 62 years, addressed the Commission in opposition to this project. She felt that the traffic is not as bad as has been exaggerated. It is only bad around 4 p.m. There are some problems on Collins and at Walnut and she felt that stoplights could be used in these problem areas. If you want to improve Orange, stop lights are needed, not street widening. Greg Pezzetti, 1045 Walnut, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he had given a letter to the Commission saying that he is concerned about the noise pollution and chemical pollution around the schools. Our greatest assets are our children and they must be protected. He would like to see the streets kept the size they are. A.W. Nissley, 833 W. Palm, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this project, stating that he has owned this property since 1960. He pointed out that they wanted to widen Batavia at that time. In the mid Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Six ~ 1970's they took a petition from 138 residents between Chapman and La Veta to get rid of the trucks on Batavia. If they would get the trucks off of the residential streets traffic would be reduced on those residential streets by at least 15%. With the smaller cars and lack of gas, there is no need to widen the streets. He fully agrees with Alternative Don the arterial streets, which speaks about eliminating parking on the streets. He thought this would be particularly effective on the narrow city streets. With regard to the fountain in the Plaza, he wondered why it could not be placed in the park and have a street going right through the city to the valley. Orange is surrounded by freeways and the business in the City of Orange is north of Chapman. Why not keep it there instead of having the cars drive through our residential streets. Katella is a good inlet and outlet to the freeways. Trucks can oo anywhere by using Katella. Ken Carpenter, 874 N. Cambridge, Orange, asked a question of Plr. Dennis, wondering if the cars that are in the community are owned by Orange residents or come from outside of the community. He thought there had been a study done on this and he would like to know the results. He also wanted to know if the traffic which travels through the city is the city's responsibility. Also, if the streets are widened, will it not encourage people to leave the freeways and travel these streets? He felt that we should discourage traveling through the city. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that two of these questions are in the Staff's analysis. Mr. Johnson replied that there is a substantial number of people going through our city. The whole intention of the arterial highway plan was to try to provide a continuous system of arterial streets between cities. We don't want to clog these arterial highways to the point of driving traffic onto local streets. The criteria here is whether the street is local or arterial. Commissioner Vasquez was curious as to how many people are attending the meeting from Glassell Street. Several hands were raised. Commissioner Coontz thought there should be some clarification as to the study on where people are going and whether they are people who live in Orange. Mr. Dennis explained that they had done a study of the traffic entering Glassell at the Plaza which had indicated that the traffic on these streets has changed since the 1960 's. There is now a much higher incidence of through traffic. Typically, this is indicative of non- local traffic. They studied license plates and got addresses which gave them their information as to those cars being other than Orange residents. Mr. Dennis pointed out that streets like Walnut are used by the residents. Del Lierman, 181 S. Cambridge, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he felt that Old Town should be kept that way. He agreed that we should not widen our roads just for people to pass through the town rather than for our residents. Widening streets encourages more speed also. He would like to see the streets kept the way they are and devise other ways to slow traffic down, causing less accidents. He did not want to see property taken away from the residents to widen the streets. Alice Clark, 131 E. Walnut, Orange, addressed the Commission, wondering about the comment about homes being taken along Glassell Street if it is widened. She wanted to know if this was true. The answer was no. Regarding the traffic study, she pointed out that the time when the study was done was not a busy time. The time of day to take the studies should be at busy times because this would make a difference in the results. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Seven Chairman Mickelson explained that there were three structures that °' would be affected by Alternative A. One is the Christian Temporary Housing Facility, the lawnmower shop and the old Van's store. There are no homes involved. Linda Faulkner, 531 N. Glassell, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this project, stating that the reason there are a lot of people on the petitions presented and many people here at this hearing who do not live on Glassell is that the people who attended the last meeting talked to those people who might be affected later. She asked what they anticipate happening to Walnut if they widen Glassell to five lanes. How will the overflow be handled? Exactly how many people have to oppose this plan before it will be dropped? She explained to the Commission that the people plan to work very hard to see that this plan goes down in defeat. Mr. Johnson explained that Walnut is presently on the arterial system carrying 7,000 cars a day, as opposed to Glassell, south of Walnut. carrying 11,000 cars per day. They anticipate that these volumes will be more favorably distributed. They would possibly be increasing volumes on Walnut to 11,000 without any major widening. They have talked about signals, signing, striping, etc., in order to distribute traffic more evenly. Commissioner Coontz asked Mr. Johnson to clarify Ms. Faulkner's question as to what would happen to Walnut if Glassell is widened. Mr. Johnson explained that one lane would be taken off and directed onto Walnut. If you are going southbound on Glassell one lane would have a free right turn and go down Walnut. Chairman Mickelson asked what the ultimate width would be for Walnut and the answer was 80 foot right-of-way with 64 feet curb to curb, At the present time, its physical structure right nova is 40 feet curb to curb, with 60 to 66 foot right-of-way, Chairman Pickelson said they did not know how much opposition must be generated in order to defeat this project. This is up to the people. He assured the community that the Commission is taking everything being said into consideration on their deliberations. Mary Ling wondered who counts the traffic. She stated that she drives the Garden Grove Freeway every day and has no trouble on Glassell and other streets with too much traffic. Lee Westenhofer, 855 N. Cambridge, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he moved to Orange four years ago because he was looking fora town to move to that had the qualities of this town. He is extremely happy in this town and never plans to leave, except that he found out a month ago that this road widening is going to take place. This would cause him to move. R,C. Swanson, 1026 E. Palmyra, Orange, addressed the Commission, saying that his only concern here is as a citizen of Orange. He is not directly affected by any street widening. He pointed out that Glassell is known as Grand in Santa Ana and on the other end is Kraemer in Placentia. He wondered if Santa Ana is going to do anything about Grand from 1st to 17th. He didn't think they are too concerned about it. He felt that the Commission is overly concerned about what happens here in the City of Orange. They will just move the bottleneck from Glassell to Walnut. James Hohfeld, 916 E. Mayfair, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he has four children and they go to Cambridge and Yorba Jr. High. The traffic coming to Walnut will go towards these schools and he is concerned about the safety of his children. He has been a witness and administered first aid to an accident victim at the corner of Cambridge and Walnut. This is already a dangerous area. He explained that all of the residents on his street want Orange to stay the kind of city it is now. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Eight ~` Tim O'Hara, 365 S. Grand, Orange, addressed the Commission stating that what vre will be doing is taking business traffic and putting it in a residential area. The people don't want this. Duane Raney, 368 S. Cambridge, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that if this Master Plan was put into effect in 1960, perhaps there should be an evaluation of our Master Plan. This might be the key to the whole problem. Yvonne Carpenter, 874 N. Cambridge, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to the project. She pointed out that she has taken a petition around to her neighbors and has found no one who vrants the Master Plan. She wanted the people to know that one of the buildings which will be affected by the Glassell Street widening is one to which the people of Orange have donated money. It is her understanding that $35,000 has been donated to the Christian Temporary Housing facility and now this building will be torn down. She thought that many people are not aware that they will be affected by the street widening. They should know now about how this plan will affect them, not when the street gets town up. They should be given time to make people aware of what is happening. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that the Christian Temporary Housing facility issue was brought up at the last public hearing. Chairman Mickelson read from the report previously mentioned, question #8, dealing with this facility, and then read the answer, stating that the building can be remodeled to accommodate the widening project. However, it would be an expensive proposition. He then explained that Staff is saying that there is a way that this building can be accom- modated without extensive remodeling if the street is widened. Mr. Holthus, the director of this facility, was asked to comment on this subject. Elmer Holthus, 192 N. Cambridge, Orange, director of the Christian Temporary Housing facility, stating that he was indirectly aware that some consideration was being given to specific alteration to the building if Plan A were adopted, which would leave the building as is. For the facility itself, that would be a welcome change. Janet Jagger, 815 Walnut, Orange, addressed the Commission, pointing out that the Commission must be aware of a higher crime rate if the street is widened. When someone can reach into your window while driving by, this is a concern. She explained that they just moved into this area and also pointed out that there would be a worry about creating a drag strip for the citizens. Police records should show that crime is more prevalent on main streets. Jim Swindell, 176 S. Cambridge, Orange, was curious as to whether any of the Commissioners live in the old town area. Commissioner Vasquez answered that he did. Mr. Swindell explained the problems that will be incurred by the widening of Glassell. The quality of life cannot be maintained when front lawns are cut back totally. Guy Reese, 611 W. Chapman Avenue, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this project. He asked Mrs. Craig how many names were on her petition and was told over 500. He said he knew of two people who signed this petition who were told that the Plaza would be torn down if the street were widened. The statement was also made that the streets were not proposed as arterial highways, which they had been. Mr. Reese presented a petition with 1225 signatures, in favor of the loop plan and asking for the historical area to be maintained and the streets widened. He read from the petition and explained that out of these 1225 signatures, 423 residents reside within the mile square area of Old Town. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Nine Charlie Miles, 1330 Dana Place, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he is not averse to the widening of Glassell, although he is directly affected by this project. He would like to see this done in an orderly and fair manner. Alice Clark, 205 N. Pine, Orange, addressed the Commission again, saying that she heard a man say are we responsible for the traffic through the city and she thought that perhaps many people don't know that in 1975 there was a General Plan mandated by the State of California that had to include certain elements. Although they started working on the zoning element, one of the major elements was the transportation element. This required filing plans with the State and then going back and showing them what the arterials were and when they were scheduled to be developed. She thought that these things are more or less going along according to schedule. They have always been advised about the future plans for the streets. Dodie Napzak, 333 E. Culver, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this project, stating that she has only owned her own home for four years. She has lived in Orange for many years, however. She signed Mr. Reese's petition and was not aware of the widening of the outer loop streets. She is totally opposed to this. She explained that she signed both petitions, signing the Reese petition two years ago. She feels that Orange is being destroyed. The people are begging that this not be done. Mr. Reese stated that the signatures given to the Commission are valid. Verdon Craig again addressed the Commission, stating that Mr. Reese had presented over 1200 signatures for the Old Town concept and she thinks everyone in Orange is in favor of preserving that area. That is part of the charm and uniqueness of this community. The only thing they are opposed to is bringing traffic into residential areas. Mr. Reese has a vested interest in the widening of Glassell, being an antique dealer in the City of Orange. Florence White, 905 E. Adams, Orange, asked how the people can stop this. She wondered if this could be put on the ballot to kill the Master Plan. Why do they think that these four lane highways will bring in extra business? Why do we want more people coming through our town? They should be kept away. She asked if there is some way besides the Orange City News where these meetings can be properly publicized. Chairman Mickelson responded that they do their best to publicize these meetings. Commissioner Coontz tried to clarify the fact that the plans that come before the Commission are not proposed personally by the Commission. There being no one else to speak for or against this project, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Piaster said that in reviewing the 1980 traffic flow report he found some minus changes along Glassell at various streets and he asked whether their status would still warrant the widening of Glassell. The answer was yes. Mr. Dennis explained that it has been their exper- ience that traffic fluctuates depending upon the circumstances. During the time of the "gas crunch" there was a lessening of traffic. In the three years previous to that, there was also a diversion of traffic due to the opening of the Orange Freeway. Going back a little further in time, prior to the opening of the Garden Grove Freeway, traffic volume on Chapman Avenue was around 20-22,000 vehicles per day. When that freeway opened, traffic levels dropped in half. However, those levels have climbed back up, due to population growth, but also due to the fact that people come off the freeways and use city streets, finding them less crowded than the freeways. Mr. Dennis also pointed out that Cambridge is also a good bypass for the very busy Tustin Street. Traffic on Shaeffer has also increased. He explained that the whole gist of widening Glassell Street and/or im- proving it, and also improving Chapman, is to make those streets more attractive than the alternatives. They are trying to provide a trans- Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Ten portation system that will accommodate all of the people, both local residents and those who pass through the city. The whole concept of the Master Plan was to provide a continuous street system that would serve the entire County. The question was asked as to whether this is the last time this will be brought up. Chairman Mickel son said this was not necessarily so and explained the process that these issues go through. Mr. Johnson explained that we have two separate issues here and some- how they have been combined. Since this is a hearing on the widening of Glassell Street, only the people on Glassell will be notified for this project. Commissioner Coontz referred to the 1960 arterial highway plan and the fact that the Plaza wasn't shown. She thought that perhaps the reason why the Plaza was not shown on the plan was that it was probably looked upon as a typical four-way intersection. She felt that with the avowed interest in retaining the Plaza thathas been voiced by the community, it puts a little different light on Glassell as it is shown on the Master Plan. She thought that it is valid to restudy the outer loop. Chairman Mickelson commented that he was on Staff in Anaheimwhen the Master Plan was set up in 1960. In those days it was more of a graphic arts presentation than a scientific approach. It has evolved over the years to be more scientific. He thought that the reason that the Plaza was left off was that it was not thought to be necessary to place it on the Master Plan. Commissioner Coontz disagreed with this thinking. Commissioner Vasquez said that since he lives in that area, he felt that he spoke for all of the Commissioners when he stated that they all have a concern for the city. He referred to a meeting which the Commission had last Monday, hwerein the area of Glassell at Katella was discussed, pointing out that the way this corner is planned, it creates a funnel effect. At this meeting, they discussed disincentives and incentives in terms of traffic. He felt that in the case of Glassell and 4Jalnut, we are creating an incentive for traffic to proceed down Glassell to Walnut and then go onto Walnut. He had some concerns about this. To offer incentives to go onto Walnut, an area that already has a high accident rate, is merely transferring the accident rate from one area to another. He also commented that at that meeting, they discussed incentives for people to use other streets and he brought up that on Collins a tradeoff is that we don't have markings going east and west- bound on Collins from Glassell. He thought that in this area you have he street surface to provide people with the incentive to take Collins. He thought that there are significant questions which need to be answered in this area. If we can offer disincentives for other streets, we can certainly offer disincentives to Cambridge so that people will exercise the use of Main, of Tustin, or the 57 Freeway. He felt that he is not prepared at this time to support any of the alternatives. One of the concerns has been the funding cycle and he is not willing to be intimidated by funding deadlines. Commissioner Hart agreed with Commissioner Vasquez' comments and pointed out that he is a member of the Old Towne Steering Committee, but does not see how widening Glassell will benefit the city as a whole. He would support Alternative E - just don't do anything. Commissioner Coontz thought that something needs to be done - Alternative D could be used and prohibit parking on the street. She definitely thought that the street needs to be maintained. This has been brought before the Commission, so perhaps they could participate in the County funding, which is on a 50/50 basis. She thought that the Chapman right- of-way has been approved by the Federal government but after that is the construction work itself. The Federal government funds are on an 86% basis and the city may not get them. She thought that it would make more sense to go slow and perhaps consider FAU funds for the widening Plannng Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Eleven of Chapman, which is already destined to happen. She also thought that the blaster Plan should be looked at on an overall basis. She could see no way that they would be improving the quality of life by doing to Glassell what has been done to Cambridge. The Orange Unified School District put almost all of the schools in the district on main thoroughfares. This was not planned by the Commission. Chairman Mickel son was not sure that the Commission is ready to make a decision on this project. Obviously, they have a choice of alter- natives but he thought they need more study. If we use Alternative E it is kept out of the hands of the Council and he was not sure that this is the proper thing to do. Other arguments to be considered are that they must be careful about putting their heads in the sand and thinking that the problem will go away. As long as they have the Master Plan, they have the responsibility of attempting to implement it in the best manner possible. He felt that the Commission must do something now. If nothing is done, traffic will spill over to local streets. Commissioner Vasquez commented that his observations are not to ignore the traffic increase problem, but they can use incentives and dis- incentives. Incentives can be offered for people to use certain streets and offer certain disincentives so that they won't use those streets. He thought that there was a way to include the City Council in this by giving them notification of what has been done here. Too many questions are unanswered and are uncertain, which .makes him not ready to take action at this time. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that by giving information to the Council, we are taking action. Commissioner Master had suggested at the study session that a "shopping list" needs to be made of things we would like to see included in our final action. He clarified that his "shopping list" had to do with the Glassell project, i.e. what should we do today, what should we do five years from now, etc., so that the Council would have before them what the cost would be for this year, or for postponing it five years. This is strictly from a cost standpoint. Commissioner Hart stated that he thought we should look at our arterial streets and look at how they appear and how they should appear. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to recom- mend denial of Alternatives A, B, C & D. Commissioner Vasquez wondered if the City Council would be provided with a transmittal of some kind as to the rationale behind this decision. Mr. Johnson felt that this issue should be referred to the Council with recommendations. He thought that the Commission's decision would weigh heavily in the Council's deliberations. Commissioner Coontz said that we are still talking about safety. She would be willing to vote for this motion only on the basis that Glassell Street maintenance improvements be planned in the FY 82-83 budget. Commissioner Hart suggested that another motion be made to that effect after this motion is voted upon. Chairman Mickelson explained that his previous statements had been made because he was concerned that if the Commission does not pass some action on to the Council, they would not have an opportunity to evaluate whether the basic policy statement should be reconsidered, which is what most of the people here have asked for. If the Council has the opportunity to hear a presentation such as has been heard by the Commission, then they would possibly direct the Commission and Staff to study the policy statement and we could possibly end up with a new one. The motion suggested by Commissioner Hart is an action and he did not have any problem with it. Planning Comrii scion Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Twelve ~` AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none It was pointed out by Staff that the Negative Declaration had not been voted upon. Therefore, it was moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to accept the findings of the Environ- mental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 590. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Coontz ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Coontz explained that she had voted no because she thinks this impact deserves an Environmental Impact Report. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend that North Glassell be improved as far as maintenance is concerned, with striping, etc. and this direction to be entered into the FY 1982-83 budget. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Hart referred to some studies which could be made in regard to some of these other streets which are on the Master Plan, however, he did not feel that he was in a position at this time to make recommendations. He did think that it appears evident that some- thing needs to be done on these other streets which have been mentioned. He would like to give this more thought before making a motion and thought that much of this could be studied at a study session. Commissioner Vasquez hoped that his comments would be stated in the minutes and hopefully reflect a need to make a study on that area. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that they are not really prepared to make an all-encompassing motion for study. Commissioner Coontz felt that wording has been included in the resolution that goes to the Council reflecting some of the concerns of the Com- mission. Some of their thinking with regard to a study could also be included in this resolution. Mr. Murphy explained that the Commission can act either way. It is appropriate to make recommendations to the City Council with regard to possible changes in the street system. How the Commission wishes to do this is up to them. Commissioner Coontz thought that the City Council might have to make a separate study in this matter, as they did a few years ago. Chairman Mickelson thought that their comments which had been made under discussion of the motion should be carefully noted and made available to the Council. That would certainly support the reason for each one's vote. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the resolution itself include a capsule of comments made over and above the motions on this project, so that the City Council will have a brief review of the Commission's concerns. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Thirteen IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1163 - SCOTT: Request to allow construction of a two-story office-industrial building on the east side of Main Street, south of Alvarez Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 740 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) It was decided by the Commission that no presentation was needed in this matter. Chairman Nickelson opened the public hearing. Doug Scott, 230A S. Pasadena, Tustin, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He felt that the Staff Report had covered his project very well. However, with regard to Condition #2, stating: That an irrevocable offer to enter into a reciprocal ingress-egress with the property owner to the south shall be executed in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.", he explained that he had tried to work with the people occupying that site, the resident being Arrowhead, who is owned by Coca Cola. He has spoken to a representative of that company and they said they have given an easement to Corwin Ford and already have enough traffic on that private drive. They do not wish to enter into another agreement with him. Mr. Murphy explained that Staff is only asking that the applicant make this offer. They only need his agreement at this time. Mr. Scott also brought up the fact that Mark Cernich is listed as the owner of the property, but the property is now in escrow. He did not want any problem in this area. C. M. Thompson, 625 W. Katella, Orange, addressed the Commission on behalf of Mr. Scott, as his attorney, explaining that the building will be approximately 13,900 square feet. He questioned several of the conditions. Condition #1 - "That the driveway approach shall align with the drive aisle per the approval of the traffic engineer." He explained that the drive approach is in, as are the planter and parking strips. If the drive approach must be changed, they needed to know what they must do in this respect. He had talked to Mr. Dennis and his feeling was that the planter was too close to the drive. He would appreciate some clarification on this. Condition #2 - he explained that there is really not an access there. Mr. Murphy responded that Staff can work this out with the applicant. Condition #11 - "That Main Street be improved (including, but not limited to, sidewalks, curb, gutter and sewer facilities) to City of Orange standards." They do not wish to put in a sidewalk because there are no other sidewalks in that area. There is landscaping right out to the curb . Mr. Johnson explained that this gives the city the latitude to require replacement of curbs which need replacing, et. If there is no side- walk adjacent to the development, probably there would be none required. Staff would also work with the applicant on this condition. #16 - "That firefighting facilities be provided as approved by the Fire Department." Mr. Thompson wondered where these facilities would be placed. Chairman Nickelson suggested that all problems with Staff be taken care of before appearing before the Planning Commission. Mr. Thompson stated that he would like Condition #11 dropped and then there would be no problem. Planning Commission h1i nutes November 16, 1981 Page Fourteen There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master commented that most of these conditions are standard routine requirements. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 740. AYES: Commissioners Mic kelson, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez P~lOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1163, for the reasons as stated in the Staff Report, and subject to the 21 conditions listed in said Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mic kelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED VARIANCE 1667, CONDITIONAL USE PERI~1IT 1164, TENTATIVE TRACT 11625 - DAVIS: Request to allow development of a six unit planned unit development which proposes more units and coverage than permitted by code, and which proposes use of two compact parking spaces on the north side of Palmyra Avenue, east of Cambridge Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 74 1 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this application before the Commission, stating that this is a request to allow construction of a 6 unit condominium Planned Unit Development in the R-D-6 district and to deviate from the maximum allowable density and coverage development standards and to permit provision of two compact parking spaces. The property is located on the north side of Palmyra Avenue, east of Cambridge Street and contains .43 acre of land. It contains a single family residence and is zoned RD-6. The applicant requests approval of a six unit condominium with the following variances from code standards: a) Density proposed is 13.87 dwelling units/acre while the maximum allowed in the RD-6 (PUD) zone is 10.89 du/ac. b) Lot coverage proposed is 62% while the maximum permitted in the RD-6 (PUD) zone is 50%. c) Two compact parking stalls are proposed while none are permitted in the residential zone. Mr. Murphy explained that the density proposed is 13.87 du/ac with a total of 15 parking spaces, or 2.5/unit, giving a coverage of 62%. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the area for low and medium density residential development. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and felt that the variance requests ere not justified. Of particular note was the variation to density limitations which is a key provision of the planned unit development ordinance. Also discussed was the opinion that the project was not compatible with abutting single story single-family residences and duplexes, to the north, west, and south. It is recommended that the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 741 be accepted. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Fifteen The applicant wishes a number of variations from code standard. As the Planning Commission knows, since these standards must be followed by all other property owners in the same zone, a valid justification must be presented to support granting an exception in this case. Valid justifications include peculiarities with the site such as size, shape, or topography or other relevant unique circumstances which other properties do not share. The applicant has not provided the Planning Commission with such a justification for his request nor does Staff feel that one exists. Staff therefore recommends denial of this request for the reasons that: 1. Special circumstances have not been demonstrated to show that characteristics of this property justify variation to standards which other property owners must adhere to. 2. The proposal is not compatible with the surrounding single- family and duplexes. Should the Planning Commission find the proposal acceptable, the con- ditions of the engineer's plan check sheet are recommended. Chairman Mickelson requested Mr. Murphy to review the areas of variance, which he did. They are: (1) density; (2) lot coverage deviation; and (3) provision of two compact car parking stalls. It was explained that rdduction of one dwelling unit would reduce the density to close to the proper level. If the project were designed so that the other development standards were met and the height of the buildings was in keeping with the surrounding properties, the Staff would probably not feel as concerned about the minor deviation to the density. Chairman Mickelson asked if the project were proposed as an apartment complex, what the density would be that would be allowed. Mr. Murphy responded that the area is designated as low and medium density residential. Medium density would call for 15 du/ac. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that this could be the same Catch 22 situation which has come up before. The density is not proper fora condominium project, but it is for an apartment complex. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Ron Davis, 34102 Street of the Ruby Lantern, Dana Point, the applicant, addressed the Commission, explaining that he is asking for these variances primarily because of the pecul iar shape of the lot. Other lots in the area are quite small, but this one is fairly large and pre- cludes an R-2 type of development. He further explained why he did not wish to develop an apartment complex. The Land Use Element calls for medium density in that area. Across the street from the property in question is R-1-6 zoning. He pointed out that he designed the property to keep in character with the rest of the community. He brought up the memorandum from Mr. h1urphy to the Planning Commission regarding affordable housing in the City of Orange. One thing that stood out to him was that the desire was to provide housing that people could buy if they had 120% of the current median income earned in this city. That figure is $30,000, so we are then looking at $36,000 for a yearly income for affordable housing and this project would qualify. Mr. Davis then touched upon the cost of housing in inflationary times and how housing costs have slowed down and not kept up with the inflation recently. He explained that he had placed the project on the lot in order to miinimize its impact on the surrounding area. He has allowed a setback on the west of 35 feet, with a driveway of 26 feet, a setback in the front of 25 feet from the sidewalk and a 7 foot setback on the side of the building. All of these exceed the requirements by most of the Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Sixteen zoning standards. He did not feel that his project would negatively impact the area. He felt that it will enhance it. He has asked for two compact spaces because when this property was subdivided someone apparently realized that somewhere down the 1 i ne the City of Orange ould hopefully set up a standard for the size of a compact car parking stall and where these spaces have been placed in the design happens to fit these two spaces and does not waste space on the lot. He is hoping that the City will come up with a compact parking ordinance for residential buildings. Mr. Davis pointed out that this is the only city that calculates driveways as part of the coverage. He only desires to build hbmes hat Orange residents can afford to purchase. He feels it is a good project and agrees with the long range goals of the City of Orange. Commissioner Master asked if the zoning would permit an apartment. Chairman Mic kelson felt that it would require a zone change to develop an apartment complex. R. C. Swanson, 1026 E. Palmyra, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he came here in 1948 and has continually fought Commissions and Councils. He pointed out that the sewer on that side of the street is inadequate and he hated to see more toilets come into the area. Condominiums are owned privately, which means children and probably two cars per unit. There will be no adequate place to play for the children, no adequate parking. Palmyra Street became a thoroughfare when La Veta was widened. It is a very heavily traveled street and people living in these condominiums will be pulling out into very heavy traffic. There are no cross streets between Cambridge and Tustin. Therefore, there are no stop signs. He explained that because of this fact, the street has become a drag strip. There have been four or five children hit by cars in that area in the last several years. He felt that density should not be increased in this area. Commissioner Coontz asked P-1r. Swanson what the sewer problems are. He replied that a development was put in on Palmyra further up the street. An 8 inch sewer was put in to accommodate the house and then they turned it into a 6 inch sewer. As more houses were built, there have been more problems. The sewers are loaded and back up and run into the manholes. The sewage also backs up into the homes. Gary Walters, 1046 E. Palmyra, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he lives directly across the street from the proposed project. He felt that the most important issue is the compatibility. There are no condominiums or apartments in this area and the only two story building there is an old Spanish house. This is a quiet community with a school and a church just up the street. To put in a 4-6 unit condominium project could be incom- patible with this community. The parking situation is already bad and a project of this type would make it worse. The traffic situation is also very bad and there have been several accidents. This is totally wrong for this particular area. Beverly Hardin, 264 S. Gardner, Orange, addressed the Commission, saying that she basically agreed with the opposition. However, it was her understanding that in the R-D-6 zoning, two story buildings are allowed. Therefore, she wanted to know if there was any way for the neighborhood to get this zoning changed to R-D-6A. It was explained to her that this has been done and it is possible. Chairman Mickelson suggested that the residents discuss this with the Staff. Mr. Davis responded to the opposition, saying that he cannot take responsibility for the local children, etc. He is not aware of the sewer problem. He also explained that each unit will have garage doors with garage door openers. He pointed out a sizable open area in the development, sahing that children could play in that area. He pointed out that the Negative Declaration clearly states that the impact on schools, traffic, etc. is negligible. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Seventeen 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 accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 741. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master commented that there are alternatives to this design which is proposed, i.e. two duplexes or something of that nature. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend denial of Variance 1667, Conditional Use Permit 1164, and Tentative Tract 11625, for the reasons as stated by Staff and for the reason that this project is not in keeping with the area or the zoning. Chairman Mickelson stated that somewhere along the line Mr. Davis was ill-advised to go ahead with this project on the basis that the City Council has made it very clear in their latest identifiable policy statements in regard to the density question for planned unit develop- ments that they do not want to exceed that density as stated. In addition, it does represent some significant change in the character of the area. Commissioner Coontz did not feel that the variances were justified. AYES: Commissioners Mickel son, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Mr. Davis stated that he was told that he could build one duplex on this property. Chairman Mickelson explained that there is a little more involved technically here. It was further explained that there is no approved width for a driveway. Chairman Mickelson wondered if it is theoretically possible to develop four units on this property. Mr. Murphy explained that it could be done either as four condominium units or two duplexes with a lot split. Mr. Davis said he was confused as to the wishes of the City of Orange on affordable housing. He sees no other solution but to look at the density factor in order to keep the cost of homes down. Chairman Mickelson explained that there is a set of guidelines which was prepared by the Commission and is being recommended to the City Council for adoption. AMENDMENT 6-81: Proposed amendment to Section 17.83.040(e) to allow rent increases in condominium projects. Mr. Minshew presented this proposed amendment, stating that the present wording of the Condominium Conversion Ordinance does not permit the increase in a tenant's rent fora period of two years from the time of filing the tentative map until relocation takes place or until the subdivision is denied (Section e). The City has been requested by I.P.S. to modify this requirement because that developer and other developers have not been able to proceed with their conversions be- cause of the high interest rates. There have been several meetings held between himself, Chairman Mickelson and Jere Murphy and they have come up with a proposed amendment. Submitting this amendment to the Commission does not constitute a recommendation to allow rental increases. However, if the Commission does recommend to the City Council a thawing of the rent freeze, then wording similar to the proposed draft amend- ment is suggested. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Eighteen Mr. Minshew pointed out that as best as he could determine, the intent of this prohibition on rent increases is to prevent developers from avoiding relocation provisions of the ordinance by raising the rents very high and forcing the tenants out. Developers allege that because of the slow mar{cet they are being unreasonably penalized and they should be entitled to rent raises based on the Customer Index changes. He further explained that 250 to 300 conversion units would be involved. The proposed amendment read as follows: (e) For a period of two years from the date of filing the tentative map, a tenant's rent may only be increased as follows: 1. For a tentative map approved prior to the effective date of this amendment to 17.83.040(e), a tenant's rent may be increased by the proportional increase in the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, Residential Rent Component, Base 1967 equals 100 between the date of filing the tentative map and the effective date of this amendment. Under no circumstances, however, shall said rent increase exceed ten percent. Thereafter, a tenant's rent shall not be increased more than the proportional increase in said Consumer Price Index from the date of this amendment. Rent shall not be increased more than once every six months. 2. For a tentative map approved after the effective date of this amendment of Section 17e83.040(e), a tenant's rent shall not be increased more than the proportional increase in the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, Residential Rent Component, Base 1967 equals 100 from the date of filing said tentative map. Rent shall not be increased more than once every six months. Commissioner Master asked if this was in consideration of plus/minus in the Cost of Living. Chairman Mickelson explained that if there is no increase in the CPI there is no increase at all. Commissioner Vasquez thought that one of the ways we could address this would be a sunset clause in the amendment. Mr. Minshew saw no problem with this. Commissioner Vasquez thought this would allow for recon- sideration at a future time. Commissioner Coontz thought that Paragraph 2 seemed to be reiterative and not really necessary. Mr. Minshew explained that #1 is retroactive whereas with a new one every six months there could be a rent increase. #1 addresses retroactivity and #2 addresses future projects. Commissioner Coontz said she questioned the appropriateness of changing requirements on past projects' retroactivity. Commissioner Hart felt that by a slight change of wording ,the problem of the ups and downs of the market could be solved. If you stated that the lesser of the two, either the Cost of Living, or 10%, whichever is the lesser, this could be accomplished. Mr. Minshew explained the statement in #1 regarding increases to be no more than 10%. Commissioner Vasquez felt that a sunset clause would put us in a position to reconsider if it is appropriate to implement that provision in the code which states that rents will not be increased for two years. Mr. Minshew explained that you finally run out of time and, therefore, there is no more control. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Nineteen Commissioner Vasquez asked of the 300 units which would be affected and how many are coming close to the end of their time limit. Mr. Minshew thought that most of them were. Commissioner Coontz had trouble with the fact that these condominium conversions were so hard fought and now we are making a retroactive suggestion. Mr. Minshew explained that he had sent notices of this hearing to Mr. Hollingshead and Mr. Coe (representatives of tenant groups) and he did not receive any response from them. Commissioner Hart agreed with Commissioner Coontz' concerns. The Commission made an agreement with those who protested the condominium conversions. Now we are being asked to go back on that agreement. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Dave Stone, representing IPS Company, 630 City Drive, Orange, explained that the intention was that there be no rent gouging. He explained further that there are violent economic swings today. Prime used to change every nine months until recently, and now it changes every two weeks. They cannot always predict what is going to happen. When they first asked for this to be approved, it was to provide affordable housing, but the main reason they are not going into sales now is that with 162-172% loans, people cannot qualify for a loan. He pointed out that the rent control portion of this runs out in two years, which would solve some of the problems being discussed. Time has delayed the con- version for everybody's good purpose. However, the units must be occupied soon and their costs keep going up. Commissioner Hart asked what the time frame was for Mr. Stone in the two year time frame. He responded that it would be in August of 1982. Of the 250 units in the City, there has been a large turnover. Commissioner Hart wondered about criticism by those tenants who were involved in the original condominium conversion. Mr. Stone replied that economic times have changed so drastically. There have been some complaints from those who would like to see the sales begin. He ex- plained that this condominium conversion is a two-edged sword. When you do not allow a conversion, you deny certain people the right to own their property and protect themselves from inflation. Therefore, it is not an all bad situation. He pointed out that times change and we can't live with every ordinance we pass. Mr. Minshew clarified a point that we are talking about from the time of filing, not from the date of approval . There being no one else to speak for or against this proposed amendment, the Chairman closed the public hearing. There was discussion regarding the two year time span and it was the consensus that this was probably standard timing. Chairman Mickelson made some comments with regard to the two year time span, pointing out that putting a specific time frame on this gives the tenants a false sense of hope, since someday the time expires. How- ever, he felt that the alternative to the proposed amendment would be worse than what the tenants would be facing on the two year time span. Mr. Minshew said that another alternative would be to go to #2, which would be addressing the future instead of the past. Commissioner Coontz felt strongly that we committed ourselves on the condominium conversions and she did not want to go back on that commit- ment. Commissioner Hart agreed with this. He did not like the idea of a rent freeze, as he is totally opposed to rent control, but those were the rules when they went into the game. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1981 Page Twenty Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend approval of Paragraph #2 of the proposed amendment to Section 17.83.040(e) and delete Paragraph #1. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: Chairman Mickelson recalled that the City Council asked that a committee meet to review the Design Review Board regulations and the Commission is allowed one member. It was the consensus of the Commission that Commissioner Vasquez be appointed to this committee. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to confirm the appointment of Commissioner Vasquez to the committee to review the Design Review Board regulations. AYES: Commissioners P~ickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 a.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, December 7, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. C7 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 November 16, 1981; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on November 17, 1981, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of November 2, 1981 was held. ~~~ T~ ere, P. Murphy, Secr; tary ~' ~~ EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 16, 1981. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez that this meeting adjourn at 12:05 a.m, on Tuesday, November 17, 1981, to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, December 7, 1981 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, November 16, 1981. Dated this 17th day of November, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. Jere P. Murphy, Git~J Manner ana Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Orange. L