Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/1984 - Minutes PCr~ .... _ _..~~..,,..- r.. ~r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange October 15, 1984 Orange, California Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the. Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Mason, Master ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, Vasquez STAFF John Lane, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secre- PRESENT: tary:; Jim Reichert; Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Toba V. Wheeler, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ' ® IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 1, 1984 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that the minutes. of October 1, 1984, be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Mason, Master NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE CONTRACT - THE IRVINE COMPANY Tentative cancellation of an agricultural preserve contract between The Irvine Company and City of Orange (was formerly with the County of Orange prior to annexation) for 170 acres of land southeast of Chapman Avenue and Newport Avenue. NOTE: Environmental Impact Report $68 was prevcrously certified for this project. Mr. Lane called upon Associate Planner Jack McGee to comment on this matter. Mr. McGee did not go into detail since the Planning Commission received the Staff Report; however, he said that the release from the existing agricultural preserve involved a 170-acre portion of the recently annexed 240-acre Upper Peters Canyon Area, and pointed out the map on the wall which defined the 170-acre portion. He said a request had been received from The Irvine Company to add two items to the resolution as it was prepared in draft form, said items having been transmitted to the Planning ® Commission in a memorandum dated October 15, 1984. Mr. McGee said that the two provisions requested by The Irvine Company are thoroughly acceptable to the City and have been reviewed with Mr. Minshew and the City Attorney's office, and that Staff is recommending that this -. Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1984 _ Page Two resolution be adopted, which will recommend to the City Council that the agricultural preserve be terminated. In response to a question from Chairman Hart, Mr. Minshew said he is familiar with this and has no questions regarding it, and he recommends that the. Planning Commission make a finding of consistency with the General Plan. Moved. by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that ~84 the Planning Commission recommend approval of Resolution PC- _ and forward it to the City Council. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Mason, .Master NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ® Upper Peters Canyon Policy Plan status request from the Upper Peters Canyon Policy Plan Steering Committee to review the status of the Policy Plan currently being initiated. Mr. Lane said the Steering Committee wants to know exactly what the meaning of the policy plan is in terms of its applicability to future development in the City, i.e., is it going to be an amendment to the General Plan, or is it going to be used as a guideline or a series of guideline statements for future development in the area. He said that the memorandum dated October 2 received by the Planning Commission essentially explains the question: that the Steering Committee has been asking itself and, additionally, Councilman Perez wrote a letter to Supervisor Nestande to ascertain the County's position on that question., copies of which letter and response were also given to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lane said there seems to be a general consensus of feeling among the members of the Steering Committee, and the County, that the plan should not be adopted when it is completed as an amendment to the existing General Plan, but rather should be heard and discussed at a public meeting and then, if the Planning Commission and the City Council are inclined, they can approve it as a policy document or a guideline policy document, which in effect means that it will have some future input into the plan in process but it will not, in fact, be law. Chairman Hart pointed out that the memorandum received by the Planning Commission does not give an explanation of the whys of either position. Mr. Lane said that the feeling when the policy plan concept was originally adopted, some three and one-half years ago, was that the General Plan would be amended accordingly, but at that time it was not foreseen that there. would be some significant things going on in that area such as the Eastern Corridor Study and the Solid Waste .~ -. ® Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1984 Page Three Disposal or Management Plan, and it now appears unrealistic that within a couple of months there could be a policy plan that would deal effectively and conclusively with those items. He said the County is spending $900,000 on the Eastern Corridor consultant plan and has been spending a considerable amount of time and effort on the Solid Waste Management Plan which has not been approved by the Board, although it is being considered by the City Council and it appears that the approach the Steering Committee wants to take is probably the more appropriate of the two. Chairman Hart asked Commissioner Master, who had been on a committee to discuss the possibility of an airport in that area., if the airport issue was dead. Commissioner Master said he had been involved only with the general aviation airport and not the international commercial airport, and the landowners in all of the areas that were identified as possible airport sites weren't in agreement; therefore the airport issue seems to be dead. Commissioner Master said that to his recollection neither the City Council nor the County came to the Planning Commission and asked that the Upper Peters Canyon specific plan be a specific plan--they didn't ask for either the opinion of or approval from the Planning Commission--so he is rather taken aback as to why the Planning Commission is suddenly being asked for guidance. Mr. Lane responded that the specific plan will be an adopted official document and much more than a guideline but, on the other hand, the policy plan will not contain development standards, and he feels the P1annZng Commission is being sent a message that it has been decided the policy plan will not be adopted .but merely used as a guide. He said if the Planning Commission disagrees, this is the opportunity to say so. Both Chairman Hart and Commissioner Master agreed that they couldn't approve. something, even as a guide, without knowing what it is that they would be recommending, and felt they would like to set a study session on the matter. Mr. Lane said that about a month ago the consultant prepared a revised work program for the policy plan which might be very helpful to the Planning Commission and should probably have been included in the packet with the Staff report, and could now be given to the Commissioners for their study. Moved by Commissioner Mason, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission have a study session on the revised work program for the Upper Peters Canyon Steering Committee on October 22 at 5:30 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Mason, Master NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. to a study session on ~- +~ Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1984 Page Four October 22, 1984, at 5:30 p.m., and to reconvene to a regular meeting on Monday, November 5,.1984, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.