Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/1983 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California October 10, 1983 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular adjourned meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and PRESENT: Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bert Yamasaki, Director of Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: Commission Secretary; City Attorney; Planning; and TUSTIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND DRAFT EIR #873: Review of proposed Redevelopment Plan and Draft EIR. (REQUIRED ACTION: Report and recommendation on the Plan to the Redevelopment Agency.) Chairman Hart withdrew from the public hearing on this matter, due to a possible conflict of interest. The meeting was then turned over to Vice-Chairman Master. Bert Yamasaki presented the redevelopment project to the Commission, stating that the purpose of this public hearing- was to discuss the contents of the various reports which have been submitted by Staff and receive public testimony relative to the redevelopment project and the draft EIR. He explained that the city has been concerned for the past couple of years about its budget position and has decided to enter into. an economic enhancement program. He described the various programs which would be entered into in this direction, including the redevelopment program for Tustin Street being discussed this evening. He went on to point out the hearings which have been heard by the Planning Commission, including the development of a study area, preliminary plans and boundaries of the project area. He pointed out that during previous hearings, the Commissioners heard concerns of the citizens of Orange relative to the intrusion of the project into residential areas, as well as the development of resources for street widening. He felt that both the Council and Commission have addressed these concerns. C The plan before the Commission this evening is the final redevelopment plan and is a document of how to proceed if this project were to be implemented, i.e. relocation of businesses and residents, the acquisition of property, the role of the developer, what will he do, what is expected of him, as well as the role of the city in this project. Mr. Yamasaki pointed out that the Planning Commission has already recom- mended approval of the project area, as well as the preliminary plan. He then explained that the Commission input will be added into the delibera- tions for final action to be taken later on, as will the input from the Planning Commission Minutes Page Two October 10, 1983 ~ project area committee, which is made up of local residents and businessmen who are affected by this plan or have interest in it. He said that the project area committee has held meetings and is composed of a resident of the project area, another resident from a nearby residential area and three business people in the project area. He explained that the purpose of this meeting is for the Commission to discuss the contents of the reports, to ask questions and allow the public to comment and ask questions and allow Staff to respond. He pointed out that the Staff has set forth the recommended Planning Commission action, which they feel would be appropriate to take and that there area number of Staff members and consultants available this evening to answer questions. Russell Leavitt, consultant with Earthmetrics, Inc., Burlingame, CA, who was employed by the redevelopment agency to prepare an EIR on the redevelop- ment plan. He explained that the purpose of this report is to examine the existing setting of the redevelopment area, to analyze the potential of the existing environmental issues of the redevelopment project in its secondary development and to recommend mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate those impacts. He explained that, in addition, the EIR addresses several alternatives to the proposed project, including the "no project" alternative, which is required by CEQA. Mr. Leavitt explained that the projects which they had considered as part of the redevelopment plan were listed in Table 2.1 on pp 2-5 and 2-6 of the 6EIR and he summarized them by saying that they include various improve- ments to Tustin Street, Heim Avenue, Pleats Avenue, various Tustin Street intersections; development of a parking structure in the Mall of Orange and adjacent properties to serve a potential expansion of the Mall of Orange, general inf rastructure improvement in the area to storm drains, water lines, etc.; expansion of the city's housing program, low and moderate income housing which is to be developed under the requirement of the law; and landscaping and other esthetic improvements. He then pointed out that the major issues covered in the EIR include land use and planning, circulation and parking, public services, economics, hydrology, geology, air quality, noise, visual quality, and cultural resources. The project impacts were based on individual redevelopment projects and they also looked at the impact of the potential expansion of the Mall of Orange to the north of the existing Mall, at approximately 144,000 sq. ft. They considered a potential Orange business project on the site of the former Lamplighter Mobile Home Park and other background private improvements and improvements which may occur along Tustin Street. Only the potential expansion of the P1all of Orange was considered to be redevelopment related, or dependent upon the redevelopment plan. Some of the others were expected to occur as a result of previous .plans and would be secondary to the development of the P1all of Orange. Mr. Leavitt pointed out that of special concern in the redevelopment plan EIR was the need to improve blighted conditions. Therefore, in the summary of impact .and mitigation measures, many of the project impacts of the re- development plan are considered beneficial because they are improvements to existing conditions which are problems in the area. Planning Commission ~9inutes Page Three October 10, 1983 n Mr. Leavitt then brought the attention of the Commission to page 5-1 of the report, listing unavoidable adverse impacts resulting from the project - there are no known impacts known to be significant and unavoidable and there were several impacts that were found not to be reducible: to a significant level. These were the temporary localized increase in noise level, particularly from truck traffic during construction activities, the replacement of non-conforming residential uses with commercial uses, resulting in the dispatchment of 11 residential structures in the A-1 district at the northwest corner of the Mall of Orange property; several commercial establishments in the Mall of Orange would also be displaced for the expansion; and an increase in structures subject to seismic hazards in case of a large earthquake. Mr. Leavitt then said that he would be open to any questions or comments from the public. Vice-Chairman Master opened the public hearing. Gus Tieson, a resident of Orange, addressed the Commission asked for an explanation of what "rehabilitation" means. Fle felt that it did not mean an addition to an existing building, although it might apply to the land where the Lamplighter Mobile Home Park once stood. Perhaps it means moving from one use to another use - a better use. But he did not see that the word applied to adding on to the Mall of Orange. He did not think there was enough parking there and he did not see any benefit to the City of Orange to add to the Mall of Orange. Barbara Eggert, 2525 Bourbon St., Unit 2, Orange, addressed the Commission, representing the Chateau Orleans Homeowners' Association, which is a project facing Heim. She explained that they have an increasing problem with drainage on Heim and she had brought a petition signed by the residents in that area, plus three letters, one addressed to the City Council from their management company; an answer from the City of Orange, signed by Mayor Beam; and a letter asking specifically for something to be done about the water on Heim during the heavy rains. That is their greatest concern. She said that most of the residents were in favor of improvement of the Mall of Orange if there is no high rise development. David Sigmond, 22 Starlight, Irvine, addressed the Commission representing the owner of the commercial center on Santiago near the Lincoln off ramp from the 55 Freeway. He said that he would like to have the Staff address the changes which might occur at the Lincoln Avenue off ramp. Commissioner Master stated that there is nothing specific worked out for that area yet. However there are plans for major improvements for that interchange. Commissioner Vasquez asked Ms. Eggert about the citizens' concern with regard to possible high rise structures. He questioned her as to what would be considered a high rise and asked for more clarification. She responded that in a previous development project presented a few years ago, a 12 story Planning Commission Minutes Page Four October 10, 1983 ~ structure was proposed near Heim and high. There was also an underground of the building and those cars would problem in that area. She explained to Canal Street. She said that they story building. that th ey object to something that parking garage proposed at the end be floating because of the drainage that this is an open drain from Tustin have no objection to a two or three Commissioner Mickelson asked whether, as this progresses from the generalized state to the more specific plans, there would be public hearings all along the way. Mr. Yamasaki replied in the affirmative. He said that there would be another pubic hearing on November 22nd, at which time the agency and the City Council will have a general public hearing where there will be the same kind of opportunity available to bring up the same kinds of things brought up this evening. Commissioner Mickelson asked if, when plans are finally drawn up for a proposed building, there would be a public hearing and Mr. Yamasaki responded that there would be; that the Council is very concerned about full disclosure; even if there were no public hearings required, he felt sure that the Council would require public meetings with homeowners' associations, and public presentations by Staff. Mr. Yamasaki then addressed the questions brought up thus far through public testimony, first addressing Mr. Tieson's question with regard to rehabi]ita- tion. He explained that there will be two phases to the redevelopment of the Mall. The first will be the rehabilitation of the existing Mall building. There will be general facelifting, perhaps the sign control, internal and external rehabilitation of the existing facilities. The second portion of improvement will be the addition of the proposed new buildings. Thus far, the plans seem to include two additional department stores, with additional parking facilities north of The Broadway, together with an additional two- story extension in that area. This will require the acquisition of the agriculturally zoned lots on the northwest corner. Regarding parking and traffic on the street, all of the improvements require the furnishing of development standards and public and safety requirements that are required as part of improvements such as the Mall increase, The plan calls for street improvements; the construction of a parking garage. Mr. Yamasaki then spoke to the drainage problem on Heim, stating that the plan also calls for handling of drainage in the project area and both up and downstream of the project area. He said that the plans do call for street improvements and that will be the city's portion of the performance. He did explain, however, that these kinds of improvements may not be possible ~ unless the project does go forward because the only way that the city can require them is if they were the same kind of improvements made by the private parties. The city would have to prioritize city-wide improvements in order to make them without the re-development project going forward. Regarding Mr. Sigmond's comments about the nature of the improvements, Mr. Yamasaki said that regarding the Linco]n-Tustin interchange of the Costa Mesa Freeway, it is all required to go through negotiations and design analysis by Caltrans, as well as the city staff. Things that are being ]ooked at are the turn radii, potential restriping and perhaps sychronization of signals Planning Commission Minutes Page Five October 10, 1983 and those types of improvements. All of this is necessary to coordinate with Cal trans. He said that it was his understanding that improvements will not go through as far as the Santiago development. They will probably center around the Lincoln-Nohl Ranch underpass area . Mr. Leavitt then responded to some of the comments made by the public thus far, answering to Mr. Tieson's question regarding parking. He referred to 3.2-6 of the draft EIR, where the report analyzed the parking demand of a 440,000 sq. ft. expansion of the Mall of Orange. Mitigation measures were recommended in the draft EIR to provide sufficient parking spaces in that structure and possibly by restriping the parking lot in some cases. Regarding Mr. Tieson's question about traffic, he referred to the impact section of the draft EIR, stating that 3.2 does address traffic thoroughly recognizing that traff is will occur along Tustin and other streets in the area, but that the improvement proposed in those areas will actually result in a better flow in some cases than is occurring now. He explained that we are talking about several years in the future. ~' Regarding Ms. Eggert's comments relative to drainage, 3.4 discusses drainage in the area. 3.4-2 itemizes the areas which will be improved according to the Master Plan and one of those improvements is a 30 and 36 inch line on Heim between Tustin and Glassell Streets. He explained that there are also sections in the redevelopment plan for unspecified infrastructure improve- ments in the area, so if there are any additional problems they should be able to be addressed and, along with the improvements, result in a beneficial impact. Mr. Leavitt then addressed Mr. Sigmond's comments regarding the Lincoln Avenue off ramp, saying that the general idea is to improve the capacity and safety operatidns of these on and offramps, specifically this ramp on Tustin. He referred to page V, the preface of the EIR states that "an individual redevelopment project may be subject to an initial study by the city to determine if the improvements would create impact or circumstances not addressed in this EIR on the redevelopment plan." Therefore, if some of the improvements are unspecific at this point, when they are actually proposed, they will be reviewed by the city to determine whether any of their impacts will be beyond any of what has been covered in this EIR. Mr. Tieson again addressed the Commission, asking why we had to go to Burlingame to be told what we can do and not do. He felt that this is a political potboil. He wanted to know who the contractor is on this project and where are the plans. He thought this was a lot of rigamarole when we don't even know what is going to be done yet. Commissioner Master explained that the consultant from Burlingame is an expert in this field. This firm was selected as being experts who could guide the city in its redevelopment plan. Contractors have not been selected yet as there is not yet a specific plan. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1983 Page Six Commissioner Mickelson commented that the Planning Commission has also been frustrated with regard to some of the same quest-ions as have been posed here this evening. However, it has been explained to the Commission that the process they are going through with the redevelopment plan is the same as when they go through a master plan. It is generalized. Bob Hix, 1400 N. Tustin Ave., Orange, addressed the Commission, explaining that he is the owner of Toyota of Orange on Tustin Street, near Katella. He asked if it is contemplated that there will be additional off and on- ramps between Lincoln and Katella, perhaps at Taft or Meats. Staff's answer was that, as part of the redevelopment plan, there are no plans at this time for additional access to freeway anywhere outside of Lincoln and Katella interchanges. Mildred Weisbrod, 2525 N. Bourbon, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that she was a member of the Chateau Homeowners Association and had noted that Heim is planned for widening. She wondered if it would be widened from either side or only from one side. Mr. Yamasaki explained that the portion slotted for improvement is the south side of Heim. The portion with houses on it will not be improved. He thought that the south side of the street will also probably contain the drainage improvements. Bob Hix again addressed the Commission with regard to additional on and offramps from the 55 Freeway onto Tustin, stating that one of the reasons for redevelopment is to enhance city revenues in the form of sales tax income. He felt that because of the attracting qualities of the stores in the Mall of Orange and the affluence of many of the people on the east side of the 55 Freeway, it is easier to get on the freeway and go to the Brea Mall or to Costa Mesa to the South Coast Plaza, which both offer a larger selection of goods in their stores, and higher quality places to shop. He thought that it would enhance business on Tustin Street if it were made easier to get on and off the 55 Freeway onto Tustin. He felt that it is something to be considered as part of the redevelopment project. Mr. Tieson again addressed the Commission, saying that he wants more revenue realized out of this project. He wanted to know how much this redevelopment project will cost the people of Orange. How and when will they start taking profits when so much money will be spent for redevelopment? He did not think we need outside consultants to make our decisions for us. Commissioner Master explained that the Agency is the Council and it is structured that way because they are answerable to the public at large, It is that agency and our Council who have made the decision to go forward with the redevelopment agency in the interest of obtaining revenue for the city. This is not a new thing, it is not new to the country. Other areas around us have shown a marked increase in revenues for their cities because of the redevelopment activity. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1983 Page Seven Commissioner Mickelson further explained to Mr. Tieson that all of the things he is complaining about are addressed in the draft EIR. Bob Benneyhoff, resident of Orange, addressed the Commission making the statement that he had heard the Council say that they would not take any houses, but now he sees in the report that they are planning to displace residences for the parking structure which is proposed. Commissioner Master explained that what the Council had stated was that they would not affect currently residentially zoned property, but they will take residences in the commercial zone. Robin Robinson, representing Regal Lanes, 1485 N. Tustin, Orange, addressed the Commission, asking if the proposed project is going to widen Tustin Street and move existing curb frontage in front of their establishment. He explained that this will affect parking for both their establishment and Toyota of Orange. Mr. Leavitt explained that the draft EIR did address the need to take curb line property. He reiterated that the plans are conceptual. However, the traffic engineer submitted to the City Council plans for improvement to Tustin Street earlier this year. This included taking up to 24 feet at the intersections of Katella and Tustin for the purpose of improvement. They have stated in the EIR that the city must minimize the need to take private property. He couldn't say at this time whether there will be any need to take property at this particular corner. Bob Hix again addressed the Commission, explaining that he is landlocked in his place of business. Five years ago he thought of going high rise in order to gain more space, but the Design Review Board made it totally in- feasible to do this. He said that he is still growing and if he loses even one inch of -land he will have to move his business out of the City of Orange. Gary Johnson explained that the plan being alluded to here is in conjunction with changing Tustin Street to a major modified arterial highway designation and that particular plan has not been worked up in detail. He pointed ou t that the widening that would take place would be approximately 2-300 feet back from the intersection and provide for firee right-turn pockets and additional left turn lanes, if that was necessary, plus possible bus bays in addition. However, it should not extend up the block. Bob Hix explained that if they go back 2-300 feet from Katella it would totally wipe him out. His driveway next to the Tuskatella Shopping Center is no more than 150 feet from the corner. The Commissioners differed with him on this statement, feeling that his property was further away from the corner of Katella than- 150 feet. George McAurio, 2378 W. Orange Mall, the owner of Village Patio Shop, which is located at the north end of the Mall of Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that the EIR referred to the shops in that area as being minor and insignificant. However, his shop is not insignificant to him. He pointed out that the EIR states that the state requires some sort of relocation assistance to those who are displaced. He wanted to know what that means and how far does it go. Commissioner Master said that they did not have the Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1983 Page Eight details on those requirements, but that would probably be worked out later on in the program. Mr. McAurio wondered if that extends on to a situation where a property owner cancels leases in anticipation of redevelopment or does it take that into consideration. Robin Leiter, Assistant City Manager for the City of Orange, addressed the Commission, explaining that it depends on the specifics of each property owner's situation. She suggested that Mr. McAurio see her after the meeting for more specific information. Mr. Leavitt said that the EIR did look at the dislocation of these businesses and did not consider it a minor issue. In fact, that is why it is listed as one of the unavoidable issues in Section V of the EIR. He explained that the closing date for comments on the EIR would be November 21st. He said that the city is in the process of trying to reduce the period to a 30 day review period, in which case the date would be November 4th. Mr. McAurio took particular offense to Mr. Leavitt's comment, feeling tha t when preparing an EIR draft, if they are concerned about displacement of businesses they should talk to the owners of these businesses. Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. McAurio when he first heard about this re- development program and Mr. McAurio explained that he had talked to the developer who indicated that there were several plans, some of which would affect his business, some of which would not. They said they would notify him of what developed. He said that this is the first meeting he has attended. Mr. Tieson again addressed the Commission, asking how much it has cost the Council to find out what they have found out so far. He didn't feel that they know much of anything at this point. Commissioner Master asked that this question be addressed to the Council at their next meeting. Raymond B. Terry, 2910 E. Blueridge Avenue, Orange, a property owner in the Orange Mobile Home Park, addressed the Commission asking what is proposed for the area of Meats Avenue east of Tustin. Mr. Leavitt responded that there are no detailed plans available for that portion of Meats Avenue. The redevelopment plans talk about improvement of streets in general. This question would have to be referred to the ,~ traffic engineer. Any improvements to that section would also be dependent upon what project would go in on the vacant parcel in that area. Commissioner Vasquez asked if Mr. Leavitt's firm had held any public hearings to address this EIR. Mr. Leavitt's answer was in the negative. He said that they had met with city staff, but not with the public. Members of the public and public agencies, property owners in the area, were sent a notice of preparation, which is part of state law, and they did receive a number of comments on the contents of the EIR, which comments were in- cluded in the appendix. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1983 Page Nine Mr. Leavitt stated that it is his agency's understanding from what they were told by the Mall owners that all displaced businesses would need to be relocated and the state law provides for relocation assistance which would generally mitigate the displacement. He felt that specific concerns could be brought up to thE~ reievelopment agency and be taken into consideration when relocation assistance is decided upon. Ripon questioning by Commissioner Vasquez with regarding to scoping, Mr. Leavitt said that this is not required by state law and the city and the agency decided that it was not necessary at this time, considering the amount of discussion there had been. He ex- plained that they have received extensive input from staff as to minutes of Planning Commission and City Council meetings of public concerns, especially with regard to residential and non-residential aspects. Mark Huebsch,special redevelopment agency counsel, addressed the Commission, and addressed the question of scoping. He pointed out that following an appellate court decision, scoping had been a requirement. However, that .was modified and it is no longer a requirement under the CEQA guidelines. Bob Hix again addressed the Commission, stating that he had learned about the redevelopment project about 60 days ago when Mayor Beam visited his office and told him about the proposed redevelopment on north Tustin Street. He found this rather strange. He said that he had not seen any of the documents which have been referred to and he felt that it is strange that a business as large as his was not asked for input from the agency into the situation. He wondered how long this has been in the process and was told that it had been started around June 30th. He said he was very concerned to learn here tonight that he might lose land as one of the things he was told by Mayor Beam was that he might be able to acquire more land. Commissioner Master informed ~4r. Hix that he had just been handed a state- ment that Toyota of Orange property was 290 f eet from the corner of Katella and his property would not be affected by the street widening at the inter- section. Robin Leiter further explained that this effort had been started in June, looking at ways to enhance the economic base for the city of Orange, and have been proceeding along with redevelopment as one of those tools. She said that one of the advantageous things to come out of this study has been to really target those businesses that are substantial contributors of sales tax to the city. She pointed out that in looking at any of the businesses along Tustin, their ultimate aim is to enhance the economic base of this city and to make it easier and faster to travel on Tustin. It would be counter-productive to take away land from Toyota of Orange when they are a substantial producer of revenue here in the city. There being no one else to speak to this issue, the Vice-Chairman closed the public hearing. A question was asked by someone in the audience as to where documents could be acquired regarding redevelopment. They were told that staff would provide this to the public if they would come in & request it. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1983 Page Ten Upon being questioned about public involvement in the project, Commissioner Master explained that there is a Project Area Committee made up of citizens and businessmen of the area. Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. Leavitt to clarify the comment which had been made concerning reducing the period of review from 45 days to 30 days. Mr. Leavitt explained that the state law allows 30-45 days for reviewing large controversial projects. They also allow the 45 day period to b e reduced to 30 days. He said that the 30 day period generally affects the state agency much more than it would affect the local. He pointed out that the purpose of the city trying to reduce the comment period is not in any way to reduce the input from the community, but rather that they are on a very tight schedule. In order to achieve a certain tax base the project must be completed by the end of this year, A 30 day review period would allow another 15 days for the city and staff to respond to comments from the people in the city. Upon questioning by Commissioner Mickelson, h e then explained that right now they are using a 45 day review period but it is the intent of the city to get that period reduced to 30 days. Copies of the EIR were sent directly to the state agencies who will be reviewing the EIR rather than being sent to the State Clearing House, who would then spend some time getting them circulated. This is all an attempt to provide the city with more time to review the final EIR once it is prepared. Commissioner Vasquez asked, in terms of the review process, if one of the review agencies chooses, do they have the right to request an extension? P1r, Leavitt responded that the State Clearing House decides whether a 30 day period is adequate and they would then pass on notice to other agencies. Mr. Huebsch th~n~~xplained that the comment period is sometimes 30 days and sometimes 45 days and the determination of which length of time for review is determined by the state. At this point, they don't know what their deter- mination will be. It is beneficial that people have input into the situation as soon as possible so that staff can react to their concerns and incorporate their concerns in the EIR. He pointed out that they are in the comment period right now and he encouraged the public to make their comments quickly. David Sigmond again addressed the Commission, stating that what he sees is that the Council has a desire to get this thing done by the end of the year and therefore have requested that the state reduce the time for comments and review. He explained that he works with real estate every day and the amount of time to review and analyze this EIR and come up with a logical response in a 30 day period would be rather difficult. He felt that just extending the period for those 15 days so that people can review it would be beneficial. He said that he has received notice on this, but it was relatively short and to the point and there was no great disclosure of what is going on. He requested that the city provide maximum 45 days to review this plan. Commissioner Mickelson asked Mr. Huebsch if it is the City Council and not the Planning Commission that would make such a decision. Tir. Huebsch ex- plained that the State Clearing House makes the decision as to what is applicable in the case. If a request were to be made to shorten or lengthe the time (the 45 days is the maximum length of time for comments and review , he thought the request should come from the redevelopment agency. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1983 Page Eleven Commissioner Vasquez wondered if a request has been made and Mr. Huebsch responded that a request for 30 days has already been transmitted. He explained that if you make a request it must be transmitted at the time the EIR is transmitted. However, no determination has been made. Commissioner Vasquez pointed out that in this discussion then the point is moot. Commissioner Nickelson asked if the agency was bound by the state's decision for 30 days and Mr. Huebsch responded that the agency could go to 45 days. However, the reason for asking for the shorter period was to encourage the early submission of comment so that they could be better analyzed and re- flected in any plan or report. Regarding the time in which Earth Metrics had to prepare the report it was not all the way back to June. The draf t EIR, along with other resolutions that have been involved in the process to date would be on file with the clerk and all of the resolutions, etc. would be public record. Anyone can go to the clerk and review them. Mr. Tieson again spoke to the Commission, stating City of Orange and its tax payers would be better with any government agencies, because it will cos government gets into it, everything will be lost. time that the officers elected by the people make the government. that he thought the served by not entangling t them more money. If the He thought it was about decisions without going to Commissioner P~1ickelson said that he had one area of concern, pointing out that one of the mitigation measures was to encourage construction of an interchange at Meats Avenue. He said that he had reviewed the EIR and felt that it is a premature mitigation measure at this time and suggested that this be removed as a mitigation measure because he did not think it was economically feasible Moved by Commissioner Nickelson, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to delete the mitigation measure in the draft EIR, encouraging construction of an interchange at Meats Avenue, for the reason that it is premature and economically infeasible at this time. AYES: Commissioners Master, Nickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Nickelson, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend acceptance of EIR #873 as being certified as having been completed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and local guidelines of CEQA, including deletion of the mitigation measure encouraging construction of an interchange at Meats Avenue, as previously moved. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1983 Page Twelve AYES: Commissioners plaster, Nickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED gloved by Commissioner Nickelson, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend adoption of Resolution No. PC-80-83 which includes: a. A finding and determination that the Tustin Street Redevelopment Project conforms to the General Plan of the City of Orange; b. A recommendation that the ORA and City Council approve and adopt the Redevelopment Plan in its present form; and c c. Instruction to the Planning Director to include a certified copy of this Resolution as part of the Agency's Report to the City Council pursuant to Section 33352 of the Health & Safety Code of the State of California, and deem the Resolution as the Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the proposed Redevelopment Plan and contemplated public projects and activities thereunder, as required by applicable provisions of law. AYES: Commissioners Master, Nickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Nickelson stated that since he would be leaving the Planning Commission as of this meeting, he had one private concern that he wished to express. He said that he has a personal problem with parking structures with regard to esthetics and hoped that particular care would be taken with the parking structure regarding height, etc. and particularly the esthetics of the structure. Mr. Yamasaki stated that a general City Council/Agency meeting for dis- cussion of the EIR would take place on November 22nd at 7:00 p.m. in these chambers. Commissioner Vasquez expressed appreciation to his fellow commissioners for the opportunity of working with them these past months. He said that it has been a pleasure and a great experience to be a member of .the Planning Commission. Commissioner Master stated that he fe]t that it has been a special opportunity for both the city and this Planning Commission to have Commissioner Mickel son as a member of the Commission. He felt that Mr. Nickelson was extremely qualified to perform this task and had been of great help, not only to the Commission, but to those coming before the Commission with their developments. He pointed out that Mr. Nickelson had often "rescued" a development which might have been voted down by offering suggestions to the developer which were most helpful in mitigating some of the concerns which the Commission had. He felt that Commissioner Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1983 Page Thirteen P~ickelson had served "both sides of the fence" in a very admirable way and he thanked him for his service. Commissioner Hart also praised Commissioner Mickelson's devoted service as a Planning Commissioner, saying that he valued their friendship which had developed through their service on the Commission and personally knew that Mr. Mickelson had lost financially in his business because of this service. he felt that the city is better for having been served by Per. Mickelson. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, October 17, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. in the City of Orange Council Chambers at 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.