Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/16/1984 - Minutes PC~~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange ~: January 16, 1984 range, California '! Monday, 7:30 p.m. 'the regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart ~atii7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mason, Greek, Vasquez ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secretary; Jack McGee, Associate Planner; Helmut Stolpp, Public Works Department, Bernie Dennis, Traffic Engineer, Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; and Maryann Brown, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ' "'~~ IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 1983 AND JANUARY 4,19$4 Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Greek, to approve the minutes of December 12, 1983 and January 4, 1984, as transmitted. YES: Commissioners Hart, .Master, Mason, Greek, Vasquez OES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SP 2481, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #831: Construction of the Loma Street/Imperial Highway connection, City of Orange. A proposal to extend Loma Street northerly across Peralta Hills for a distance of 8400 feet to join Imperial Highway in Anaheim Hills. (This items was continued from December 5, 1983. A study session was held on January 4, ^~ 1984. The public hearing has been closed.) Chairman Hart indicated that an informal. discussion period was held on January 4, 1984 with members of the ROAR group, the staff, the Commissioners, and other members of the public. He stated the study session was quite productive, the Commissioners closed the hearing, and unless any compelling reasons for re-opening of the hearing became apparent, the Commission was prepared to take action on the issue. Planning Commission Minutes •January 16, 1984 Page Two Chairman Hart asked for questions or discussion from the Commission., or in the absence of same, a motion on the issue. Commissioner Vasquez stated he would like. to make comments in conjunctions with two motions he had prepared. He stated that the Commission had spent a great deal of time on the issue, ranging from visiting the sites, viewing the terrain, geography, and topography of the area. In addition, a number of statistics, reports, evaluations, potentials, and prophetic reports regarding the area had been studied. He stated that the bottom line was the issue of responsi- bility in defif-ing where the community was headed in terms of circu ation and transportation. He further stated that a recent UCI study and a local city study revealed that one of the major concerns of the community is circulation within the County of Orange. Commissioner Vasquez moved that action on the Taft-Loma Extension be deferred until such time that a Draft Report on the Eastern Corridor is prepared and circulated, which is estimated !to be available in April of 1985 as a pre- liminary draft, and the route alignment study is estiyna~e~ ~~ y,~~.„.~,. to be available for study in June, .1~8~: /9'~'s'• ~~.c~t, a ~ ~~ Commissioner Vasquez stated the potential impacts acknow- ledged in the work session that the Eastern Corridor studies might have are sufficient enough to merit deferral on any approval to take any action on this extension until the Corridor Study is available. Commissioner Vasquez continued his motion, recommending that the City Council authorize staff to work with a select committee of ROAR representatives to evaluate and study the alternatives of alignments and configurations which have been discussed in study sessions and public meetings to ascertain the feasibility on a technical, environmental, and financial basis. He explained that approval of these recommendations will allow the. City to make a more intelligent study of the issue and to address some of those variables which are unknown at this time, and to explore the options from three perspectives which would benefit the community and the City. Chairman Hart called for a second on the .motion. Commissioner Master asked if the motion proposed by Commissioner Vasquez included the action on the EIR. Commissioner Vasquez indicated he felt appropriate to defer the action on the imply or infer persuasion by approval, consistent on the issue when, based on mentioned figures, the item comes back it would be EIR, rather than and to remain previously before the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes .January 16, 1984 'Page Three Commissioner Greek stated he was in total agreement with the consideration of the alignment as an important factor, but he was concerned with setting a specific date to receive the figures discussed. Commissioner Vasquez stated that Van Dell Associates indicated that preliminary draft reports, containing information needed by the City to conduct an evaluation, would be available in April of 1985. Statistical data would be available in April, 1985 and final realignment of the Eastern Corridor in expected in Summer, 198`4. Commissioner Master stated he was concerned about developments which would come before the Commission during that interim period which may be in the affected area; asking if those projects would also be postponed. Chairman Hart asked staff to comment. Mr. Johnson, City Engineer, stated that within the next few months the South Ridge Development would be coming before the Commission, and the alignment of the road under discussion would have an effect on that development. He stated that lacking any final change in the effects of this EIR, South Ridge will have to propose their development around the alignment which .previously had been envisioned.. He believed that the alignment used in the South Ridge planning process is one which the ROAR group is in opposition with. Commissioner Mason asked if developments,previous1y approved by the City Council would be impacted by the alignment study under discussion. Mr. Johnson stated he believed that some developments which had been approved that may affect the road and access of the road, and one or two of the major roads which may be looked at as alternatives. Commissioner Mason asked if roads such as Chapman and Katella would be impacted and if so, could that be alleviated. Mr. Johnson stated that each case would have to be looked at individually, but the upcoming project is affected by the alignment of Loma itself. 'He further stated that he d-idn t believe any other project,. either past or future, with the exception of the Edison Sub- Station property would have that same effect. Chairman Hart asked if South Ridge Development would be directly affected by any delay. Plann~r~g Commission Minutes January 16, 1984 Page Four Mr. Johnson responded by stating that the project would not necessarily be affected by the delay, but that when the project came in, an integral part of their development would be the road alignment and at that time, a decision would have to be made as to what concept would be in keeping with their layout. Chairman Hart asked if there was any way to hasten access to the statistical information being generated. Commissioner Vasquez stated he believed the date proposed was the earliest possible date. Bernie Dennis, Traffic Engineer, addressed the Commission and Commissioner Vasquez,-in particular, asking if the date proposed was in fact June 1984, rather than June, 1985, stating he thought the plans were further along. Commissioner Vazquez responded that the route alignment was outlined as 18 months; the preliminary draft report for circulation to cities was April 1985. He further stated he also believed as did others, that the plans were further along than stated. Mr. Johnson referred to Commissioner Vasquez's motion and the review of alternatives, stating that .some of which had not been formally studied. He suggested that if the motion directed the staff to look at those alternatives, they could be studied within the time frame that South Ridge Development would be forthcoming. He believed the question of bypassing freeway traffic could only be answered effectively when it was related to the Eastern Corridor, with an overall view of not only the Corridor Study, but the intervening local arterial streets. He stated that the staff would have some information in advance by looking at the alternatives previously discussed. Commissioner Vasquez asked if the issue of April 1985 would then not preclude separate discussions and studies based on a timetable coordinated with South Ridge. Mr. Johnson stated the City would not have the answer to the issue of"bypassing freeway traffic, but that the City's contention has been that that issue would affect the nur-bers and classification of the road,. rather than whether the road is needed to provide for area-wide traffic. Alternatives with regard to the second part of the motion could be accomplished in advance of that; but that it would take the completion of the Eastern Corridor in order to put it into a proper perspective. 3 Commissioner Vasquez asked if staff was suggesting a timetable be attached to the second recommendation in the motion to coincide with the anticipated timetable Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 1984 Page Five of development; is that what you are suggesting.? Mr. Johnson stated he did not know the exact timetable on the South Ridge Development and deferred to Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy stated the first Planning Commission public hearing on the South Ridge Development would be in the early part of March at the earliest.. Chairman Hart indicated that a second on the motion had not occurred, and Commission Vasquez stated he was open to a substitute motion or an amendment to his motion. He indicated his concern that the South Ridge Development project would impact the many months of study on the Loma issue and inquired whether postposing the South Ridge issue could be postponed. Commissioner Mason raised the concern that the date of April 1985 was not an absolute; that it could be a longer. delay. Commissioner Vasquez stated that based. on his conversations with the .principals of the company involved., he believed they desired to complete the study as soon as possible. Commissioner Master asked firstly, is the roadway needed now, in the Commission's judgment collectively, to support developments in the area; and secondly, are the impacts of not having adequate ingress and egress thoroughly understood? He further asked-if we would be dumping traffic onto other streets and have we really. analyzed those impacts to a greater extent? He commented further that the more important issue seemed to be that of the 15%--the so-called 15% use by people trying to bypass a freeway junction of the Riverside Freeway/Newport Freeway. Gommissioner Master stated he believed the question would. be difficult to answer now and in 1985, and he raised concerns as to whether the study at issue would answer those questions. In response to an inquiry from a member of the audience, Chairman Hart stated that the public hearing had been closed. Commissioner Greek commented that he believed Loma Street is needed; that the planning process is a committment to the future and to the responsibilities of future citizens. He stated he was not committed to an alignment, however, and moved to approve the process, the need for Loma, but with the condition that a consideration to an alignment that wou d discourage the freeway bypass traffic. Chairman Hart indicated that that consideration could be covered by Commissioner Vasquez's second item. Planning Commission. Minutes 'January 16, 1984 Page Six Commissioner Vasquez stated that his motions were not intended to imply he did not support the need. for a Loma, but that to arrive at an acceptable. use., implementation, design--those issues are still subject to discussion. He further stated he agreed with Commissioner Master's concerns as to whether the Corridor Study would answer the circu- lation/freeway bypass traffic question, but,. in his opinion, past engineering projections that the existing freeway system would. be adequate until the year 2000 have proven erroneous during peak Orange County traffic hours. He further stated that it is for those reasons he thinks it is important to study. the options, to scrutinize the studies and reports available, in order to make a sound decision:, without precluding the concept that Loma may be needed; however,- there is an opportunity to explore options, whether in design, or alignment, and of course, the technical and economic issues which play an important role. He reiterated that it is for those reasons he included the technical and financial .feasibility, and his action is intended to be broad, but .flexible. However, the complications arising from forthcoming development may impact the available options and he expressed concern regarding a solution to save the recommended action and at the same time, address the issue of the development which is anticipated in the first part of March. Commissioner Greek referred to the Resolution of the City Council, City of Villa Park, which requests reclassifying Loma from.a proposed secondary to a proposed .major arterial between Villa Park Road and Nohl Ranch Road. This request was made in March 1975 and Commissioner Greek stated that sucks a committment is future planning and if the Commission does not agree on the extension of Loma, it would be "dropping the ball" for future citizens of our city. V~:1la Parkin their change of attitudes,-creates• problems and this was a Resolution of their City Council at that time to follow certain procedures and classifications of the arterial master plan and they appear to be changing their mind again. He further stated. that if this Commission does the same thing, it would be lax in its duties. Commissioner Vasquez commented that when this issue arose initially, the concept was that it was a Master Plan; that it was part of a big north-south corridor. When we see a proposal to delete Crawford Canyon south of Chapman from the map; and. other deletions occurring left and right,- its true .that we may fall into that category of falling into ranks with other-jurisdictions who have. chosen to delete certain areas; however, does that mean we must go off and build roads that lead to essen Tally nowhere or lead from open space o~ open-lanes or to congested lanes Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 1984 .Page Seven that cannot carry the load of traffic; specifically, the Chapman Avenue. A Master Plan seems to have a lot of hypocrisies enclosed in it, because it seems that everybody's deviating from it. Commissioner Vasquez stated he personally did not enjoy that deviation because he supports master planning, but on the other hand, even if we, for instance, amend this language and approve in concept the extension of Loma and went with the recommended actions of stating the technical, environmental, and financial feasibility of Loma, we still face the problem of this development, regardless of what we want to do today. Unfortunately, this prob em has emerged and here we are. Chairman Hart stated he thought the problem involved waiting for the figures. Commissioner Vasquez responded that putting aside the issue of the figures, even if we undertake recommendation number two, there is not enough time between now and March 1st or whenever to accomplish these objectives. He asked Mr. Johnson to comment. Mr. Johnson stated he believed the question is how detailed a study ,is required; that some rudimentary designs could be done, some profiles could be worked up; some quantities of cut and fill, configurations that might :work, however, we would limit the total all-encompassing effect of the study due to lack of time. He stated that based on the motion, he would need more information on 'the comprehensiveness of the study proposed. From the standpoint of the discon- tinuous or T-type of intersection of the three major streets, Imperial, Loma,- and Via Scola, staff could look at that ~- and possibly have some answers by the time South Ridge came with the project. Mr. Johnson stated he wanted to keep all avenues open, but that possibly staff would not be able to provide all the answers envisaged by Commissioner Vasquez in their report.. Chairman Hart suggested the problem be broken into two phases: 1) whether the concept of Loma going. through is the majority, and 2) the alignment. Commissioner Vasquez .stated since his motion is dead for lack of a second, he would not need to withdraw it, and would abide by rules of order. Mr. Johnson then stated that in conjunction with the alignment previously discussed, in order to consider adequately, the EIR may have to have a major change since it would an affect on patterns and alignments. In that case, the. short time frame being discussed would not be possible, but he believed that if that was the indication, staff should be aware of it as soon as possible. Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 1984 Page Eight Chairman Hart asked if this was a "worst case" EIR. Mr. Johnson stated that from the concern of the residents, they would probably indicate it as a "worst case", but there were-alternatives that could also be considered "worst case", depending on the direction of the opposition. Chairman Hart then stated for the sake of discussion, assuming this was a "worst case" EIR, would a T-intersec- tion be a lesser impact. Commissioner Master asked for a more detailed explanation of what T-intersection was being discussed. At this point, Mr. Johnson approached the exhibit on display, and pointed to specific points on the exhibit which had been discussed as T-intersection alternatives. Chairman Hart requested the Commission settle the issue of whether Loma should go through at this time. Commissioner Vasquez stated for discussion purposes that approval in concept of the Loma extension, subject to a determination of studying the alternatives which Mr. Johnson outlined;. that the approval in concept of the extension is contingent on defining or ascertaining those technical, environmental, and financial aspects of those alternatives. Commissioner Master asked if the Commission was setting in motion the basis that a new EIR be prepared. Mr. Johnson stated he hoped that not a "new" EIR, but an amended or expanded EIR would be the reality. Chairman Hart asked if a modified EIR would be necessary if the alignment was left for some later action. Commissioner Master stated his concern was the T-inter- section in that if the T was being put in to affect traffic flow, then its a major traffic change, or why the T? Mr. Johnson stated these alignments, which were the major .issues in this EIR'; the T was Via Escol:a the others were through streets.' The other two scenarios which would be discontinuous traffic on one of the other legs, then the EIR would have to be looked at in that context. Chairman Hart stated that that would be the modification, and Commissioner Master asked what the purpose of the T was. Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 1984 PAge Nine Mr. Johnson responded that the purpose of the T would be to .discourage thru traffic. At this point, Commissioner Greek stated the intention would be to make an offset intersection, rather than straight through. Mr. Johnson stated staff had never studied that concept; that any time a T-intersection is put in a major leg, then major delays occur, increased intersection widths would be required, and changes in signalization would be necessary, and that has not been done. Chairman Hart asked what would-the Commission need to need to do to make that a possibility? He reiterated~~. that he would like the Commission to take some action. Commissioner Vasquez requested that the Commission confirm his original motion is dead from lack of a second. Commissioner Hart acknowledged same. Mr. Johnson stated that the Commission could request that those two specific alternatives be incorporated into an EIR and be returned with an amended EIR, including that proposal at some later date. Commissioner Hirt asked if that request would preclude some other route. Mr. Johnson responded that it would not; that the traffic distribution to other streets within the study area would be very important to the overall effectiveness of this alternative. Just as the ROAR proposal on the board is analyzed] it can be seen that there are other effects of that 'no road" alternative. These T-intersections will have similar effects, but it may be that they would be of such a nature that there would be no major impact on existing. roads, but its virtually impossible to make that statement without further study. Commissioner Greek stated his concern was that all the ® traffic studies use the same criteria, but his personal feeling was that assumptions made in the E:IR of greater development to the East. than was concerned with in the County s traffic study. Mr. Johnson concurred, stating the City may be accused of comparing apples and oranges and -- we have been.--- the County did a study concerning the ROAR proposal and their figures certainly can be correlated and it was his belief that the County would have to accept and abide by any recommendation that this Commission makes if we are to maintain our credibility in the AHFP project and to accomplish a county-wide system, that a County Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 1984 Page Ten study would have more credibility, at least, in keeping *~ that context, than say, a restudy by Mr. Basmasian. He further stated that if the Commission. directed staff to work on these alternatives, staff would attempt to get together with the County and see if ,they used the same criteria that were used before, that hey. could come up with something that they would be comfortable with; and when the time came, that if your body and the Council decided they wanted to change the alignment of the Master Plan, that the County would be agreeable. Commissioner Hart stated that before the Commission ordered another study as to alignment, that the decision should be made as to whether there should be an extension of Loma. Commissioner Greek moved that we make a finding that the extension of Loma is required for the orderly development of the City of Orange. Commissiner Master seconded the motion. Commissioner Vasquez stated that he would cast a negative vote because he believed that, in all good consciousness, as a general statement, he could not support that motion. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mason., Greek NOES: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master asked for a point of clarification. We are talking about additional studies related to a T-type intersection; are we talking about a different alignment? Chairman. Hart responded yes; not an alignment that shows in the EIR. Commissioner Master then asked if that alignment was going to be an impact on that development that comes before the Commission in March; back to square one. Commissioner Hart responded affirmatively., and Commissioner Master stated he thought it was just a rnatter of how the streets met, rather than a principal alignment. Mr. Johnson stated it could be different; it may not be, and based on the development he had seen, the project limits could accommodate several different concepts as far as road alignment are concerned. Commissioner Master then asked if the Commission could go forward with that development from the standpoint of making a decision. Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 1984 Page Eleven Mr. Johnson stated he believed staff would attempt to come up with as many answers as possible in this interim period between now and the first hearing before the Commission on South Ridge, and staff would try to dovetail that in, if that was the Commission's desire. Commissioner Master stated, for the sake. of argument, if the intent of the T street was. to be an impediment, that configuration can do that, but he questioned whether alignment. should be a significant consideration. In other words, you could effect a dog-leg in these intersecting streets, and you could put pork chops in, you can do all kinds of things, but he didn't believe alignment was the way to affect an impediment to traffic. Mr. Johnson stated he could not answer that completely; that possibly Bernie Dennis, Traffic Engineer, may be able to shed light on that question, regarding the typical model that is used 'to evaluate trip demand. Yet,from the standpoint of a~lkgnment, he was sure that a road could be made so circuitous that .people would take an alternate road, but he did not know what the criteria for that would be. Further, he stated he did not know how circuitous a road would have to be to completely discourage people. Commissioner Master stated his concern was that he felt the Commission could settle on a proposed route and address the issue of providing impediments to the use of the route that- might have the effect'of cutting down or discouraging through traffic from other areas.. That seems to be issue--not so much the route, although it is in certain factors of ROAR, but the main issue seems to be concern of traffic from one freeway to the other. Chairman Hart •'asked if Mr .' Johnsan'~s`:;comcern ~ _~.: -~.,~:~ about modifying the EIR was that if a T-intersection was agreed upon, the traffic flow would be different so that you couldn't use the EIR. Mr. Johnson responded that that was the inference he believed would occur; that there will be `impacts. The construction EIR considers the impact to the area, but it includes the traffic characteristics, so if those change, maybe there should be a change in the EIR. He then asked the expert consultant on this, Jill Sterret, to address the Commission. Ms. Ste-rret stated she believed discussion centered about different sides of the same coin;. that it was true if some impediments were created in this road, you will reduce the impact on this particular road and some of the things ROAR has been concerned about. In that case, the EIR you have is a "worst case". However, she believed Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 1984 Page Twelve that Mr. Johnson was referrin to the total number g of trips. and if they are taken off this road, they will go somewhere else, and that's the part that has not been analyzed in the EIR and would need to be done. Commissioner Master stated he was trying to facilitate .that the Commission take a motion on a route and that analysis of impediments and results thereof are what is being talked about in future studies; not alternate proposed routing. Commissioner Hart stated that it might come to a question of whether. the existing EIR can be used if we do change that. He further stated-that the next question bef ore the Commission was whether they wished to order an amended EIR to cover the alternative alignments discussed. Commissioner Master questioned the use of the word "alignment". He asked if the discussion involved major alignment differences, alternatives different than those proposed, or interfacing streets which may Q act as an impediment. Chairman Hart stated the discussion involved intersections. Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. Johnson if an amended EIR would interrupt, affect, stipulate the South Ridge Development talked about previously. Mr. Johnson stated he could not answer that, but until a different concept is a reality, staff has told South Ridge people that they would have to use the alignment already indicated and has been designed in Anaheim and in Orange. Commissioner Vasquez asked if this had already been stated to the developers. Mr. Johnson responded affirmatively and stated that that is how the developer's proposal will appear. It does not mean that it cannot be changed in the course ® of submittal `and approval, and it may be that the two decisions may dovetail together within the next three or four months. Chairman Hart asked if the EIR could be modified in that period of time.. Ms. Sterret stated the EIR could be modified in that period of time; the question that cannot be .answered would be whether it would trigger recirculation. If it was necessary to -go back through circulation, it would require at least 30 days, if not a 45 day period for review. As a general guess, she indicated that since the interested parties are already involved, it may not be necessary to go through that process, but Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 1984 Page Thirteen she could not make an official statement without further checking. But as far as the information is concerned, she stated that could be done within the time period discussed.. Commissioner Mason asked Ms. Sterret if she would need to know .the alignment before that study could be done. Ms. Sterret asked if the Commission was referring to the two basic configurations -described by. Mrs` Johnson and stated they would be designated as two more alternatives and dealt with under that concept, possibly more extensively than some of the original alternatives, but not necessarily going through the entire report. Commissioner Greek. stated he would like to recommend that staff be directed to come up with alternate alignments by the first meeting in March,. and process them through the ROAR Committee so whey could give imput into it. He stated although we may not have complete agreement, but we would have imput and possibly by the first meeting when we have those alignments, we may find we need more traffic analysis. He further stated that any traffic studies or counts data are available at :the County and we would not need to have any elaborate consultant studies when we can use the County staff to get the information at no cost. Mr. Johnson stated that staff would begin work on the feasibility of those alignments; studies of the physical portion of it, and immediately ask the County to study that concept and provide us a report similar to-what we have seen on the critique of the ROAR proposal. Commissioner Greek stated he personally would like to see an alignment with profiles and numbers that could be looked at. Mr. Johnson stated the staff had profiles for the three alternatives and would prepare profiles for the two additional ones. It was moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Master that staff be directed to develop alternate alignments by the first meeting in March, and further,.. to process those alignments through the ROAR Committee for imput. Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr ..Johnson that based on the motion before<the Commission,~that it does not impact or require EIR amendments, based on the action tonight and subject to what's coming before the Commission in March. Planning Commission Minutes Ja~auary 16, 1984 Page Fourteen Mr. Johnson responded that staff would. meet with Ms. Sterret to determine how extensive the amendments would. have to be, but he believed the EIR.. would have to respond to the question of two additional alignments. He further stated he did not have answers from the standpoint of how extensive the amendments` would have to be and would not have those answers until he had further discussions. Commissioner Vasquez stated, for purposes of understanding, that if we exceed the seven weeks and come back with the information that a major EIR overhaul is required, how do we deal with that question in seven weeks. Mr. Johnson stated he believed staff would be in a position to give the Commission the rudiments of the two alignment studies within the seven weeks; to promise a full-blown amended EIR and all the exhibits, full traffic study, etc., would not be possblebecause we need time to talk about the timeframes discussed: Mr. Johnson stated he could not give a firm timeframe regarding completed study and amended EIR. Chairman Hart asked for the date, and was informed that March 5, 1984 would be the first meeting in March. C i i omm ss oner Greek stated it was his anticipation that these alternate-routes will indicate a decrease in traffic. He stated that the criteria there is such that assumptions were made of various route selections because of the width of the highway, and with computer moduling and flow diagrams, we might find a decrease in traffic. He further stated he wanted a comparison of the through route rather than an obstruction. Commissioner Vasquez requested a restatement of the motion, and Commission Greek stated that, in general, he was asking for a realignment and studies that indicate creating some impediment to freeway traffic; that it be processed through the ROAR group, and that it be submitted back to us on March 5th, the first meeting. in March. YES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mason, Greek, Vasquez ~1.OES : None MOTION CARRIED The Commission took a brief recess at 8:35 p.m. and Chairman Hart reopened the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 1984 . Page Fifteen N RE: NEW HEARING: CONDITIONAL .USE PERMIT 1327 - LAGUNA LAND & CATTLE COMPANY: Request to establish an office use in the industrial zone with a greater percentage of compact spaces than allowed and greater building height than allowed on the south side of Katella Avenue at Struck Avenue. NOTE: Negative. Declaration 833 was prepared for this project. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing,. and asked if the applicant or his representative was present. Mr. Patrick Conover, 1:8001 Sky Park South, Suite J, Irvine, architect for the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated he had not seen he staff report, but in his con- versations with the Planning Department, he understood there was nothing of any great impact in the report on the project. Commissioner Greek asked Mr. Conover why he had requested !~''~ the extra five feet. Mr. Conover re ponded that in going to a four-story building, the applicant was attempting to get maximum usage out of the property, for the amount of parking that could be made available. He stated a number of easements which run across the property restrict the area of the building, mainly in the northern portion of the parcel and, in order to get the maximum benefit from it, the extra five feet was required. to get the four floors and maximize the parking. Mr. Conover explained that the floor-to-floor height was minimal, the parking ratio could be maximized if we went to the maximum height of 50 feet. Commissioner Greek asked the height of the building at Struck and Katella, and asked if Laguna was doing that also. Mr. Murphy responded that he did not believe there were any four-story buildings in the area, but a three-story building across the street, on the north side of Katella, might be in the area of 43-45 feet in height, and was probably the tallest building in the area at present. Mr. Conover commented that applicant's initial design showed the bul'dirig to be four to five feet below the curb line at Katella because it was their understanding that the 45 feet height limit would be taken from that Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 1984 Page Sixteen curb line. In his discussions with the Planning Department, it was. determined that raising the building. to ground level was more cost beneficial. Moved by Comrni signer Master, seconded by Commissioner Greek, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 833. A3~ES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mason, Greek, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master,. seconded by Commissioner Greek, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1327,f-or,ge~sons so by staff -'.:and subj~c~t :ta cond;itioras as _ outlined by staff . AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mason, Greek, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Murphy stated that this approval s_ a final decision and not a recommendation to the City. Council. An appeal may be filed within 15 days to the City Council; otherwise, this will be a final decision of the Planning Commission. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, February 6, 19$4, at 7:30 p.m., at the'Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. C C