11/2/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
City of Orange
November 2, 1981
Orange, California
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 Minshew,
Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; John
Lane, Administrator of Advance Planning; Doris Ofsthun,
Recording Secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 19, 1981
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart,
to approve the minutes of October 19, 1981, as transmitted.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Paster, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - LAND USE ELEMENT 3-81 (GPA - LUE 3-81):
Item D - Redesignation on the Land Use Element for a 1± acre area
on the west side of Batavia Street, between Chapman Avenue and
Maple Avenue from Low Density Residential to Local Commercial.
(Negative Declaration 724 has been prepared for this item).
Chairman Mickelson explained that he was absent when this was
originally heard on October 26, 1981. However, he has listened
to the tape and visited the site in question, and thus feels
qualified to vote in this matter.
Mr. Minshew stated that at the Planning Commission meeting of
October 26, 1981, the Commissioners had requested a legal opinion
as to whether the use proposed by Mr. Caumwould be permitted i n a
C-2 General Business District. In his opinion, Local Commercial
would be an appropriate General Plan designation. He thought that
the question was - Is the use proposed by the Daums consistent with
C-2 zoning based on all facts available to the City P,ttorney's
office. In his opinion, the use is consistent with this zoning.
He explained that the C-2 zoning in the Orange Municipal Code,
under very restrictive conditions, allows certain activities in
the C-2 zone which are permitted uses in the M-1 Light Manufacturing
district. Mr. Minshew went on to explain that, after visiting the
Batavia site and discussing the matter with Mr. Dave Da;am,reviewing
his letter and reviewing the various Orange Municipal Code sections
appropriate to the C-2 and the M-1 and M-2 zones, he has concluded
that this activity is "light manufacturing" and, therefore, a fit
subject for this proposed General Plan Amendment. He stated that
under certain very restrictive conditions, which include a Condition-
al Use Permit and report by the Planning Commission to the City
Council , that the City Council could grant a Conditional Use Permi t
based on the evidence available.
Chairman Mickelson asked for clarification on the comment that
Mr. Minshew's opinion is that the C-1 or C-2 districts are appropriate.
He wished to be sure that Mr. Minshew was not stating that is is ap-
propriate that this zoning be granted, but that he was stating that
a
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Two
~_ this is the appropriate zoning to fit Mr. Daum's use. Mr.
Minshew explained how this issue came up. The Commission was
dealing with uses in the C-l, C-2 and C-3 districts and they
questioned whether Mr. Daum's activity came under one of these
areas. In Mr. Minshew's opinion, it would. However, he is not
recommending that a specific Zone Change be made.
Chairman Mickelson stated what they have before them is the
General Plan Amendment, and not necessarily the question of Mr.
Daum's use and he saw the following options available to the
Commission:
The question is, should the General Plan be amended to include all
or part of the west side of Batavia Street from Maple Avenue to
150 feet north of Chapman Avenue.
Also, whether they approve or do not approve and whether the City
Council approves or does not approve the General Plan Amendment,
it still remains possible for Mr. Daum to seek a Zone Change.
Even if the General Plan Amendment is successful, as Mr. Daum has
requested, there still remains the third subject of a Conditional
Use Permit before the type of operation proposed by Mr. Daum can
be established on this site.
Commissioner Coontz felt that the existing General Plan commercial
designation can accommodate that particular parcel without the
General Plan being changed.
Commissioner Hart pointed out that several problems have been
listed. However, one that was not listed was the site plan and
whether it would accommodate required off-street parking and proper
exit requirements, which may be the crux of the whole matter.
Chairman Mickelson further explained that even if the General Plan
Amendment was approved and the Zone Change were later approved, it
would still be necessary to process a Conditional Use Permit, and,
a Variance would also have to be approved in order to establish
the use.
Chairman Mickelson then asked if the public hearing should be
reopened.
Commissioner Master stated that to put this in the proper context,
to his knowledge the Commission has never refused a Zone Change
which followed a General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Coontz
pointed out there have been a number of cases where there is
possibly a spillover from the General Plan Amendment.
There was discussion among the Commissioners about the possibility
of a Zone Change following a General Plan Amendment.
Chairman Mickelson reopened the public hearing, asking that only
new information be presented at this time and pointing out that
it was not necessary to go back over previous presentations.
Refugio C. Sanchez, 131 N. Citrus, Orange, addressed the Commission,
stating that he lives almost due west of the property in question.
He produced a petition from the homeowners in the area against this
application. This is the third time that they have had to speak to
the Commission and Council and they are pleading for the entire
neighborhood. He explained that he has talked to some of the
O
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Three
people who are against this and some of the people who have been
approached by Mr. Daum. No matter what the decision is, Mr. Daum
has already made up his mind that he still plans to have it his way.
Mr. Sanchez explained that he has also talked to some people who
have knowledge in this area with regard to the type of electricity
needed to run the machine shop. He pointed out that Mr. Daum does
not have a 220 hookup, he has more of a 400 hookup. He wondered
who on the City staff oversees this sort of thing and enforces
the Code.
Mr. Murphy explained that the Staff has been monitoring the
property at 122 N. Batavia as accurately as they could. There
have been some questions with regard to the electrical service
and Staff has no answers at this time. However, this is under
study. Commissioner Master stated for the record that Mr. Daum
states that he uses 230 volt 3 phase.
Mr. Daum responded, saying that everything has already been said.
He did not feel that they are injuring anyone in any respect and
he could not see how anyone can oppose something like this.
There being no one else wishing to speak, the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Chairman Mickelson pointed out that the real question is whether
the General Plan is to be amended as requested, not the use on
Mr. Daum's property. The Commission can approve the General Plan
Amendment for the entire block, as proposed, approve it in part,
or deny it in total. The decision is a recommendation to the City
Council and they will make the final decision.
Commissioner Coontz reiterated that this is not that clean cut to
her. She did not feel that the street should be changed to Com-
mercial at this time, but she does believe that the one lot could
be accommodated in the General Plan without amending the Plan, and
that the commercial use there is in keeping with the service station
next door. In fact, it would serve somewhat as a buffer. She
felt that this would be a good use for that particular parcel.
Commissioner Master had a concern and he based it on Zone Change
~" 957. He explained that not too long ago the Commission approved
a use near Chapman Avenue, that of a residence to office use. A
strong message came from the City Council in that matter. This
parcel abutted on Chapman Avenue. He admitted that Batavia does
not lend itself to general residential. However, he had a concern
about the back lot situation where a rear property line divides
residential from commercial. H e had difficulty with this type of
use i n an :area 1 i ke that.
Chairman Mickelson wondered if it would be appropriate as an
alternative if this were designated 0-P, rather than Commercial
on the General Plan. h1r. Lane considered this to be an option be-
cause Office-Professional is a more restricted use than Local
Commercial.
Commissioner Coontz wondered about Home Occupation, which is more
restrictive than Commercial. From the description of Mr. Daum's
business, she understood it to be a business where there was not
a large amount of traffic connected with the use. Chairman Mickelson
said he felt at the first hearing that this could be considered a
Home Occupation but has since visited the site and seen the machines
and he felt i t would be stretching i t to cal l i t a Home Occupation.
W
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Four
L,J
A question was asked of Mr. M
tions and whether this use co
Mr. Minshew concurred with Coi
stated that Section B reads:
involve the use of mechanical
of reasonable household use."
nsh ew with regard to Home Occupa-
ld be construed as a Home Occupation.
missioner Mickelson's statement. He
"...such an occupation shall not (b)
equipment not recognized as a part
Chairman Mickelson commented that he agreed with Commissioner
Coontz that it would be his opinion that it would not be necessary
to change the General Plan to accommodate the use on this property
because of i is 1 ocation and nature. He woul d prefer that if i t
does happen i t would happen i n this manner, rather than changi ng
the Land Use designation on the entire block.
Commissioner Master felt that the peopl e on Batavia needed to know
what was going to happen to their area rather than change the use
bit by bit and piece by piece. Land owners deserve some idea of
what they can do with their properties.
1
Chairman Mickelson pointed out that action on the Negative Declara-
tion was taken care of at the last meeting.
Commissioner Master asked if it was appropriate to make a motion
for other than what the application calls for. It was thought
that this would be all right.
Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that
the properties described under General Plan Amendment-Land Use
Element 3-81, Item "D", be classified to Office-Professional use
i n consideration of the inappropriate use of residential , at the
same time being sensitive to the residential area that abuts the
property, along Citrus Street and Maple.
li
AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Vasquez
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION FAILED
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez,
to recommend that the City Council deny a redesignation from Low
Density Residential to Local Commercial on the west side of
Batavia Street between Chapman Avenue and Maple Avenue because
the General Plan can be interpreted to accommodate the particular
commercial parcel which instigated the whole process .
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioner Master
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Master stated that his comment stands that the
general property along Batavia is no longer suited for Residential
use and the property owners in that area deserve some understanding
of what the future holds for them.
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1160, VARIANCE 1662 - ALLEN:
Request to allow expansion of an existing Pacific Telephone Co.
equipment building and to allow encroachment of parking into the front
setback for property located on the east side of Orange-Olive Road,
north of Heim Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 737 has been
prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.)
0
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Five
Jere Murphy presented this application, stating that this is a
request to allow a 10,800 square foot expansion of the existing
Pacific Telephone Equipment Building, to deviate from the required
front setback by allowing encroachment of parking into the required
area. The property contains 1.85 acres of land located on the
east side of Orange-Olive Road, approximately 160 feet north of
the centerline of Heim Avenue. It has approximately 232.6 feet
of frontage on Orange-Olive Road, an average depth of 359.6 feet.
The property is presently occupied by the Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph Company Telephone Control Office Exchange Building and
a Plant Service Center Building in the R-1-7 zone. Also adjacent
to the southwestern corner of the site is a real estate office in
the 0-P (Office-Professional) District.
Mr. Murphy pointed out that in November of 1968, the subject
property and several others around it were pre-zoned R-1-7 and
subsequently annexed to the City of Orange in December, 1968.
Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant requests approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to construct a 900 square foot basement
vault and a 9,900 square foot one-story addition to the existing
telephone exchange equi pment building. ( Reference Section
17.26.020 (A) permitting public utility buildings and structures
i n the R-1 District subject to the i ssuance of a Conditional Use
Permit). In addition, the applicant requests approval of a
Variance to allow encroachment of parking and driveway area into
the required front setback area. Details of the proposed develop-
ment are 10,800 square feet including a 900 square foot basement
cable valut and 9,900 square foot first floor addition to the
existing Tel ephone Exchange Equipment Bui 1 di ng, wi th 62 off-street
parking stalls and one two-way, 20 foot wide driveway.
Mr. Murphy stated that the proposed project meets all code require-
ments except that required for front setbacks. A variance has been
applied for requesting approval of deviation from the front setback
requirement. The applicant proposes to locate 22 parking spaces
(12 compact and 10 standard) in the front portion of the property.
Two of those spaces would encroach wi thi n the 20 foot setback up
to a distance of 6 feet to allow 2 compact parking spaces. The
Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the property as
low density residential (2-6 units per acre).
The Staff has reviewed the proposal and found that it was technically
acceptable.
Mr. Murphy pointed out that there has been a position paper provided
to the Planning Commission by residents of the area. The concerns
i n that position paper, Staff feels, are met by the conditions
stated in the Staff Report, as well as two additional conditions
which the Staff wishes to include in the list of Conditions.
Mr. Murphy explained that the plans before the Commission tonight
do not indicate the nature of the driveway that abuts the public
street to the east and for that reason the Staff has attempted to
make the co nditions more precise and also to add to them to describe
what Staff felt was the intent of the applicant and to condition the
application so that the compatibility with the neighborhood to the
east would be ensured.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings
of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 737.
Staff feels that the proposed addition to the existing telephone
exchange and equipment building will not significantly change or
impact the area since no additional employees or uses will be added.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Six
It should be mentioned that with this expansion, it appears that
the property will be utilized to its maximum capacity without ad-
versely affecting the surrounding residential area. The Staff
also feels that the mandatory findings of special circumstance
and hardship can be made to support the applicant request for
Variance 1662 for encroachment of parking into the required front
setback. The Staff feels that the unique shape or configuration of
the property can be found as a special circumstance.
C
Staff recommends approval of this application, subject to the 15
conditions set forth in the Staff Report, unique conditions being
#1 - that the 62 on-site parking spaces provide all necessary
parking for present and future utilization of the site. The intent
in that condition is that the parking provided by this plan, which
is some 62 spaces, would be adequate for any uses on the site in
the future, should there be some changes in terms of the utilization
of buildings within the project. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the
telephone company has indicated that the 62 spaces would be all
that is necessary for the number of employees which are proposed
for the facility. However, Staff wants to be assured that those
62 spaces will not only cover the present situation, but any
future modifications in terms of the utilization of those buildings,
in that there are several different types of uses on the site.
Condition #8 - That Delta Street be dedicated and improved (in-
cluding, but not limited to, sidewalks, curb, gutter and sewer
facilities) to City of Orange standards (Department of Public
Works). Mr. Murphy pointed out that there is some 12 feet of
dedication to take place on the west side of Delta Street at the
telephone company site. The improvements would be compatible with
the improvements to the north and the south of the property on the
west side of Delta. Part of the improvements would include the
setting back of the existing wall some 10 feet beyond the parkway
and lands ca ping that additional area . Mr. Murphy explained that
Staff wish es to address th i s point i n a 17th condition - that the
existing block wall adjacent to Delta Street be relocated, as shown
on the site plan, and the wall, as shown at this location, set back
10 feet from the ul timate right of way, that setback and the park-
way to be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Design Review Board,
and the block wall to be reconstructed to a height of 6 feet from
the highest side of the wall , or the highest side of the wall ,
whichever might be higher. If the elevation of the land is the
same on both sides of the wall, it would be six feet in height
exactly. Mr. Murphy pointed out that at the present time the wall
that exists at the curb 1 i ne i s 6 feet i n height on the telephone
company side and approximately 8 feet on the residential side.
There is approximately two feet of retaining in that existing wall.
The Staff would suggest that the wall be 6 feet from the higher
side so that the residents are protected with at least 6 feet of
opaque material between the telephone company property and their
tract.
R1r. Murphy then read the other special and unique conditions as
being Condition #13 - That all lighting be so directed as to
prevent direct glare of illumination onto adjacent properties
(Department of Planning and Development Services) and Condition
#14 - That all mechanical apparatus be baffled for sound and
attractively screened from view (Department of Planning and
Development Services). There is also a 16th condition proposed -
That access to Delta Street be restricted to emergency vehicles
by the provision of a gate constructed of opaque material. This
would be a gate at the point of the driveway that would be an
extension of the relocated block wall, 6 feet in height, pro-
viding visual separation between the residential tract and the
telephone company parking lot at the rear of their property.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Seven
Commissioner Coontz asked a question regarding the nature of the
employee parking, referring to Condition #1. She explained that
the reason she was asking is that the position paper addressed
to the Commission talks about heavy equipment, etc. She wondered
whether this heavy equipment is parked in that area. Mr. Murphy
explained that upon visiting the site he found only a few telephone
company vehicles on the site during the day. They are assuming
that the 62 spaces will be adequate because it means that there
will be some unused spaces in that each employee does not drive
to the site and that would allow for whatever visitor parking would
be required. He pointed out that if the Commission felt uncom-
fortable with that, they could require additional parking spaces
for visitor parking.
Commissioner Hart asked Mr. Murphy to define an interpretation of
parking requirements fora building of this size. Mr. Murphy
stated that the Staff depends upon the applicant to tell them the
maximum number of employees on the site at a particular hour, in order
to decide what the parking needs will be.
Commissioner Master asked if Staff has required a Parking Management
Plan. Mr, h1urphy replied that Staff did not require this in this
case, because of the size of this project. They felt it was not
large enough to need such a plan.
Commissioner Coontz pointed out that there is no description that
helps the Commission to understand what goes on at that plant.
Chairman Mickelson wondered if we have a grading plan. Mr. Murphy
replied in the negative. Commissioner Mickelson explained why he
asked this question, that it was stated in Condition #17 that the
existing block wall be relocated and it is shown on the site plan
10 feet from the ultimate right-of-way, that the setback be land-
scaped as required by the Design Review Board and that the wall be
6 feet from the highest grade, which sounds to him like it is on
the telephone company property. Presently with an 8 foot wall
facing the street, he would think it would be to everyone's
advantage to take up the grade differential in that 10 foot setback,
if possible, or at least most of it, so that they do not have to
have an 8 foot high wall, but it would accomplish the same thing.
Mr. Murphy thought that this could be accommodated wi thi n that
10 foot area, as well as the parkway.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
E.L. Mapes, representing the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph
Company, addressed the Commission in favor of this application.
He stated that the basic purpose of asking for an addition at this
time is because they need the addition to provide for additional
telephone growth to serve the area. Plus,in the new addition,
they will be installing the new type of electronic switching
machines and eventually, about two years from now, they will start
removing the old switching machines and cutting the customers from
the old equipment into the new equipment. The new equipment will
enhance the service being offered. What they are trying to do is
not only to expand the present telephone services to meet the needs,
but to improve them to the latest state of the arts. They are
willing to dedicate land for the new residential street and, due to
the layout and to protect their site from the neighbors, etc.,
they have agreed to set back another 10 feet and to try to hide the
site with landscaping and block walls.
With regard to their trucks and service equipment, Mr. Mapes ex-
plained that the only time that heavy vehicles should ever be on
~. the site is:
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Eight
1. When they are adding cable to the street. This would be a
temporary use only.
2. The only other time is when they are delivering equipment.
When they install this new equipment, semi-trucks will be
on the site. This is the purpose for asking fora gate in
the rear.
Mr. Mapes further explained that they are proposing not to direct
traffic out onto residential streets as an everyday occurrence,
since after their building is erected, this will cut their parking
lot down from 50% to 25% and turning of large trucks would be
very difficult, and this is the reason for asking for the gate.
In this way, their trucks could drive up beside the building, off
load the equipment and go out the back. That gate would only be
open for the time it took for the truck to go in and out.
Mr. Mapes stated that they are willing to meet all 15 conditions
stated in the Staff Report, plus meeting Condition #16 if it can
be added, besides allowing emergency vehicles, to allow them to use
it for construction vehicle access.
He explained that there are others here with him tonight who can
answer any questions which might be directed by the Commissioners.
Commissioner Coontz was interested in the nature of the vehicles
to be parked i n the employee parki ng 1 ot. Mr. Mapes replied that
occasionally there would be cable trucks in there. They would only
be there once a month or once every two months.
Upon being questioned in this regard, Mr. Mapes pointed out that
their regular hours of operation are 8 a.m, to 5 p.m.
Commissioner Hart explained that the neighbors have expressed con-
cern about the use of the back gate on a regular basis. He also
has thi s concern. What assurance can they have that this woul d
not be a regular occurrence? Mr. Mapes replied that this gate
would be normally locked and the management who would run the
telephone building would have to go out and unlock the gate to
let the truck out. Commissioner Hart felt that he would like to
see some other basis for control.
Commissioner Coontz wondered how long this construction is intended
to take place. Mr. Mapes responded that the actual building will
start in March of 1982 and be completed in November of 1982.
Commissioner Coontz then asked about possible changes to the
existing building and upgrading of equipment and was told that
actual equipment would be starting in January of 1983 and be
completed in December, 1983. So they are actually talking about
a two-year period.
Commissioner Vasquez asked how many people actually drive their
own personal vehicles and what is the volume of use in the existing
parking lots of employees who come onto the property to work. The
answer was that there will be 62 employees assigned to that par-
ticular building. They have discovered that an average of 80% of
the employees are on the site during a regular working day.
L~
Commissioner Vasquez pointed out the reaction of the audience when
the working hours of 8 a.m, to 5 p.m, were mentioned. Mr. Mapes
explained that out of the 62 people assigned there, probably 70%
work an 8 a.m. to 5 p.m, shift. The rest might come in from 7 a.m.
to 4 p.m, or 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., working some overtime.
Commissioner Coontz asked how many pieces of equipment are assigned
to parking spaces and she was told that there is no equipment as-
signed to this facility on a regular basis.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Nine
Commissioner Vasquez questioned about the construction period,
when it is said that vehicles will be on the property and they
are asking for a rear gate for the purpose of moving these heavy
vehicles around, are we talking about equipment just for con-
struction of the new facility or equipment to lay down cable
regularly?
Mr. Mapes explained that their cable trucks would not have a
problem turning around in that space. However, something such as
a 40-ft. semi-van in the parking lot would create a problem. Com-
missioner Vasquez asked if they were tiven a certain time frame
for the construction period, would this answer their needs?
Commissioner Master chose to answer somewhat for the applicant by
stating that if we are willing to put up with loss of telephone
service because a piece of equipment fails and it cannot be re-
pl aced without bringing i n a truck to do i t, the answer woul d
have to be yes. But if the public is not willing to put up with
loss of telephone service because they cannot bring in a truck
after a given date, this presents a problem.
Mr. Mapes explained that first they will have immediate construction
installing the new machine. This will be at 60% capacity. From
then on, perhaps once a year, new equipment would be brought in.
Commissioner Vasquez's understanding is that they were asking for
this access for construction, but now they are asking for access
to bring cable in later.
Commissioner Coontz felt that if a time frame is to be established
on this, they can always review it at a later time.
Commissioner Hart thought that perhaps the City could control the
use of the gate after 1983, in a manner such that they would have
to make a request to, perhaps the Police Department, to open that
gate so that they can use it for an emergency.
Commissioner Vasquez asked what the limitations are for size of
the trucks to go on Delta or other residential streets.
Mr. Johnson explained that for delivery purposes and if it were
not being used as a through traffic situation, there would
probably not be a size limitation.
Commissioner Hart was concerned that this gate could become a
convenient exit and could be a nuisance and a safety problem to
a residential area.
Commissioner Master asked if there is a standby generator on the
property and was told yes. However, it is not mounted outdoors.
Commissioner Master felt that they could come up with a parking
management plan and this could be handled by Administrative Control.
Bill Hoey, 2555 Delta Street, Orange, addressed the Commission on
behalf of all of the residents on Delta Street, speaking in opposi-
tion to this application. He handed to the Recording Secretary
a copy of a position paper, signed by all of the residents on
Delta and other interested parties . He explained that they
appreciate the Commission's accepting their position paper and
realizing their main concern with regard to the access gate. He
further explained that Delta Street, behind this building, is
1 ess than sta ndard width .
0
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Ten
Chairman Mickelson explained to him that one of the special
conditions calls for the widening of Delta Street to match the
rest of the area. Mr. Murphy explained that these improvements
would be made with the construction on site. Usually, the on-site
facilities are constructed first unless a special condition would
be put on the Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Hoey explained that the residents would request that a time
limit be placed on the improvements, hopefully within the next
12 months. They would actually like to see the improvements take
place at once. They are very concerned about the driveway, as
this appears to be open 1 icense for neglect or convenience usage.
They are also concerned that any overflow will come onto their
street.
Mr. Hoey also explained that there was mention of the large vehicles
brought into that facility. All of the neighbors have lived in
that area for 10 years or more. There is activity on the telephone
company site after dark. There is activity after midnight some-
times. There are cherry picker trucks which they see over the
8 foot wall. There are service vans parked overnight on occasion.
As far as the size of their street is concerned, even if it were
improved to the regular width, this would be a T intersection,
coming out of that driveway onto Delta Street. At the southeastern
corner of the telephone company property towards Heim Street from
the proposed driveway, there is an extremely narrow section of th e
street as it takes a corner. There are cars parked in front of the
residences there, which makes that corner even more hazardous.
There have been some near accidents at that corner because of the
inabil ity to see. With the proposed setback, they expect that the
safety factors will be improved.
Mr. Hoey pointed out that the large, heavy equipment being discussed
here certainly can be maneuvered backward with the aid of a hel per.
This should not be a problem. It is a problem if there are
vehicles parked on both sides of a narrow street.
Mr. Hoey felt that the Commission has appropriately addressed the
landscaping concerns and the buffer concerns. He stated that the
residents are absolutely against a private driveway. The turning
room in the lot is more than sufficient without the access out
onto Delta Street. This is the most pressing concern the Delta
Street residents have. They do not wish any access to Delta Street.
Mr. Hoey then explained that the residents did have one specific
smaller concern and he pointed out a concrete pad spreading out
in an 18 foot area an d nothing has been said about what is going
to be on this pad. There are houses within 5 feet of this pad.
Their concern is that perhaps there might be some air conditioning
equipment or emergency generator there. If this is to be air
conditioning machinery or any noise causing machinery, then they
need to inspect the bufferi ng conditions .
Mr. Hoey pointed out that the height of the building has not been
addressed. They would like to know how high the building will be.
They are not opposed to the construction. They feel that Pacific
Telephone has a right to develop their property. However, their
concerns should be addressed.
Chairman Mickelson asked the applicant to respond to the three
specific questions which had been brought up, namely with regard
to the purpose of the pad shown on the map, the height of the
building and the acceptance of some type of 1 imi tation on the
installing of the improvements on Delta Street.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Eleven
Leon Brooks, representing Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.,
addressed the Commission, explaining that they are as concerned
as the neighbors with regard to the problems expressed here.
They would like the facility to blend in with the neighborhood.
The gate, which seems to be in question, they would like to explain
more thoroughly. They will be in construction of the building for
only about one year. They have several gates where there is
switching equipment, but they only use one gate. They can assure
the residents that this gate will be locked at all times. If
there are any suggestions for assurance of the locked gate after
construction has been accomplished, they are open to them.
Mr. Brooks explained further that the equipment is established in-
side of the building and the neighbors will never know it is there.
Most of the time the facility is less than 75% full in the parking
lot. They anticipate vacant stalls. He didn't know of any vehicle
other than passenger vehicles during normal working hours. If
there are other types of vehicles parked i n that 1 of at night h e
can investigate this.
~"° With regard to comments about a standby engine, Mr. Brooks explained
that the only time the neighbors will hear that momentary noise is
when there is an interruption of commercial power and that is the
reason why telephone service is normally maintained when the lights
go out. If they can stand the momentary noise, they can still have
phone service.
Mr. Brooks then pointed out that the concrete pad is an areaway.
He felt that most of these concerns expressed by the neighbors
area lack of understanding. The telephone company thinks that
this is a nice neighborhood and they would like it to remain that
way.
He then explained that they plan to come back 22 feet in the set-
back. The height of the building will be the same as the building
which is presently there. That building is 16 ft. 8 inches in
height. They would continue that height back to the rear of the
lot. Mr. Brooks pointed out that by code they could have built
further back, but they did not find a need to do this. They are
only building what they need. Their buildings are dictated by
size and space of equipment.
Chairman Mickelson asked questions regarding some kind of time
limit for construction on Delta Street. Mr. Brooks explained
how they send out for contracts to do the construction. There-
fore, he could not give a specific time frame.. However, they will
do whatever they can to keep the construction time as short as
possible. He didn't know the sequence of construction.
Commissioner Hart asked a question with regard to heavy equipment
being stored at that facility. Mr. Brooks replied that their
normal. procedure would be that during the course of the day
passenger cars will be in the parking lot only. On occasion,
there will be some heavy equipment parked on the lot if there is
cable laying going on in the area. It is very difficult to tell
what other departments are doing, however.. But if there is a
problem, perhaps they can. park in front or on the side, rather
than in the parking lot. Chairman Mickelson explained that the
concern was not for occasional service vehicle parking, but
parking of those vehicles on a regular basis.
Commissioner Coontz thought that what was being said here is that
telephone company employees can park in any lot they want, if
they happen to be close to it. Mr. Brooks said that this was not
so and proceeded to explain in further detail that if there is an
operation, such as laying cable within a mile of a given central
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Twelve
office, the personnel laying the cable might speak with the
management of that office and ask permission to park in that lot
overnight. They prefer to do this rather than leaving the trucks
on a residential street.
Mr. Hoey had one more question, asking whether the facility shuts
down its operation during the period of construction. The answer
was in the negative. Mr. Hoey then wondered where the construction
workers park during the construction period. Mr. Mapes explained
that there will be only five or six installers working at one time.
The construction workers will not be working at the same time as
the instal l ers. Mr. Hoey again rei terated that the residents are
adamant about no access out to Delta Street. With regard to
landscaping, they would like to see mature landscaping used to
hide this new building, which they feel will loom up rather
massively.
Roger Christman, representing Ralph Allen & Partners, 1606 Bush
Street, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission, stating that their
intention is to provide landscaping that will be pleasing to the
residents and they will take this request into consideration.
He pointed out that during the process, they must go before the
Design Review Board and the Board will place certain restrictions
on them.
Chairman Mickelson explained how the Design Review Board works in
situations of this kind.
There being no one else to speak for or against this application,
the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Coontz pointed out Condition #16 as speaking to an
emergency access and she wondered if this was for fire and police
purposes. Mr. Murphy responded in the affirmative. He further
explained that because the applicant proposed that access to Delta
in his original plans, they never got into the discussion of the
necessity of that driveway for emergency purposes. The driveway
was there and was recognized as being a desirable element of the
plan for that reason.
Commissioner Hart stated that he would have liked to have seen a
statement by the Fire Department with regard to this access to
Delta, because he does not 1 i ke the access .
Commissioner Coontz thought that this subject could be conditioned.
Commissioner Hart conceded that obviously this driveway would be
convenient, but he did not see it as a necessity.
Commissioner Vasquez asked Staff about gates that lock, or "crash"
gates that only open for fire and police departments. Mr. Murphy
replied that a condition whereby the fire and police departments
had the keys for the access gate could be added.
Chairman Mickelson stated that the neighbors have done a fine job
of assessing the project and presenting their case. However, it
seems reasonable to him that during the construction of the building
that on some limited basis a truck delivering large equipment could
pass through the gate and on down Delta Strut. This happens in
other projects. He also felt that once or twice a year the tele-
phone company could use this gate for switching equipment. He
could see some reasonable use of that gate by the telephone company.
~ Commissioner Coontz felt that Commissioner Master's idea of a
parking management plan is a good one. It would be advantageous
to both the neighbors and the telephone company to have such a
plan. Commissioner Master explained that the plan, by general
concept, restricts all parking to employees and equipment to the
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Thirteen
site and access to Delta Street woul d be restricted. He thought
that the applicant should propose something of this nature and
take it to the Staff for their review and approval. He felt that
putting dates and times on a gate of this type could be a problem
and a nuisance.
Commissioner Master further commented that he had been involved
in construction in the past and thought that if you limit the
access to the front of the property, there could be a situation
where they could not use the parking for 25 hours and then there
would be 62 cars parked all over the neighborhood. There should
not be too much restriction placed on a situation like this.
Chairman Mickelson explained that part of his reasoning was that
if a large truck has to back onto Orange-Olive Road, it could
disrupt traffic in that area. Some reasonable access to Delta
would make sense to him.
Commissioner Hart pointed out that he had suggested earlier that
after construction is over, the access be given to the Police
Department for control. This way it would not become a through
street.
Chairman Mickelson asked Mr. Hoey if there were some type of
alternative on the access, would this be acceptable to the
residents of the area. Mr. Hoey explained that the feeling is
very strong about there being no access to Delta and they will
appeal the decision if there is one. They do not see an effective
way to control the access. It was pointed out that the Commission
denied access to a property on the corner of Heim and Orange-Olive
Road. Chairman Mickelson explained that this was a free access
driveway, not a limited access.
Commissioner Coontz pointed out that she did not think having the
Police Department be an attendant for this type of gate was a
viable solution. Commissioner Vasquez agreed.
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to
accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file
Negative Declaration 737.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1160 and Variance
1662, subject to Staff's amended recommendations, and that th e
exit on Delta Street not be allowed; also that there will be a wall
across the back on Delta Street without any opening.
It was pointed out that this would change Condition #16, which
now states that access be for emergency vehicles only and con-
structed of opaque material. The site plan on Condition #15
woul d also be changed to show thi s change.
C
Commissioner Coontz asked Commissioner Hart about the proposed
wall. In essence, during the construction period, Delta will be
used and the wall will be built after construction is completed.
This would permit access during construction. She wondered if this
is what he meant. Commissioner Hart stated that h e did not say
this, but it could be a possibility. The ultimate development
would prohibit access to Delta.
Chairman Mickelson clarified as to whether the Commission agreed
that there would be use of Delta during the construction period,
but after construction there would be no access to Delta Street.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Fourteen
Mr. Hoey again addressed the Commission on this motion. He
explained that their concern is timing. If they are talking
about a three-year period of time, this is unacceptable. They
are willing to appoint a representative to talk with Pacific
Telephone and come up with some conclusions. They would not be
opposed to some construction traffic on Delta Street. Mr. Mapes
suggested that they can live with wording such as, "...the back
gate be restricted and if it is abused it will be closed
permanently."
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Mickelson commented that he would favor some very limited
long term access to Delta Street.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1161, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 81-771 -
RIGGS:
Request to allow conversion of an existing off ice building to
condominiums on the west side of Glass ell Street, north of the
Garden Grove Freeway. (Note: This project is categorically
exempt from Environmental Review.)
Chairman Mickelson explained that since he owns property next
door to this parcel and his children also own nearby property, it
was felt that there is probably a conflict of interest. There-
fore, he turned this portion of the meeting over to Vice-Chairman
Coontz and abstained from voting on this application.
It was decided by the Commission that no presentation was needed
in this matter.
Vice-Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing.
Steven Riggs, 565 Park Avenue, Laguna Beach, the applicant,
addressed the Commission, stating that this is a pretty straight-
forward proposal. He was available to answer any questions which
the Commissioners might have.
There being no one else wishing to speak, the Vice-Chairman
closed the pub 1 i c hearing .
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1161 and Tentative
Parcel .Map 81-771 , subject to the conditions as set forth i n
the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet, for the reasons as listed by
Staff .
AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mickelson
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1162 - SEGA CENTER:
Request to allow an amusement arcade with a restaurant in "The
City shopping center. (Note: This project is categorically
exempt from Environmental Review.)
Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating
that this is a request to allow the combined use of a restaurant
integrated with an electronic amusement game center. The property
is located within The City Shopping Center and the site is zoned C-2.
The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to
allow an amusement arcade in conjunction with a restaurant within
the existing shopping center.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Fifteen
The applicant specifically proposes to develop the arcade/
restaurant within a unit near the center of the shopping mall
in Building No. 1 (Southwest Quadrant). The proposed unit would
encompass what is now occupied by the Post Office and a portion
of the Christmas Store. 9,830 square feet of floor area is
proposed to be utilized.
Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that the facility would generally be
separated into the restaurant which would consist of the kitchen,
serving area, and dining rooms, as well as a two level game area
which would accommodate approximately 90 amusement devices. Access
would be available into the facility both from the Mall, as well as
directly from the outside. Hours of operation will generally
exceed those of the Mall.
Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Police and Fire Departments
indicated concerns relating to juvenile problems and fire code
(occupancy and access) problems, respectively. It was decided,
however, that these problems can be mitigated with appropriate
conditions of approval.
It is Staff's opinion that, with appropriate conditioning, the
proposed site is acceptable for three reasons:
1. The site is not located in proximity to a school so as to
promote truancy problems.
2. The specific location is centralized within the Shopping
Mall thereby discouraging loitering because of the volume
of pedestrian traffic passing through the area.
3. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land use and
zoning.
Therefore, Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit
1162, subject to the seven conditions set forth in the Staff
Report.
Commissioner Coontz asked a question regarding Condition #7,
wondering why the Commission must approve the floor plan.
Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the main concern is that the restaurant
and amusement arcade are compatible. This condition was a police
and fire department suggestion.
Commissioner Coontz pointed out that in essence the Commission is
reaffirming their decisions. The answer was in the affirmative.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
Robert Kupik, representing Sega Enterprises, Inc., dba P.J. Pizzazz,
2029 Century Park East, addressed the Commission in favor of this
application. He did not have anything further to add to the Staff
Report and stated that he would answer any questions the Com-
missioners might have.
Commissioner Vasquez stated that he had some concerns reaarding
arcades within malls because they cause substantial problems in
various areas. He wondered if, under this concept, a person would
be able to go in and use the arcades without patronizing the food
establishment. Mr. Kupik replied in the affiraative, explaining
that people can come in and just have food and not play the games
or play the games and not have food. However, the establishment
would hope that people will do both.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 198 1
Page Sixteen
Regarding the success of amusement arcades in malls, they have
been operating this type of facilities for over five years with
little or no problems. They are operating in major malls, such
as Westminster, Cerritos, etc. They feel that they are first class
operators of facilities of this type and he explained how their em-
ployees operate. He also explained that they operate with tokens.
The operation is family oriented, no smoking, no drinking, no foul
language and somewhat of a dress code.
Commissioner Master pointed out that the City of Orange is not the
only city that has problems with these types of establishments.
He asked for clarification with regard to the statement of the
applicant that the majority of revenues would come from food. Mr.
Kupik explained that they are currently operating one unit of the
same nature as the proposed establishment, which is located in
West Covina. They are operating a P.J. Pizzazz unit which this
unit will be pretty much duplicating. In that unit the majority
of the revenues are coming from the food and beverages. That unit
has approximately 90 machines in the game area. He further ex-
plained that in this unit they plan for about 80 games and would
provide about 175 seats in the restaurant area.
Commissioner Hart asked Commissioner Vasquez whether the areas
which he had referred to were unattended, that he was aware of.
Commissioner Vasquez replied that there were some that were un-
attended and after problems had arisen, they had a security guard.
Commissioner Vasquez pointed out another operation on the east side
of Orange near the Wild West Store, which was strictly an arcade
and they had a lot of problems there.
Commissioner Coontz wondered about whether there have been any
problems in the Sears basement arcade. Staff replied that there
were no problems at this time.
Commissioner Coontz pointed out the floor plan, which shows the
restaurant areas and machine areas, stating that perhaps eventually
the machines might take over. The applicant explained that this is
not their intention. They will have full food service and expect
to keep it that way.
Commissioner P~ickelson explained that only minor modifications could
be made to the floor plan being accepted at this time. Major
modifications would have to be submitted for further approval.
The applicant explained that they would expect to have probably
15 people working during their busy time in the evening around
dinnertime. They would have full time people, both in the food
area and in the games area, at all times during the day. He further
stated that they have read all of the conditions and accept them.
Commissioner Vasquez asked about the hours that they will be
operating. He wondered where their clientele would come from after
the Mall closes. Mr. Kupik explained that they would have outside
entrances leading directly to the parking lot and they would hope
to draw from the theatres in the Mall and people who want to come
in for a pizza. Commissioner Vasquez asked where the theatre
exits are located.
John Phelps, who handles the leasing in The City Shopping Center,
addressed the Commission at this time, explaining that the theatres
exit into the Mall, except for the last show, which exits directly
outside to the parking lot.
Commissioner Vasquez wondered what kind of control would be used as
far as where the people enter and exit. It was explained that when
the Mall is closed, access will only be through the outer exit. No
one would be allowed to exit into the Mall after it is closed.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Seventeen
~€ Mr. Kupik also pointed out that if the clientele is not there
they will not remain open. The hours which have been mentioned
are their maximum hours, but they are flexible.
Mr. Phelps added that The City Shopping Center has always wanted
to expand their entertainment center in the Mall. This would go
along with their thinking. They have been impressed with the P.J.
Pizzazz operation in other areas and that is why they would like
to see this come into The City.
Commissioner Vasquez asked Staff to explain with regard to the 90
proposed amusement games. How does this compare in volume with
anything else in the City of Orange? Mr. Murphy explained that
the basement of Sears would be the next largest with 20-30 machines.
The Skateboard Park had this many machines also before it shut down.
There being no one else wishing to speak for or against this ap-
plication, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissi~aner Hart commented that Condition #4, stating "to be
reviewed periodically" was rather vague and said that he would
like to see it read "within one year". Commissioner Coontz felt
that "during the calendar year" would be sufficient. There was
discussion among the Commissioners with regard to the type of
wording which would be appropriate in this condition.
Commissioner Coontz suggested that it read, "a report be submitted
to the Commission."
Chairman Mickelson commented that during the past few months there
has been a committee involved in the preparation of an ordinance
which has led to a Conditional Use Permit for an arcade with "X"
number of games. This gives the Police Department an opportunity
to very carefully review this type of application before it is
submitted to the Commission. He thought that with the careful
review by the Police Department and perhaps some better wording in
the Conditions, he would be inclined to support the Staff with the
confidence that the Police Department has carefully reviewed. He
did not see any problem with coming back to the Commission with a
periodic report.
Mr. Murphy felt that Staff has no problem with a one year time limit.
There was further discussion among the Commissioners with regard to
a time limit. All supported the concept of a periodic report.
This would be just a status report by Staff.
f~ioved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to
approve. Conditional Use Permit 1162, subject to the conditions as
shown on the Staff Report and that Condition #4 be amended to read:
"...Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed six months after
opening...".
Chairman Mickelson suggested that further wording could be:
" ..This Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed periodically by
the Police Department, with a report to the Planning Commission
six months after it has opened." This wording was accepted by
Commissioner Hart.
Commissioner Vasquez commented that the concept seems to be a good
one and he hoped that the applicant would make a great effort to
adhere to the conditions set forth here. The city would like to
avoid problems in this area.
Commissioner Coontz commented that there are a lot of juvenile and
police problems in general in malls and this type of operation is
not the only factor.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Eighteen
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson,
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none
IN RE:
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez
MOTION CARRIED
STAFF REPORT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING/BONUS DENSITY CRITERIA
AND REGULATIONS.
Mr. Murphy explained that the Staff has attempted to respond to
the comments by the Commission on the original October 8th memo,
made at their study session on October 12th, and have prepared
changes as a response to the Commission's direction in the
October 28th memo before the Commission at this time.
Commissioner Coontz pointed out Item B, under Criteria, asking
whether the word "combined" is a typographical error and should
read, "continued". Mr. Murphy agreed that this was indeed a
typo.
Commissioner Hart commented that the timing element has shrunk
smaller and smaller. He pointed out that they had started out
with eleven years, then dropped to seven years and now he sees
that it has gotten down to five. He felt that continued
availability should be more than five years. Commissioner
Mickelson explained that this number was just chosen for the
purpose of writing the memorandum. However, he had hoped that
it would be kept open to the possibility of challenging that number
or even writing a minority report. He said that he might even join
in writing the minority report if Commissioner Hart were convincing
enough. Commissioner Hart stated that he recognized that somewhere
around five years will be the number, but he did not think it is
enough. He wished to state for the record that he did not think
that five years is a safe number for continued availability.
Chairman P~lickelson agreed with Commissioner Hart's statement, unless
the statement could be followed by: "...Applicants are encouraged
to design a less expensive unit as the affordable product so that
it will remain a less expensive unit when it reaches the open
market place..." Commissioner Hart felt that this would be the
ideal way to handle the problem. Then there would not have to be
a control on it. However, that is not going to happen.
Commissioner Master brought up the wording in the original draft
regarding "the City's median income". He wondered if we are asking
fora new census analysis or are we going to take the County's?
Mr. Murphy replied that we would use the 1980 census and extrapolate
from that. Chairman Mickelson wondered if the city's median income
would be slightly above the county's median income. There was dis-
cussion in this regard. Commissioner Vasquez said that Chapman
College could provide some good information to the City of Orange
on this subject, as they are working in this area of study.
Commissioner Coontz spoke with regard to Item "E" - Infrastructure
Capacity -and wondered if the Staff has a check list or what with
regard to the availability of adequate public services and facilities.
This seems too loose. In E and in B we are not saying much more
than what was sent to us. The words do not convey enough to make
her comfortable that we are doing anything at all.
Chairman Mickelson did not feel that strongly about this, particular-
ly now that they have a Conditional Use Permit. That is a dis-
cretionary permit, which means that the environmental analysis is
done and it would depend on the project. The way he saw it, if it
was 100 units, there would automatically be an EIR, if it was 5
units, perhaps not. He thought that when the Staff gets the applica-
tion, they take a look at it and if they are not sure, they ask the
applicant to provide more information.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Nineteen
Commissioner Coontz felt that it is the substantiation of that
information that we should be concerned about. She pointed out
the area of Speculation Control, wherein Staff has no experience
to fall back on in judging these applications. Mr. Murphy said
that this would be one of the most difficult areas for Staff to
control, because of their lack of experience in this area.
Commissioner Hart felt that if there is a trouble spot, there
are other areas where they can go for answers. Mr. Murphy pointed
out that it will probably take longer to prepare a Staff Report in
this kind of application because of the lengthy discussions with
County EMA and Housing Authority staff required in order to fully
understand and condition the application.
Chairman Mickelson thought that the guidelines could be amended
later on if there is a need.
Chairman Mickelson then spoke with regard to Item "F" -
Development Standards Deviation, stating that he would like to see
this worded more softly. He thought it could be stated, "... limited
income people who may not possess the same number of vehicles per
household as higher income people."
Chairman Mickelson felt, after the discussion of this evening, that
the report is now ready to be passed on to the City Council.
Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to
pass this report on to the City Council, with the recommended
criteria.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
COMMITTEES UPON WHICH THE PLANNING COMP~ISSIONERS SERVE:
Ainsworth Historical Housing Committee - Joanne Coontz, Co-Vice-
Chairman of Executive Committee, David Hart, Member of Committee.
Commissioner Hart pointed out that the Ainsworth Historical House
is winding down. He explained that there will be a permanent
commission for administrating the Ainsworth House. The group
working now are the planning group, but this permanent committee
will be the governing body. He said that he is not particularly
interested in being on that committee. This planning committee
will probably die and Commissioner Hart has voiced to the Mayor
that he is not interested in serving further in this area.
Beautification Awards - Don Ault
Economic Development & Planning - Don Ault
It was pointed out that these two committees are out. No further
need to appoint Commissioners to these committees.
Old Towne Steering Committee - David Hart (Alternate Joanne Coontz) -
Commissioner Coontz wanted to step out as the alternate because
she di d not feel there i s a .need for one. She thought that there
should only be one person on each committee. There is no purpose
for having an alternate.
Transportation Systems Improvement Program - Joint Planning
Review Committee - David Hart and Bob Mickelson -
Commissioner Master asked for an explanation of the purpose of
this committee. Chairman Mickelson explained that this is the
committee that was formed as a result of the Continental Cities
request and the City of Santa Ana's lawsuit, etc. and there is a
committee of two Commissioners from Orange and two Commissioners
from Santa Ana, a staff member or two from each city, an attorney
from each city, etc. So far, they have had no meetings. Com-
missioner Mickelson thought that as long as he and Commissioner
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Twenty
Hart had never attended any meetings and they wanted two Com-
missioners on the committee, maybe we should just leave it the
way it is until they can report back that something has been
accomplished. He wondered if this was acceptable to everyone.
This seemed to be acceptable.
Chairman Nickelson then explained that there is an East Orange
Committee that was formed to meet with the Irving Company, con-
sisting of Councilman Perez and Councilman Beyer, together with
Commissioners Mickelson and Coontz, plus a few others. There have
been at least two meetings. Along with the information which the
Commission received at the Joint Session, Chairman Mickelson
thought that it was quite clear that the Irvine Company is taking
another look at the east area in light of a potential airport or
two.
Commissioner Vasquez reported on a meeting which he had recently
attended with several of the Irvine Company executives present.
He stated that they were basically given a philosophical overview
of the company as it is now owned and that they are studying key
issues like affordable housing. Some development in Orange was
mentioned several times. Some of the general discussions were
the airport and the indication was that if that site is confirmed
as the SCAG people indicated in their work session, that would
change the whole direction of their concepts for development out
there.
Commissioner Vasquez pointed out that they also discussed affordable
housing and water, etc. However, these were very general.
Commissioner Hart stated that he would like to see our members push
the Irvine Company for more information. Commissioner Mickelson
explained that this is what they have done. Commissioner Coontz
felt that the problem is not at the Planning Commission level.
There are also questions which the City Council must tackle. She
felt that the entire Planning Commission should be more involved
and more educated as to what will happen to the east. She felt
that the entire Commission is concerned about this.
Commissioner Hart wondered if it would be possible to send a
resolution to the City Council in the form of a letter from this
Commission, asking that a progress report be given to the Commission
on the Irvine Company plans for that eastern area.
Commissioner Coontz felt that two members of the Commission is not
enough. She thought that each one of the Commission members wants
to know what is happening in this area. We need to tell the Council
that we would like a series of study sessions and we want a direction
from them as to what items we should study.
Commissioner Hart htought that possibly the Commission should re-
quest permission to ask for a session with the Irvine Company.
Commissioner Master pointed out that Orange's neighbors to the north
and the west are not taking as passive an attitude as we are.
Commissioner Coontz thought that what the Commission got was just
an overview and they need more in-depth information.
Commissioner Vasquez felt that prior to doing this, he would not
like to be part of an action that would fringe on defiance of the
Council. During the work session, he got the definite impression
that the Design Review Board is in better communication, as far
as their philosophy and understanding is concerned, with the Council.
He thought that maybe it would be appropriate and imperative that
there be dialogue with the Council first.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page Twenty-One
Commissioner Coontz agreed that
with the Counci 1 . We woul d 1 i ke
fore us at the joint session.
the Commission should communicate
to develop what was brought be-
Commissioner Vasquez was concerned as to how we would extract
information from a large company who chooses not to share what
they have on the drawing board,
Commissioner Coontz thought that the Commission could study the
worst case. The Irvine Company would not have to make th e
presentation, there are certainly enough people working on the
problem that could give input,
Commissioner Hart .pointed out that the Commission had a preliminary
presentation by the Irvine Company. Everyone was not happy with what
was presented, but if they took that plan and overlaid it with some-
thing that was more suitable, that might put them in a position to
have to react to what the Commission has done.
Commissioner Coontz thought that perhaps the Commission could send
a complimentary note to the Council regarding the joint session
and ask for more of this kind of interaction. Irvine Company did
not have to be mentioned. She felt that we have good information,
but we need more. The Chairman could then talk to the City Manager.
Mr. Murphy thought that this would be the best solution, for the
Chairman to talk to either the City Manager or the Mayor, and
encourage them to ask more questions of the Irvine Company in
greater depth.
Commissioner Coontz thought that this should be in a formal note.
Chairman Mickelson was concerned about making a formal communica-
tion to the Council. He felt that there was a message in their
questions that were asked during the joint session, that the
Council was saying that they have let the Irvine Company know
where we stand. He felt that any hint of this type of thing
could be embarrassing for the Council.
Commissioner Coontz thought that a written record is a basis for
conversation. Chairman Mickelson asked for a draft of a letter
such as has been suggested to be written by Mr. Murphy and pre-
sented at the next meeting.
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to
give Chairman Mickelson the discretion of working with the Staff
on a letter to the City Council, thanking them for inviting the
Commission to the joint session meeting and suggesting that we
have some in depth discussions on some of the issues raised.
Commissioner Vasquez agreed with Commissioner Mickelson's position
that the matter should be handled with discretion.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
ABSENT: Commissioners none
A work session is scheduled for Monday, November 9, 1981 at
5:15 p.m, Chairman Mickelson asked that the Commissioners read
over the guidelines and be prepared to discuss them at the end
of the work session.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m., to be reconvened to a
regular meeting on Monday, November 16, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. at
the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue,
Orange, California.
u
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS ~ OF ADJOURNME~;T
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 2, 1981; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the
time and place specified in the Order of Adjournment attached hereto;
that on November 3, 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.
~~~
EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE. ORANGE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 2, 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: None
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, that this
meeting adjourn at 11:05 p.m. on Monday, November 2, 1981 to reconvene
at 7:30 p.m. Monday, November 16, 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 2, 1981.
Dated this 3rd day of November, 1981 at 2:00 p.m.
e P, Murphy, City Planner ana
retary to the P1 a nni ng Commission
the City of Orange.
U