Loading...
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