Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 - February 20 Planning Commission Minutes GaoDo.G.~~3 February 20,2008 1 of 11 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange 20 February 2008 Wednesday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Imboden, Merino; and Steiner Commissioners Bonina and Whitaker STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner David De Berry, City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:30 p.m. City Attorney, David De Berry would be available for questions as Mr. Sheatz was attending the DRC meeting. Chair Steiner opened the session with a review of the Agenda. Continued Item: Item #1, Chapman RV #4: The applicant had requested a continuance to the March 3,2008 meeting. Consent Calendar: Item #2, Approval of the January 21,2008 minutes. No changes or corrections noted. New Hearing: Item #3, East Orange Planned Community Area 2: Commissioners would have questions on the item. Anne Fox would be presenting the project. Other Business: Commissioner Merino asked if there was a requirement for the Commissioners to disclose when they had visited a project site? City Attorney De Berry stated it was important to note whenever a site was visited and important not to make a decision based on what they saw at the site prior to the hearing. Commissioner Merino stated it was important to bring up if they had visited the site and they could base their question on what they had seen. Chair Steiner stated if they proceeded to make a motion on the East Orange project the maker of the motion should draw on the last phrase, above the recommended action line to include the CEQA language. Page 1 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 20,2008 2 of 11 Mr. Knight stated on April 1, 2008 a CIP budget meeting was being held at 5:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room. If 3 or more of the Commissioners would be attending at the March 17,2008 Planning Commission meeting they would adjourn to the April 1 meeting. Administrative Session closed @ 6:40 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: (1) MAJOR SITE PLAN NO. 0405-05; MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1790-07; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2554-05; VARIANCE NO. 2173-07 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4220- 07-CHAPMAN RV #4 The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission continue the item to the March 3, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Steiner opened the hearing to Public Comment. The following speakers deferred their comments to the March 3, 2008 hearing: . Sam Miller, 1444 E. Chestnut Ave, Orange . Ennis Teske, 1022 E. Chestnut Ave, Orange . Larry Honikel, 1600 N. Maplewood, Orange . Wayne Millard, 1138 E. Chestnut Ave, Orange Ed Mowbray, 1010 E. Chestnut Ave, Orange, stated he was protesting the change of date. He was an old navy veteran from WWII, and he did not know if the audience was familiar with the fact that 1100 former WWII OJ's die each day. If the item was postponed he might not be around for the proposed hearing. Chair Steiner closed the public hearing and opened the item to discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Merino stated he would not be supporting the continuance. He believed the information and issues that were presented previously were sufficient for him to render a decision and he was not in support of a continuance. Referring to the December 17, 2007 meeting minutes that the project design was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, there were not sufficient mitigation measures at the time, and the CUP that would be provided had to be considered for its effect on the community and the neighborhood that the project was located in. He did not feel the project would be a benefit to the neighborhood. Commissioner Imboden made a motion to continue to a date certain of March 3, 2008 Major Site Plan No. 0405-05; Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1790-07; Conditional Use Permit No. 2554-05: Variance No. 2173-07 and Design Review Committee No. 4220-07-Chapman RV #4. Page 2 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2008 3 of 11 Chair Steiner stated there would not be re-noticing on the project. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Chair Steiner Commissioners Imboden, and Steiner Commissioner Merino None Commissioners Bonina and Whitaker MOTION CARRIED CONSENT ITEM (2) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 21, 2008. Commissioner Imboden made a motion to approve the January 21, 2008 minutes as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioners Bonina and Whitaker MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS (3) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 0022-07 (TTM 17185) AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4266-07-IRVINE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LOCATED NORTH OF SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD, EAST OF IRVINE LAKE (EAST ORANGE PLANNED COMMUNITY AREA 2) A proposal to subdivide approximately 785 acres into 604 numbered and 198 lettered lots to primarily provide building sites that would accommodate a maximum of 1,200 residential dwelling units. The proposal also includes tract-wide improvements to provide a graded site with landscaping, trails, fencing, roadways, controlled access gate, fuel modification areas and open space. LOCATION: NOTE: North of Santiago Canyon, East of Irvine Lake No new Environmental Document Required: City Council Resolution No. 10018 was adopted on November 8, 2005 certifying Final supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 1278/Environmental Impact Report No. 1716 (Final SEIR 1278/EIR 1716), SCH#1988110905, and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Santiago Hills II and East Orange Planned Community (EOPC). Final SEIR 1278/EIR 1716 was prepared at Page 3 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 20,2008 4 of 11 the Program EIR level for Areas 2 and 3 of the EOPC. In conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4), the City used a written checklistlinitial study to determine whether the environmental effects of the proposed project were covered in the Program portion of Final SEIR 1278/EIR 1716. The City finds that pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, no new effects will occur and no new mitigation measures are required; therefore, the City finds that the proposed project is within the scope of the Project covered in the Program portion of Final SEIR 1278/EIR 1716, and no new environmental document is required. As required State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168( e), notification was included in all public hearing notices that the proposed project is within the scope of the Program portion of Final SEIR 1278/EIR 1716 approved earlier; and that Final SEIR 1278/EIR 1716 adequately described the proposed project for the purposes of CEQA. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 09-08 recommending approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map no. 0022-07 (TTM 187185) and Design Review Committee No. 4255-07 to allow the subdivision of 785 acres for the residential development of up to 1,200 dwelling units, including associated tract-wide improvements on property located on the north side of Santiago Canyon Road, East of Irvine Lake- East Orange Planned Community Area Contract Staff Planner, Anne Fox provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff, there were none. Chair Steiner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Dan Miller, representing the Irvine Company, address on file, stated it had been approximately two years since they had been before the Planning Commission. He was presenting the Tentative Tract Map for Area 2, this was the last component of the Santiago Hills II and East Orange Planned Community. In 2005 after many public hearings and meetings, the Planning Commission and City Council unanimously approved the Santiago Hills II and East Orange Planned Community, the General Plan Amendment, Zoning, Run-Off Management Plan, Design Review Guidelines and more importantly the Comprehensive Development Agreement that outlined the public benefits from the East Orange project. Included was a very comprehensive Environmental Impact Report that was certified by the Planning Commission and City Council, the EIR contained over 230 mitigation requirements for the entire 4,000 unit planning project. Page 4 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 20,2008 5 of 11 Mr. Miller stated one of the things he wanted to point out was when they put together the overall East Orange Planned Community they had certain objectives that they focused on for each of the areas. On the Tract Map for Area 2, they included objectives that were important to the community, Planning Commission and City Council. One was the implementation of the policies, development standards, project design features and mitigation measures that were approved by the City of Orange in 2005. The other was to limit development, which the map reflected. They also wanted to preserve the natural features and native open space that were identified in the EIR. The Irvine Company had remained consistent with those documents. Another concern was to preserve the oak filled arroyos adjacent to Santiago Canyon Road, and that was consistent with what had been presented in 2005. The plan included creating residential neighborhoods that were respectful of the adjacent natural environment, and they would be presenting information to show how that would be carried out. The project incorporated landscape that used predominantly oaks, sycamores and other native and indigenous plant species that blended the residential areas with the natural areas and minimized water usage and irrigation run-off, an issue that had been debated and discussed and the tract map would reflect the plan. Mr. Miller stated the plan included a design for the easterly residential neighborhoods to protect the views from Silverado and Baker Canyons. The tract map was consistent in protecting those areas. The best management practices would be included to protect the water quality of Irvine Lake. They provided fuel modification zones, access points, emergency water supplies and architectural features to allow the residential areas to be fully protected from potential fires. A fire master plan was completed and approved by the City of Orange Fire Department. A comprehensive trail system was included for pedestrian use, off-road bicycling and equestrian use with connection to County trails. Mr. Miller stated lastly the East Orange Development Agreement would be implementing a contract between the Irvine Company and the City of Orange that they provide certain benefits in exchange for developing projects and residential units. Roger McErlane, representative of the Irvine Company, address on file, came forward to outline the PowerPoint presentation. He stated the location of the project was in the northern area of Irvine Ranch and within the sphere of the City of Orange, surrounded by open space of many types. The open space included State and County parkland, as well as private open space. The Irvine Ranch Reserve played a very important role in defining the boundaries of the project, including the master plan of East Orange. The original diagrams showed there was a certain attribute in all of their developments; each zone had an opportunity based on the site that defined the quality of each area differently and distinctively. When built, there would be separate villages, which would be a collection of developments of East Orange. The Santiago II project had the presence of lower Peters Canyon open space and water system and the wetland system was extended through the southern portion of Santiago II. The hilltop was reserved as an important visual landmark. There was interface with Irvine Park, which was also an important aspect of the project. Page 5 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2008 6 of 11 Mr. McErlane stated Area 2 was a shelf of land and was the most distinctive site with the presence of limestone creek, arroyos and oak trees. It gave a backdrop of the open space and the potential for a golf course site with the surrounding open space that defined the boundary. Limestone Creek added a scenic amenity, both to Santiago Road and the development. The creek environment and the arroyos were factors in deciding the ultimate plan. Mr. McErlane pointed out specific areas throughout his presentation. He stated the sensitivity of the zone lent to the specific architectural product, made up of detached cluster housing. It was designated to place housing on the ridges to look attractive and natural. Traditional lots were placed in the higher elevations where they would adjust to grading. The plan included traditional lots, single-family detached clusters and an attached zone that looked over the peninsula to the lake. The renderings he presented were of various architectural styles that included Spanish, Monterey, Craftsman, Cottage and California Ranch style homes. The architectural styles would be placed in various areas that were included in their design guidelines. Mr. McErlane stated the point of access included a loop access road, and a public road that ran along the back of the project to the lake and a future golf course site. The trail plan that reinforced the regional trail system ran throughout the open space. The equestrian and hiking trail ran off-road along Santiago Canyon Road and through the development's point of entrance and along the limestone creek system. There was also a pedestrian and bike trail that moved along the projects loop road. Mr. McErlane stated the fuel modification plan was a very important component to the project. There was a 170' zone that ran along the edge of the project and the open space. The zone was composed of a wet zone, irrigated zone, and a thinning zone. The concept was as a fire burned it would hit the thinning zone reduce the fuel load, hit another thinning zone and ultimately extinguish itself without further fuel. He presented a photograph taken after the recent fire in Portola Springs that had a fuel modification zone in place. It would be the same system as they proposed on the East Orange project. The Fire Department was pleased with the system. In general, the landscape would incorporate native plant species and indigenous species that would be conducive to the natural look, be water responsible and fit into the fuel modification requirement. He pointed out site sections, which included landscape and set backs that would be included in the project. Mr. Miller stated DRC had reviewed and approved the tract map that was being presented. They had reviewed the Staff Report and the 130 conditions of approval and they were in agreement with it. Representatives of the applicant's design team were available to answer specific questions regarding the tract map. In 2005, even though the project was at a program level, the same detail had been presented to the community and City. He and his team were now formalizing a tract map that was consistent with what had been reviewed and approved in late 2005. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any further questions to the applicant. Page 6 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2008 7 of 11 Commissioner Merino asked the applicant, regarding accessibility to the trail system, once the residential areas were developed, could they assure the community that the trail system would remain accessible? Mr. Miller stated there had been a lot of discussion regarding that issue. The role of the Homeowners Association would be to provide access to those public trails. They had spent time looking at the CC & Rs to insure the trails would continue to be public. The applicant had done their best. A Homeowners Association could always try to change the accessibility, however, he felt confident that there were adequate conditions in how the CC & Rs would be written that would not allow them to prevent access to those trails. Commissioner Merino asked Staff if they felt confident with the conditions proposed that the trails would remain open to public access? Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director, stated the project included several conditions, one that stated the final map would show the trails being marked as public trails if that would be the case. There was a requirement in the tract map that the CC & Rs acknowledge trails and maintain their accessibility to the public. In reviewing the map Staff had taken great care in reviewing each section that the public, upon approaching a trail access, felt that they were not entering a gated community access, and the trails were designed with a wide open feel and encouraged accessibility. The conditions included in the tract map, from a legal standpoint, covered that issue. Mr. Miller stated if the trails were a regional trail there was an easement to the County. They had previous experience on a project in Shady Canyon, a gated community in Irvine. It had included public trails that ran through the community and they had not experienced any problems with access there. Commissioner Merino asked the Fire Department representative to comment on the fire safety aspect of the project. Captain MacDonald stated regarding the fire history in the City of Orange there were significant concerns with the intensity and pattern of fires that had blown in from the east. The Fire Department took that into account in looking at their fire prevention requirements for the City. Specifically, the fuel modification program that was in place today was a culmination of many years of evolving fuel modification plans. The requirements in place effectively had a great track record in stopping a fire prior to the fire reaching a development. He agreed with the applicant's explanation of the fuel modification plan and added, in the recent fires in Southern California, they had experienced how the fuel modification plan worked. In Serrano Heights they had fires that had come very close to residential areas and the fuel modification did its job and they were pleased with that. There were components to the fuel modification program for implementation important to the Fire Department: (I) There would be a consultant retained to prepare the fuel modification plan and the Fire Department would choose that consultant, not the developer. For the Page 7 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 20,2008 8 of 11 project, they had chosen a consultant, it was someone they had worked with in the past and they were very pleased with his work (2) The plan would be in place prior to any development beginning. The Fire Department and the developer would be very clear on the expectations on what was required. That had been completed. (3) Once installation was complete there would be a maintenance plan for the fuel modification areas. He felt confident that there would be successful maintenance in the proposed neighborhoods. Commissioner Merino stated there had been discussion about evacuation access and there were two primary access points for the development. He asked if the Fire Department foresaw any problem with those access points becoming choke points in an evacuation? Captain MacDonald stated the key was the fuel modification plan and the building requirements. The issue of traffic and evacuation was variable and he was satisfied with the plan. Chair Steiner opened the public hearing. Scott Breeden, P.O. Box 663, Silverado, stated he did not want to duplicate what another speaker might say and he deferred his statements to the next speaker. Frank Angel, representing the Sierra Club, 2601 Ocean Park Blvd, stated in a challenge to the program EIR on the overall project, he had not been notified of the project and he had received a massive document for review just a few days before the hearing. Hopefully the Planning Commission would take more time than one brief hearing for the massive project being presented. He wanted time to submit a written response and also allow his experts to review the tentative tract map. As a preliminary comment Staff and the EIR consultant had pointed out to the decision makers and the citizens that the EIR certified in 2005 was a program EIR as far as EOPC2 was concerned. He understood that here would be detailed environmental information about the site specific project when the site specific project came up. The site specific project was being presented and there was no further detailed environmental information, there was not a supplemental report or subsequent EIR. That was wrong, it was wrong to tell the public not to worry, don't ask questions about details that could not be provided as they would get all of that at the tentative tract map stage. They were now at the tentative tract map stage and they were being told that the old EIR was taking care of the project - that did not work. Since 2005 there had been some significant new information and changes in circumstances. Currently every EIR for a major project of this nature looked at green house gas emissions; the old EIR could not be used. There was no information regarding direct or cumulative contribution on green house gas emissions. That needed to be accessed; it needed to be included in a subsequent EIR among other things. He would provide further written comments. Peter Wetzel, 7217 E. La Cumbre, stated he neither approved nor opposed the project as he had questions. During discussions in 2005 there were concerns over the accuracy of projections made in the EIR. In the minutes of the November 8, 2005 City Council meeting in response to those concerns the City directed Staff to negotiate a means to Page 8 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2008 9 of 11 verify the accuracy of traffic and fiscal projections during a midpoint in the development process to insure the effectiveness of mitigation for those impacts. His question was where was the midpoint? They moved from a program level to a tract map level and were they past the midpoint where they could access the effectiveness of the projections and mitigation measures, and still have time for correction. At some point down the road it would be too late to make any changes and they would be stuck with what they had whether the projections were met or not. He asked, regarding the trail systems, the applicant had stated eventually one would be able to ride from the development to Black Star Canyon; he did not see that represented on the map and was that commitment fulfilled? Dave De Berry, City Attorney, asked if the Chair wanted the applicant to come forward to address any of the concerns presented through public comment? Chair Steiner asked the applicant if the applicant wished to respond? Mr. Miller stated in reference to the question posed by Mr. Wetzel, during the time of discussion referencing mid-point of the development, the mid-point referred to half of the homes being built and occupied. Once they entered development of Area 1 they would go back and access the actual traffic. It was not mid-point of the planning process. Brian Austin, representing the Irvine Company, address on file, stated there had been discussion with the County Trail Advisory Committee and trail user groups that Mr. Wetzel had participated in. They would be implementing a portion of the trail system and providing connection to potential trails outside of the tentative map area. He pointed out in 2005 the trail system approved included the off-street bike and equestrian trail that went across Santiago Canyon utilizing an existing ranch road. The bike trail continued on and would connect to a future trail along Jeffrey Road and connected through Limestone Meadow and to an existing ranch road. There would be a conhector that was part of the Irvine Ranch Land Reserve and an off-road bikeway that would connect to bike lanes along Santiago Canyon Road. They had added a trail that would go to the termination of the cul-de-sac, which would access to the golf course, which was not required in the 2005 approval; it was an additional trail and would provide future connections to other trail systems. The trail Mr. Wetzel referred to was not on the tentative map, however, all the trails that they had promised and more were included. Chris Garrett, legal council for the Irvine Co., stated there was information included in their documents that addressed the project in great detail. Mr. Angel commented that he had received a great deal of material and when he looked through it he would find the detail environmental information. The reason a new EIR was not prepared was the fact that the project was the same project that had been previously presented. It included the same graded areas, the same fire protection measures, the same number of units, and the same traffic. The environmental statutes and guidelines provided when a detailed EIR was provided it was looked at with any subsequent activity, to review if the project had changed and if there were any new impacts. Their project was the same project and all the detailed information was provided. All along the project provided for development of the area and once Mr. Angel reviewed the documents he would see that. In regard to green house gases, there was not a detailed study in the EIR. That would not be Page 9 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2008 10 of 11 considered new information that was known 2 years ago. The courts in California had made it clear that green house gas issues would be looked at only when reviewing new information. Certainly, if the concerns of green house gases and global warming were known two years ago when the EIR had been prepared it could have been included. The basic answer would be that the project would help people reduce their carbon footprint. There was nothing about the project that would cause people who moved there to increase their green house gas emissions during their normal activity. With California's stringent building codes, the homes being proposed would be much more energy efficient and with the water efficiency plans the average water use for landscaping would be much less. Mr. Garrett felt confident that there was no need for a new EIR and they were very proud as a company to provide energy efficient homes that helped to reduce the carbon footprint in the same manner as hybrid cars were helping the environment. The EIR had been available for review for the last two years and there were no new surprises or information. The City had sent out proper notices: Mr. Miller stated the project would also include the addition of thousands of trees to the area. Regarding notification they had gone well beyond the requirement and sent the notice to everyone that had been involved in previous hearings, which included the entire East Orange Sierra Club Task Force. . Chair Steiner asked Staff if the project had been noticed in the newspaper? Ms. Fox stated yes it was noticed in the paper. A courtesy notice had been sent out 30 days prior to the hearing to all interested parties along with a posting on the City website. The City had received approximately 12 notices back as undeliverable. Chair Steiner asked in describing the notice as a courtesy notice was this a non-mandated notice? Ms. Fox stated yes that was correct. Mr. Knight stated regarding the traffic verification issue it had been included as a result of the City Council meeting and he summarized, as written on page 10 of the Development Agreement: During issuance of the 1,500th and 3,500th certificates of occupancy, the City may request owner to submit to the City a trip verification performance study, traffic study which shall verify project trip generation forecasts contained in the EIR and identify any increases that occurred or could be expected at project build out. Mr. Knight stated the paragraph included mitigation measures and additional costs or improvements required to be made by the applicant as a result of any changes in the verification analysis. Chair Steiner closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion. Commissioner Imboden stated his questions had been answered. The project issues had been resolved and from the discussion with City Staff the noticing issues had been resolved as well. Page 10 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes February 20,2008 11 of 11 Commissioner Merino stated fire safety was one of the issues that they were tasked with and obviously City Council had made this a repeated concern. They were to look at the tentative tract map and not renegotiate the agreement that the City Council had already decided and it was not within their authority to change. Mr. Wetzel's question regarding mid-point was addressed by Mr. Knight and it was a very specific answer. It allowed them to return once the reports were submitted and there were mitigation measures in place to address any concerns. In looking at the tentative tract map he felt all his questions had been answered. Chair Steiner made a motion as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 Subdivision E notification was included in all public hearing notices that the proposed project was within the scope of the program portion of the Final SEIR 1278/ EIR 1716 approved earlier and the Final SEIR 1278/ EIR 1716 adequately described proposed project for the purpose of CEQA and moved to recommend adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 09-08 recommending approval to the City Council Tentative Tract Map No. 0022-07 (TTM 17185) and Design Review Committee No. 4266-07- to allow the subdivision of 785 acres for the residential development of up to 1,200 dwelling units including associated tract wide improvements on property located on the north side of Santiago Canyon Road, East of Irvine Lake, East Orange Planned Community area. Ms. Fox stated there were two corrections to the draft resolution on page 2; change the year to read 2008. On Condition No. 55, on page 12, include language: accepting deviation request number 6, included in the tentative map. Chair Steiner modified his motion to include the corrections to the draft resolution. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioner Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioners Bonina and Whitaker MOTION CARRIED (4) ADJOURNMENT Chair Steiner made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled session of the Planning Commission held in the Council Chambers on Monday, March 3, 2008. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Bonina and Whitaker MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:21 P.M. Page 11 of 11 Pages