Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 - September 7 CJ,tS5(C: MINUTES C ,( .J tf'J, G- ..1 3 Planning Commission City of Orange September 7, 2000 Thursday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch STAFF PRESENT: Stan Soo.Hoo, Planning Manager, John Godlewski, Principal Planner/Secretary, Dave DeBerry, City Attorney, and Hamid Bahadori, Traffic Engineer C :.' (') c,,3 [j~ IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING -:''';).<~'1:) }.,U;) - 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-00 AND PRE.ZONE CHANGE AND ZONE CHANGE 1204-00. THE IRVINE COMPANY (SANTIAGO HILLS PLAN II) A request to change the East Orange General Plan from Mixed Use, Employment, Low.Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and Open Space to Low Density Residential, Low.Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Open Space; to change the Orange General Plan from Public Facility to General Commercial; to make various modifications to the Circulation Element; to modify portions of the fext of the EOGP; to pre-zone the unincorporated portion of the area to PC (Planned Community) and to change the zone of the portion in the City of Orange from PI (Public Institution) to PC. The project is generally located east of Jamboree Road and the existing Santiago Hills development, west of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC), and south of Irvine Regional Park. The southerly boundary of the project is south of the Handy Creek Road under crossing of the ETC. However, there are two areas that extend beyond this general boundary: a 25.acre parcel proposed for commercial development located west of Jamboree Road and north of Chapman Avenue and a proposed 24.acre community park east of the ETC. (This item was continued from the August 21, 2000 meeting.) Supplemental EIR 1278 was prepared for this project and supplements Rnal Program EIR 1278 that was previously certified by the City of Orange. Mr. Soo.Hoo presented the Santiago Hills II project to the Commission for their consideration. It is located on 494 acres of land. The applicant is proposing to develop 1,746 residential units. The 25.acre parcel that is located on the west side of Jamboree is the only portion of this site that is currently in the City of Orange. The zoning on that site is Public Institution. The rest of the site, the portion east of Jamboree is in fhe unincorporated area of the County. It is not part of the City and it is not zoned by the City currently. The proposal is to re.zone that portion in the County, as well as to re.zone the portion in the City, all to a PC zone. The PC zone will permit the developer to develop development standards for their proposal and submit them to the City for review. That zoning proposal is part of the Commission's packet. The Supplemental EIR is a supplement to a final EIR that was previously certified by the City in 1989. NOTE: Mr. Soo-Hoo clarified that the project has changed. Approximately two weeks ago the applicant modified their proposal. Formerly, the Santiago Hills II project consisted of 1,886 units. In addition, there was 220,000 square feet of commercial proposed for the 25-acre parcel, next to the college. The entire project site was going to be 518 acres. The overall site has been reduced because the community park that was proposed has been deleted from the proposal. There will be other things that will compensate for that deletion. The number of dwelling units have been reduced. The proposal is to eliminate the commercial component of the project. The changes proposed by the developer include favorable things, 1 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 including lowering the height and intensity of development on the west portion of the property that faces Jamboree, moving those elements closer to the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC). And, an overall reduction in the number of units. The Santiago Hills II site is located in a portion of the East Orange General Plan (EOGP) Planning Area. In 1989 the City of Orange adopted the EOGP. The EOGP consisted of planning for over 7,000 acres of land. The expanse is everything from Jamboree, going eastward to a point beyond Irvine Lake. The site that is being considered now does not incorporate that much territory, but it is on the western portion of that Planning Area. The theme that was followed in the EOGP was to create four Planning Areas. Each area was going to be focused with an urban center. How this affects this project site is that the EOGP designated a Mixed Use Area on the site. That area was to be located immediately south of Irvine Regional Park, between Jamboree and the ETC. That Mixed Use Area was going to be made up of uses such as commercial, retailing, employment type uses (offices, light industrial, and hotels). The projection of building intensity was approximately 1.7 million square feet of floor area and the development elevation was going to be made up of what is known as mid.rise development (5-, 6., or 7-story development). As you head south of Chapman, the project was for 1,756 dwelling units, primarily in Low.Medium development intensity, but there was also a Medium density component as well. The applicant is requesting to eliminate the town center concept for the 494 acres, and to develop a residential development that is more similar to the Santiago Hills community that now exists adjacent to the project site. They are unable to do this at the present time because the General Plan restricts the use of the land to the urban center and associated uses. By deleting the commercial project and substituting a Low.Medium residential project, the project runs a built-out recurring deficit of approximately $79,000 a year. What this means is that the cost in providing municipal services to the project will exceed the revenue that the City gets back from development of this site. However, staff's recommendation at this point is that the Planning Commission focus on the land use compatibility issues and not focus as much on the fiscal impact. Staff is working with the developer to try to address and resolve these issues, and those discussions are on.going. Kathleen Bradv. Bonterra Consultinq, introduced her team of consultants. The document that was prepared was a Supplemental EIR and the project site is a sub-set of the larger East Orange General Plan. It was determined that the Santiago Hills II project substantially reduces the overall impacts that were addressed in Final Program EIR 1278. The Supplemental EIR addressed all of the topical issues addressed in the previous Final EIR. It was distributed for a 45-day public review period and additionally, there were two public workshops held in June to provide the public with an overview of the EIR and to take comments. Written responses were prepared for the 50 comments and letters received, as well as to the issues raised at the public workshops. The document addressed a full range of issues. The primary issues were land use and visual resources, biotic resources, storm water runoff (quantity and quality) and traffic. For land use, the primary impact that was identified was a conversion of open space land to urban or suburban uses. This impact was identified in the previous EIR as a significant impact and basically the Supplemental substantiated that finding. Design measures in the EOGP and mitigation measures had reduced the effect of the impacts, based on the findings that the City Council made when approving the EOGP. This included the preservation of 2,450 acres of open space in the EOGP. Very little open space was provided in the Santiago Hills II project site area because it was deemed to be the area for more intense development. Also, the ultimate dedication of 2,592 acres of open space in Livestone Canyon. These measures would also apply to the Santiago Hills II project. A new impact that was identified would be the removal of the Christmas Tree Farm and the produce stand at the corner of Jamboree and Chapman. The development of the retail site would also preclude future expansion of the community college. In discussions with the college, it was indicated that they were moving forward on a revised Master Plan where they intended to remove that 25 acres from future development, and they were going to focus on development on existing land and another 12'acre site on the west side of the campus. So, that was going to be a less than significant impact. 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 The development adjacent to Irvine Regional Park will change the character surrounding the park to be more urban in nature. This is consistent with what was found in the previous document. The urban nature would be less than what was in the EOGP; however, the Santiago Hills II project did propose more grading on the eastern edge of the park. There is a canyon over on the east edge of the park that had been identified where there is a stand of Oak trees. Ninety percent (90%) of those trees are to be preserved, based on the EOGP. Based on the Santiago Hills II project, substantially more of that area would be removed, approximately 1/2 to 2/3 of the trees in that canyon would be removed. This information was based on a more detailed geotechnical analysis. That was considered a greater impact than what was evaluated in the previous document. Mitigation measures of tree replacement at a 2:1 ratio was proposed as well as when the final grading plans were to be submitted, to look at measures such as use of retaining walls or other measures to pull the grading back. Some of the land use issues are also tied into the visual impacts. The canyon area itself would not be particularly visible from Irvine Regional Park because of topography and intervening vegetation; however, the manufactured slope which the housing would be placed on would be visible from the eastern edge of the park. The 2:1 slope will be approximately 120 feet tall and native vegetation will be used to reduce the visual impacts. The manufactured slope from the EOGP was also going to be visible; however, this does move the toe of the slope closer to the park. The 2:1 tree replacement was being proposed that the trees would be replaced in this area where the manufactured slope was, and also in Sector A, which is the area north of the future extension of Santiago Canyon Road and up along the eastern edge of the park. A tree report needs to be prepared by a certified arborist and the impacts are to be identified and all of the provisions of the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance shall be followed. The project also proposed that development be moved back a minimum of 20 feet from the edge. With the proposed project and changing of land use from Low Density Residential to Low.Medium Residential that the setback would be approximately 80 feet. Another visual impact was the potential for spill over lighting from the retail site onto the surrounding residential areas. Shielding of all the lights in the retail center was recommended as a mitigation measure. Through the comments that were received during the public review period, the concern of lighting spill over onto Peters Canyon Regional Park and surrounding areas was raised, The mitigation measure was revised through the response to comments to have shielding on all of the lights along the roadways and in the common areas of the development. The project would also result in changed views from the existing residential areas of Cowan Heights and Peters Canyon Regional Park. However, these impacts would be less than with the EOGP because this project incorporates more open space. The EOGP had provisions for preservation of the knoll, but the rest of the area was proposed for development. This projects proposes 134 acres in open space and preservation of the wetlands, as well as the enhancement of the wetlands around Handy Creek. This would provide a continuity of the visual resources that are currently in Peters Canyon Regional Park. For the biotic impacts, a key change regarding the biotic impacts since the certification of the EIR is the listing of the California Gnatcatcher as an endangered species, and the development of the Natural Community's Conservation Planning Program (NCCP). This program is an effort to protect critical vegetation while still allowing some economic development. It has developed a reserve system to provide for this habitat so that the species can be protected on a broader level rather than looking at single species. The project is in the Central Coastal NCCP area and the reserve for this area is a 37,000 acre reserve. (The 134 acres is not part of the reserve.) With the implementation of the NCCP the dedication of lands and endowments by the participating land owners, the impacts on the covered species and haMat is considered mitigated. The Irvine Company is one of the participating land owners in the City of Orange, and is a signatory to the agreement. When the NCCP reserve system was developed, the interface between the development and the reserve area was considered. The Santiago Hills 11 site is identified for development in the NCCP. Surrounding areas that are in the reserve area include Irvine and Peters Canyon Regional Parks, as well as land to the southeast of the site. The biotic impacts were considered to be less with the Santiago Hills 11 project because it provides for greater preservation and enhancement of the wetlands, and more area is being preserved in open space. 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 Kendal Elmer. Austin Faust Associates, stated his firm prepared the traffic impact analysis for the proposed project. The proposal is a significant down scaling from the original plan shown in the EOGP. From a trip generation standpoint, the urban center and residential intensities that are in that plan were estimated to generate roughly 97,000 daily trips. The proposed plan that was studied in the Draft EIR reduced to about 33,000 daily trips. They just completed a study earlier this week of the recent modification to the plan and the key ingredient from a traffic standpoint is the elimination of the retail center. That was roughly one.hall of the estimated traffic that was to be generated by the original plan. They are now down to about 16,000 ADT with the revised plan (one-sixth of the original EOGP). There are some transportation elements that are proposed to be modified in the EOGP as part of the Santiago Hills II proposal. On the current General Plan, tied with the urban center, there were two roadway extensions that are not part of the revised plans. One was the extension of Fort Road, between Jamboree and Santiago Canyon Road, and the parallel roadway, Canyon View Extension, between Jamboree and Santiago Canyon Road. Both roadways are proposed to be deleted as part of the Santiago Hills II project. An additional downgrade is also being recommended to the EOGP. On Chapman Avenue, in the current EOGP, between what would have been the extension of Fort Road and the ETC, because of the intensive nature of the urban center, that was to be widened to eight (8) lanes. Under the revised plan, a six.lane major arterial road is proposed. The Canyon View Extension is a roadway that is shown on the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. As part of this development proposal, an application has been submitted to the OCT A to request that following adoption of this development, that the Master Plan of Arterial Highways accordingly remove the extension of the Canyon View Extension, between Jamboree and Santiago Canyon Road. The near.term impact analysis looked at two phases wherein they looked at the effect of conditions out there today and five years into the future. Under the short range scenarios, they identified impacts at three (3) locations oll.site of the roadway system. There were two (2) intersection locations that were identified as being impacted: The intersection of Cannon Street and Santiago Canyon Road, which is currently a problem intersection. Also, the intersection of Prospect and Chapman Avenue. Both of those intersections require mitigation by the project in the form of participating in the construction and funding of improvements that will ultimately be needed, and are planned at those two intersection locations. An additional roadway segment improvement was found to be required in the original Draft EIR. On Chapman Avenue, east of Canyon View, between Canyon View Avenue and Equestrian Way, up through the grade area. That roadway is currently four (4) lanes; it's master planned for six (6) lanes. This project, in the short range, shows a significant impact that it was determined that a widening to the planned six lane width would be required (before the project is fully developed before 2005). Once they did the more recent analysis of the modified land plan without the retail component, that particular improvement was not found to be necessitated. The other two intersection improvements were found to still be required by the project. The second major phase of the analysis moved out to the General Plan long-range time frame setting. For that analysis, they compared the effects of the adjustment to the General Plan against the adopted General Plan. The significant reduction and the traffic generation in the project generally results in a reduction of traffic problems that are forecast into the long.range setting. The conclusion that was drawn in the EIR is that the amendment to the General Plan to reflect the Santiago Hills II project, would generally be a beneficial effect for the long.term range. Mark Anderson with RBF Consultinq, has been working on the civil engineering component of the plan. He spoke about the drainage issues. The run off from the project primarily drains to the north, to Santiago Creek and has to go through Irvine Park to get there. And, then somewhere around the future Santiago Canyon Road, the high point or the dividing line, south of that, most of the water flows to the south and finds its way to Peters Canyon Reservoir. Peters Canyon Reservoir is actually designed as a detention facility to receive water, retains it for a period of time, passes it along to the Santiago Hills I . to the park site, which serves as a detention facility as well and then finds its way ultimately to Santiago Creek. When the EIR was circulated, they received a number of comments and concerns about run off and flood protection. Typically, water run off is not diverted. The County has asked them to consider diverting the water run off and there is a Run Off Management Plan (ROMP) to address the flood protection, as well as some of the water quality issues that have been raised. One of the components of the ROMP will be to divert some of 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 the flows and they are working with the County, the City and TCA to re.route some of the flood flows to the north of the improved part of Irvine Park so that it misses the improved area. Also, to route it to the west of Irvine Park so that it would come down Santiago Canyon Road and find its way into Villa Park Reservoir. Both of these alternatives are being supported by the County. The drainage to Peters Canyon Reservoir has now been diverted to one of these other two directions, thereby reducing the amount of flows that will find its way to Peters Canyon Reservoir. One of the issues raised in the comments was to revisit the analysis that was done some 10 or 12 years ago that reconfirmed that Peters Canyon Reservoir is still functioning as it was intended, as far as capac~y, as a detention facility. That will be part of the study. This will be reviewed and approved by both the City and County prior to approval of the tentative map. As far as the water quality component for storm water run off, settlement is a pollutant. Landscaping is a major help in limiting the actual run off and collection of silt to prevent erosion. One of the components of the proposed plan are the natural open areas which have natural channels. They have a tendency to erode if not stabilized. They have been working with the resource agencies on how to maintain the wetlands in certain areas and in other areas, how to re.grade them, stabilize them and enhance them to be beller wetlands than what they are today. All catch basins will have filters. During the summer time there will be urban run off that occurs from excess irrigation and people washing their cars. The storm drain system will be equipped at strategic points to divert these flows into water quality basins. The final component are the wetlands themselves, which will provide a natural cleansing. lt is compatible to have a water source from the wetlands in the project to maintain that hab~at. The public hearing was opened. Dan YounQ. The Irvine Companv. 550 Newport Center Drive. Newport Beach, made a power point presentation of the proposed project. In 1989 the C~y completed a 5.year process of looking at the entire 7,110 acres that comprises the EOGP. Alter that five years of study, the policy decision that was made by the C~y was to adopt the EOGP, which set the maximum limits for development, and through an EIR, thoroughly analyzed the environmental impacts of the plan that was adopted. The EOGP allowed for the phasing of their project. There was a concept plan approved for mixed retail, commercial, office and residential uses to make up a town center component. What was originally approved was 1.7 million square feet of various forms of commercial development. It included approximately 56 acres of open space. Since 1989, they've had an opportun~y to take a look at the development in the area. Santiago Hills I was completed. They saw a much more residential character as opposed to a mixed use of development. They came to the conclusion that their project would be beller suited if it were more residential in character. They felt there was a market need for additional retail and they designated the 25 acres as a retail area. This plan generates 33,000 trips per day as opposed to the 1989 plan of 97,000 trips. They looked at the environmental impacts and ended up with a 39 acre wetland area. The proposed plan still has two (2) neighborhood parks. A 10'acre school s~e is proposed next to the one park. The internal circulation system allows for a public trails system for both pedestrian uses and horse trails. The open space of 134 acres includes commun~y parks and a retail feature. There needs to be a diversity of housing styles and types. Neighborhood meetings and workshops were held; letters were sent to 5,000 households in the area. They feel this project has received a lot of community input and exposure over the past few months. The community wanted fewer units and less traffic. The Irvine Company modified their plans as a result of those meetings. The application no longer proposes to build 1 ,886 un~s this side of Jamboree. They propose to now build 1,596 units. However, they have applied for 1,746, which includes both residential and commercial. They have moved the Medium Dens~y back along the ETC. They have cut out 25% of the apartments n capped it at 380 from the 520. People wanted the land to be developed with Low Dens~y Residential single family. They have Iim~ed the Low Medium Density areas as well. The Urban Run Off Plan will incorporate sensitivity to water quality and hab~at. Biological surveys are required as part of the m~igation measures and will go into the development of the Urban Run Off Plan, which will not be finalized until such time as those biological surveys are done and they influence the final design and ideas for the Urban Run Off Plan. The other issue that came up was a sports park. They had proposed a 24.acre commun~y park and it was meant to be more of a nature park and a staging area for trails. Staff felt very strongly that they would rather have the fees in lieu of the park so that they could complete a sports park facility. 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 There has been some discussion of NCCP and this is an important part of the application. It is a National model because it is 30,000+ acres of open space habitat created in this County. This land was put into a reserve in exchange for not having to dedicate additional areas to be put into that reserve and there would be some certainty over development. Santiago Hills II was one of the properties that was cleared for development for purposes of NCCP. This project is located next to the NCCP area and two of the regional parks have been put into it. They are preserving the wetland areas that are indicated in the plan. They are showing sensitivity towards the two regional parks. They have a buffer area to the Irvine Regional Park. They have also agreed to an 80 foot setback, 20 feet which will be landscaping that is held by a homeowners association. The County is involved in the Urban Run Off Plan and has signature authority to approve the design for purposes of water quality, flood control, and being sensitive to the habitat that is there. They also have a commitment to a master plan, balanced community. They want to have the right housing mix; not just one kind of housing, but a variety of housing styles. They want to have a circulation plan that works. An elementary school is proposed in the project and they have a contract with the School District. They will come back to the Commission to talk about housing styles, architecture, streets and open space areas. All of these issues will be discussed at the site planning level. Landscaping of the public areas and medians is very important. They want to be a partner in good planning of this proposed development, and will continue to involve the residents in the process. They have also been able to work with the East Orange Neighborhood Committee and have gained their consensus with this project. Commissioner Romero asked about the maximum number of apartments in Sectors K and I. Mr. Young responded that the 380 apartments would only be built in the Medium Density sector. Sectors J and K are limited to 2.story. The only place that is allowed to go to a 3-story building would be the area in Sector I. Commissioner Smith is concerned about grading and wanted to know what safe guards have been put into place so that errors do not occur in this project. Mr. Young stated they now have safe guards in place along with an internal protocol to remedy any mistakes. It is also under heavy scrutiny with the County as well. Commissioner Smith said there was a glaring omission in the Santiago Hills I plan and Santiago Hills II plan for church sites. Mr. Young explained that churches approach the Irvine Company and together they find ways to accommodate a church site in the community. They don't ask for zoning for churches. They prefer to ask the City for a conditional use permit to consider allowing a church use in a residential zone. Churches are allowed for in the development standards and would be built on land zoned for another purpose. Commissioner Smith was concerned about the wild life of rodents, rats, coyotes, snakes and other critters when construction begins. She asked if there were plans to assist and protect the community when that happens. Mr. Anderson thought it would be an appropriate condition at the tentative map level for a clearing plan to be approved by staff. Mr. Young said they are taking notes of issues raised at this meeting and will bring a proposal back to the Commission. Commissioner Smith was very concerned about the stand of Oak trees on the edge of Irvine Regional Park. Mr. Young assured Commissioner Smith that they will be environmentally sensitive to the grading and roadways as far as any impacts to the Oak trees and the natural setting. In 1989 it was noted there could be a geotechnical problem and they didn't know if the Oak trees could be saved. Because they want to stabilize the slope, they want to relocate as many of the trees as they can. Commissioner Smith was also concerned about the homes in view of the park. It sounds like they are going to be mitigated by a landscaped area, with an 80 foot setback, maintained by a homeowners association. Mr. Young said with an 80 foot setback and a 20 foot landscaped area, he doubted if the homes would be seen from the park. There is a lot of topography out there. Their goal is aimed at creating an 80 foot setback that screens the homes from view, but it may not screen 100% of every roof top, from every portion of the entire open space. 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 Commissioner Smith had a concern about the size of the lots on the single family detached homes. Is there a change in the average lot size? Mr. Young said they contemplate a Low Medium Density single family type project where there would be an association and have a perimeter of landscaping around it. In the April proposal, the lot sizes could have gone down as low as 3,200 square foot lots. All of the lots have now grown in size. The lot sizes that are allowed within the zoning remain the same as standards. But, they now have more Low Density lots than before. Commissioner Smith saw beautiful landscaped parkways on the tour she took of the areas that are already built. She did not see the landscaped parkways included in the development standards. She asked if the applicant would be willing to condition that in as part of the development standards. Mr. Young responded they learn from everything they do. In the case of Santiago Hills I there were some projects that were implemented where the homes seemed to be too close to the street. And the principle issue there was that they needed an additional five feet of landscaped setback. They tried to demonstrate through the tours is that if you put in that additional landscaped area into the front of the lot, it softens it. They made a commitment to provide that in every single area within the project area. He believes that already exists within the document as a requirement. Mr. Soo-Hoo did not believe this was included in the development standards, but it could very easily be inserted. Mr. Young did not have a problem with adding the landscaped parkways to the development standards. RECESS. Vice.Chair Pruett recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. 37 speakers made comments - 17 oeoole sooke in favor of the oroiect Alan Burns, 8203 East Hillsdale, East Orange Neighborhood Committee (EONC). Anthony Torres, 218 North Sweetwater Lane, EONC. Shirley Grindle, 5021 East Glen Arran, EONC. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres. Mark McNaughton, 101 #H South Cross Creek Road, EONC. Mike Walker, 5735 Valencia Drive. Sheri Demarchi, 8227 Hillsdale Drive. Lee Podolak, 8506 East Baker Hill #A. Kim Nichols, 7317 East Morninglory Way, EONC. Laura Thomas, 7211 East Clydsdale Avenue, Orange Park Acres. Anita Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres. Charles McNees, 11211 Orange Park Boulevard, Chairman of Trails in OPA. Mark Sandford, 10591 South Meads Avenue. Sister Kathleen Maloney, 480 South Batavia. Mike Reeder, 8548 East Canyon View Avenue, Ranger in charge of Peters Canyon Regional Park. Tom Baumgartner, 8140 East San Luis Drive. Red Bauer, 11062 Meads Avenue, Orange Park Acres, represented the OPA Board. The East Orange Neighborhood Committee members support the Santiago Hills II project as currently proposed. They all prefer that there be no development and are against the extension of Santiago Canyon Road and the flattening of the hills. However, if the road must be built, they prefer the scaled down version. Impacts on Irvine Park should be eliminated. They agree with the revised land use designations. They also urged the City to start planning now for the next phased development. Stan Soo-Hoo and Dan Young were thanked for all of their help and efforts throughout the planning process. Mitigation measures must be paid attention to as it will prevent workers from destroying vegetation during grading. Mesas will be created from this development and the hillsides will be lost. They are happy with the detached single family housing concept. It's a much better plan today than the original plan. Removing the commercial development from the project is a vast improvement. There were concerns expressed with the school and its impacts to the junior high and high schools that are at capacity. Another concern is with the flood control at the Santiago Creek and traffic on Cannon and Santiago Canyon Road. 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 Orange has the responsibility to provide new low.income housing units in the next five years. The Irvine Company has been doing a fantastic job in the City of Irvine in providing low-income housing. Orange should expect the Irvine Company to do the same in its community. Lower density is lovely, but it leads to higher prices and less open space. There has got to be a balance. And, housing must be affordable to all economic segments. It was suggested to set aside 5 acres for non'profit housing development to bring in the very low income, and require that the Irvine Company add at least 150 low.income units scattered throughout the Medium-Density areas that can be subsidized with State or Federal funds. They were in favor of a church site where commercial development was originally proposed. The Phase 2 plan, on the eastern side of the Transportation Corridor would be better used for commercial. The lot size of 3,200 square feet is a concern. People living in Santiago Hills I do not like not having a driveway; there is no place to put an R.V. and they don~ like hearing their neighbor in the bathroom. A mixed'use village cluster design is encouraged for the project. Equestrian is a sport and there needs to be some trail access. The undercrossing would not be accessible when the 241 opened; it would have to be addressed when Santiago Canyon was realigned. Trail connections need to be examined to see how they will tie in to additional trails. Cars using Santiago Canyon Road and the equestrian crossing is a safety issue and needs to be addressed further. There is a great need for active sports fields. Kids need a place to practice; the community parks are too small. Planning should begin now to incorporate active sports fields when East Orange is being developed. The depth of the reservoir is 13 feet. The natural flow into Peters Canyon Reservoir is the 1,800 acre Handy Creek watershed. Any development in that area is going to change the timing, quality and amount of water that is going into the reservoir. The water level in Peters Canyon Reservoir is regulated to maintain the integrity of the storm flows that are going through to the drain that was constructed when Santiago Hills I was completed, and to keep the water level reduced to such a point to reduce the mosquito breeding habitat along the northwestern shore of the reservoir. As a result water is discharged into Peters Canyon Wash, which flows to Upper Newport Bay. The majority of the water that is released from the reservoir goes down Peters Canyon Wash; not down Handy Creek. Concern was expressed about the manufactured slopes. A major hydrology study is requested to be done on the creek. 20 oeoole sooke aQainst the oroiect Sherry Noble, 9721 Rangeview Drive, Santa Ana. Kathy Quisling, 9761 Rangeview Drive, Santa Ana. Laurie Marine, 2335 North Oakmont, Santa Ana. Juan Pablo, 224 North Olive Street. Charles Griffin, 732 Bison Avenue, Newport Beach. Anne Gardner, 9781 Rangeview Drive, Santa Ana. Mark Gonzalez, 9862 Overhill Drive, Santa Ana. Eric Noble, 9721 Rangeview Drive, Santa Ana. Carolyn Noble, 9721 Rangeview Drive, Santa Ana. John Ufkes, 20121 East Clark Street. Julia Jones.Ufkes, 20121 East Clark Street. Christopher Koontz, 614 West 35th Place #504, Los Angeles. Sandy Garcia, 4625 East Walnut Avenue. Alex Mintzer, 465 North Christine Street, represented the Sierra Club. Theresa Sear, 7733 Santiago Canyon Road. Dana Roberts, 216 South Cross Creek Road #H. Sparky McGraw, 7329 East Morninglory Way. Kathy Extadt, 7946 East Elderwood. Mel Vernon, 2519 North French Street, Santa Ana. David Hayward, 9761 Rangeview Drive, Santa Ana. Those who voiced opposition wanted to know more information about the mitigation measures that will address the impacts of this project. There are no details or assurances regarding the mitigation measures. No one knows what is going to be done at Cannon and Santiago Canyon Road; it's a real mess now. Traffic and parking problems on existing streets are a concern. The residents of Cowan Heights and North Tustin have never been involved in the planning process and many were not notnied of the public 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 hearing. They leel abandoned by the City 01 Orange. Quality ollile will be lost lorever. The noise and visual impacts are going to be tremendous. Concerns were expressed with the Supplemental EIR regarding the endangered species and archeological resources. The biology reports are inadequate. Bells Vireo has not been addressed; mitigation cannot be delerred. There is concern about the silt build up in Villa Park Dam. Full disclosure 01 the EIR is needed belore it is certified. The Oak trees must be preserved, at any cost. The development 01 the EI Toro Airport has not been discussed and Sector E will be impacted by this. It would be appropriate not to build homes in Sector E. The EI R needs to be sent to the Airport Land Use Commission at the John Wayne Airport lor their review. They are opposed to the leveling 01 the hills. Only an elementary school is being proposed to be built; junior high and high schools are also needed. Nothing was mentioned about police and fire protection. New power and telephone stations are needed. Irvine Lake needs to be lull belore the area is developed. The City needs to mandate that at least 50% 01 all homes buill are single story with a driveway large enough to lit a family van. Lower density housing on larger lots is requested. Are bike trails included with this development? Independent consultants are needed to get an unbiased opinion. Additionallacts are needed and the speakers requested that the Commission not make a decision on this project at this meeting. Public comments were closed; however, the public hearing will remain open. RECESS. Vice.Chair Pruett recessed the meeting at 11 :20 p.m. RECONVENE. The meeting reconvened at 11 :30 p.m. Mr. Young asked lor a continuance to allow them time to adequately address all 01 the concerns and answer questions that were raised by the public's comments. There have been additional mitigation measures developed that address many of the concerns expressed. Mr. Soo-Hoo stated the revisions have been made, but need to be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Copies will be made available to the public on Monday. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue General Plan Amendment 2.00, Pre.Zone Change and Zone Change 1204.00, and Supplemental EIR 1278 to the meeting 01 September 18, 2000, as the last item on the Agenda. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith wanted Mr. Young to address the horse trail location and amenities. Vice.Chair Pruett wanted staff to address Handy Creek and the water flow. He asked il a hydrology study was done. He knows there was a horse trail outlined lor this particular development, but he would like to see how it lits into the Master Plan 01 Horse T rails. There were some issues related to the Santiago Creek and the flow there and he's not sure how that lits in. There was also a question 01 maintaining the wetlands. Who maintains that area? There needs to be some discussion about affordable housing. Several people raised the issue about the schools. There needs to be additional discussion because he didn't think the people understood what is being proposed and that there are agreements worked out with the School District. Several people Irom Cowan Heights made the comment that they were not notilied. He would like to know how notification takes place when there are communities outside 01 the City. He would like a better understanding about the flow 01 water out 01 Peters Canyon Reservoir. The mitigation measures also need to be clarilied at Cannon and Santiago Canyon Road, as well as at Chapman and Prospect. He understands these projects are planned any way. And, the Irvine Company will contribute money towards the projects to make it happen. Commissioner Carlton said someone mentioned a trail going under the ETC at the end 01 Santiago Canyon Road and she wanted to know il that were possible. The archeological sites were mentioned and that's in the mitigation measures. She asked lor more inlormation on this. 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 Commissioner Smith would seriously like the applicant and staff to address the affordable housing issue. From the City's standpoint, she wanted to know where they stand and what the City's policy is on asking new projects to assist in providing 757 units in the next five years to meet the State mandate. Then, she would like to ask the applicant to consider adding that to the project. She would be prepared to give up other amenities in exchange for an affordable housing mix. She wanfed staff to clarify the information about the 24-acre sports park, of funds in exchange for development rights of the property across the street from the toll way. If staff could clarify the status of this project -- everything being discussed is in County territory; it is not yet Orange. What is the process to bring it into Orange and why are the citizens spending the time to work on it if it is County property? She was looking forward to hearing the staff's presentation of the fiscal report. It's written, but it was not discussed. What is the status of the earthquake fault line in this area? It would be helpful to address the status of the EIR and the SEIR. She was struck by the comment that the watershed would go into a body of water that is impaired. She would like to hear more information about this. It sounds like work may need to be done on some of the environmental issues. The report was extremely thorough, but what about the birds, the habitat, archeological concerns and the watershed. She thought the public asked good questions about police and fire protection. Will there be a sub-station? She followed up on Mr. Koontz' issue that fire protection measures fail to address the possible shortage of water in that area for firefighting. She wants staff to address if there is a violation of any of these mitigation measures, or they are not put into place, what are the consequences to the applicant, to the community, and to the City? IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Smith to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, September 18, 2000. The meeting adjourned at 12:01 a.m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Isld 10