Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-1992 PC MinutesMINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING Planning Commission City of Orange January 13, 1992 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Frank Page, Director of Public Works; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve the Minutes of December 16, 1991 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners. Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None Motion Carried IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1398 - CITY OF ORANGE The City of Orange has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report to evaluate the environmental impacts of a street improvement project as follows: 1. Widening of La Veta Avenue between Flower Street and Cambridge Street, as well as a portion of Glassell Street between La Veta and Culver Avenues. 2. Widening of Main Street between Town and Country Road and Orangewood Avenue. 3. Widening of Chapman Avenue between the Orange Freeway (SR-57) and Main Street. Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1992 Mr. Godlewski presented a brief summary of this project. At the previous meeting the Commission heard the engineering staff report on the LaVeta- Main-Chapman EIR 1398. That report included a detailed description of the project as primarily LaVeta being 4 travel lanes from Cambridge to the AT&SF crossing; and 6 travel lanes from the AT&SF crossing to the western city limits. Main Street is proposed as 6 travel lanes from the Garden Grove Freeway to Walnut. Chapman is proposed as 6 travel lanes from Main to the 57 Freeway. Glassell is 4 travel lanes from LaVeta to Culver. The report also discussed various alternatives to address concerns that were raised during numerous formal and informal hearings that have been held over the last five years. The project is situated in an area that is integral to the overall circulation plan for the entire County. It is the County's responsibility to see that adjoining cities transportation plans do not conflict with each other and in fact are maintained. Further, cities rely on this information to plan for their own future growth. The City of Orange's General Plan has envisioned a level of land use intensity in the Orange area to provide for economic opportunities for the future viability of the City. The Master Plan of Arterial Highways, in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan reflects the project evaluated by the E.I.R.. The plan was adopted by the City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission in 1989. The General Plan further incorporated the Redevelopment Project Areas land use intensities necessary to retire the bonded indebtedness. The land use intensities shown in the General Plan reflect the intensities that were bonded for in the Redevelopment Project Areas. Various scenarios and alternatives have been discussed, all having some impact on the existing community. The Commission is to determine an alignment that best meets the needs of the entire community while still achieving the goals outlined in the City's General Plan. Staff requests the Commission to adopt findings that are appropriate to the overall plan, depending on the alternatives, and also adopt mitigation measures appropriate to the project which is ultimately proposed, and recommend the preferred alignment, modified by the alternatives, to the City Council at a later meeting. At the last meeting, the Commission requested that the engineering department be available and have information available to the public for their review. A log kept indicates approximately 21 persons have visited the City in order to review this information. Included in the Commission's packet were a list of approximately 20 people who have called the City requesting information. A reduced copy of the project area, broken down into segments was also provided in the packets, if the 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 Commission chose to discuss the area a piece at a time. Staff and consultants were present for specific questions. The public hearing was opened. Chairman Cathcart explained the public hearing process. He acknowledged an organized group of citizens wished to speak first and show a slide presentation. He asked everyone to hold their remarks to a short period of time. He stressed the Commission did not want redundancy and asked for the public's cooperation Speaker cards were submitted and people were called on to speak by the Chairman. Mike Mabry, 330 East LaVeta, said he and five other neighbors have prepared a formal presentation in opposition to the project. They are concerned about their families' safety and the neighborhood's quality of life. They recognize the fact LaVeta needs improvement and encourage a project to provide for a safe roadway, but it needs to be consistent with the neighborhood. Where will the traffic go at Cambridge? What happens next -- Cambridge, Palmyra, Almond or resurrecting the LaVeta extension if this project goes through? He didn't believe the commuter traffic belonged in their neighborhood. Logic would dictate diverting it before it crosses Glassell. How can this 1 /4 mile of roadway in question drastically compromise the vested interest in getting Prop. 111 and Measure M monies? Their group proposed another alternative for consideration. No thru traffic on LaVeta, past Glassell going east (similar to Flower, Parker and A B C streets). They would like to see entry monuments on LaVeta, just east of Glassell similar to those at Nutwood, discouraging commuter traffic. They would like to see a 4-way stop at Grand, slowing down that traffic. They would like to keep the stop sign 4- way at Shaffer. They would love to see grass and tree medians on LaVeta between Shaffer and Cambridge, bringing it back down to a residential scale. Also, guaranteed underground utilities, Old Towne style lighting, grass and tree parkways from Lemon to Cambridge. A blue ribbon committee should be established made up of concerned residents -- possibly official Old Towne Steering Committee involvement, Dan Ryan, historic planner, and a landscaped architect. The purpose would be to discuss and implement aesthetic design elements consistent with the historic community. Finally, they asked for a General Plan Amendment of the Circulation Element, down sizing LaVeta from its current designation as an arterial highway to one more consistent and logical in the area -- that of a local street. 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 Steve McHarris, 485 South Orange, presented his personal comments and a slide show in opposition to the LaVeta/Glassell street widening project. By opening up Glassell to higher vehicle capacity would not only incur the obvious negative affects of removing residential structures, but will also have significant secondary impacts to those properties that remain to face 30,000 vehicle trips per day on five lanes of roadway. The project would depreciate home values in the immediate vicinity of the neighborhood with zero compensation from the City. The only winners are those to be bought out by the City. His greatest disappointment is to have the E.I.R. state that the project is an environmental benefit to the community. Shannon Tucker, 556 Culver, believed the negative impacts to the integrity of the Old Towne neighborhood far outweigh any possible reasons for carrying out the proposed project. The intersection of LaVeta and Glassell was not identified as a critical intersection in the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways; therefore, such an extensive street expansion project is not necessary. Very little reference was made in the E.I.R. to said project impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. It identified that the street widening will bring auto traffic in closer proximity to adjacent residential and commercial uses, which could pose conflicts associated with safety, noise and air quality. The term "conflicts" is understated. The factors propose a general description of a more significant reduction in the quality of life, not only for the residents of LaVeta Avenue, but for the entire neighborhood of Old Towne Orange. The City of Orange has recognized the significance of revitalization in Old Towne through policies adopted in the General Plan Historic Element of 8/89. The street widening of LaVeta and Glassell within the residential neighborhood is in direct violation of the policy. By widening the streets in Old Towne, destroys the incentive for revitalization and eliminates the serene peacefulness in their neighborhood today. She submitted petitions which were circulated throughout Old Towne. Lorna Deshane, 205 River, said their historical district must be protected. Their beautiful quiet streets will be destroyed if this project is approved. A 5-lane highway to no where will turn the Nutwood tract into an island and will severe them from the rest of Old Towne. Dan Slater, 278 North Pine, gave his perspectives on how the proposed street widening will affect residential property values. Some will financially gain from the project, but those remaining residents will lose. 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 Wide, busy streets do not complement historic residential neighborhoods. Most realtors concur buyers do not choose to live on a busy street. Most of the homes on wide, busy streets reflect a lower pride of ownership. That look often spills onto adjoining streets and neighborhoods, presenting a shabby image for the City. The City needs commercial development that complements the existing neighborhoods; not compromises. Widen the major commercial streets to an adequate width, but protect the neighborhoods from the traffic. Street widening in Old Towne would be a mistake. Old Towne gives Orange the small town atmosphere; it is an important resource to the entire City and County. Lisa Blanc, 368 South Orange, pulled together the thoughts of her neighbors. She believed the largest problem of the proposed plan lies in a definition. The current plan identifies LaVeta as an arterial roadway. In doing so, it should suggest that the entire street is suitable for thru traffic. The correct definition is that LaVeta is an arterial street from the west to Glassell Street, at which point it becomes 100% a residential street. With a few exceptions, LaVeta is primarily residential from Parker to Cambridge. If the whole purpose of the proposed plan is to move traffic from the west to the east (Tustin Avenue and beyond), then what is being accomplished by leading commuters through the historical residential neighborhoods on a road going to no where? What happens to the traffic once is comes to Cambridge has yet to be addressed. She's uncomfortable with the lack of information about what comes next. It's obvious that Cambridge and Palmyra will be impacted if the widening goes through. However, the impacts were not addressed in the E.I.R. She spoke about the excellent transition of traffic in Santa Ana at the intersection of Santa Clara and Broadway. Orange should take a step backwards and redefine LaVeta as a residential street and to re-establish their neighborhood. Orange needs to consider a new approach of diverting traffic. It was suggested to look into a tree lined median at LaVeta, narrowing the road on the east side of Glassell at the intersection similar to Santa Ana), find an alternative route for the traffic -- possibly LaVeta to Glassell onto the 22 Freeway or onto Fairhaven to Tustin. What about signal synchronization at key hours? What's being done with the County to improve the interchange of the 22 and 55 Freeways? What can be done to make up for the five blocks on LaVeta that might be lost in order not to jeopardize Measure M funding? Why consider sacrificing the quality of life in the neighborhood before considering inconveniencing commuter traffic? The City needs to examine the irreversible effects of demolishing 14 historically significant homes. She 5 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 opposed the idea of widening Glassell Street by adding a northbound travel lane that would result in a right turn only lane at Culver since the right turn lane provides the first and most convenient out when traffic bottlenecks on Glassell. The increased number of cars would utilize the lane and filter into the residential streets. The mid-block merging lane would be very dangerous. By widening Glassell, the problem created at the intersection of Glassell and LaVeta would be pushed down the street one block. The City is depending on residential streets to do the very thing freeways were created for -- to carry high volume commercial commuter traffic to its ultimate destination. It was recommended further study was needed on these issues. Rich Robertson, 477 South Orange, felt the City was letting the residents down. Orange is changing rapidly. It disturbed him that staff was not doing their job. He couldn't believe the E.I.R. was presented as it was -- there were no definitives. He addressed the issue of safety on LaVeta, especially for elder people and children. Michael Stastny, 649 South Orange, knows there are no easy solutions to this problem, but buying land and pouring concrete isn't going to make the traffic flow any easier. There is no creativity to the problem or solutions. He hasn't seen any thought given to making one way streets. Kate Oertel, 2182 North Harwood, is not impacted directly, but they were attracted to Orange by the charm and neighborhood community in the downtown area. This would be irrevocably changed and she urged the Commission to consider their actions. Michele Fitzsimmons, 442 South Orange, addressed the safety issues of children crossing LaVeta to go to the park or to play with friends. Senior citizens also cross LaVeta and will have problems doing so if the street were widened. Widening LaVeta would also increase traffic and the speed of vehicles and will further endanger the lives of pedestrians and children. Carrie Bedord, 1025 Tularosa, said in her professional experience she has seen numerous instances where the widening of a residential street acted as the primary force to the destruction of a good neighborhood. Street widening in the neighborhood does not make sense; it will slowly eat away at each block. Should their neighborhood be sacrificed so that commuters can get home a little faster? The plan will only marginally improve the 6 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 overall traffic and only for a short time. A plan is needed to reduce traffic on LaVeta between Glassell and Shaffer. Kathie Jenni, 413 South Orange, spoke against the LaVeta widening. Accommodating growth and traffic always encourages more growth and traffic. It would be wonderful if Orange could resist that irrational trend of falling into that kind of cycle of growth. The speed of vehicles and associated noise will destroy the unique characteristics of Old Towne Orange. Mary Anne Skorpanich, 292 North Cambridge, believes improvements are needed to certain major arterials in the City of Orange, but she objects to the widening of residential streets. To widen Glassell and LaVeta would destroy the residential character of the neighborhood and would violate the preservation efforts within the Old Towne district. She objects to the approval of new neighborhoods to the east at the expense of Old Towne's neighborhood. Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, stated Old Towne needs to be left alone. She mentioned because of budget constraints, when police officers leave their positions are not being filled. Police services will not be available to patrol the streets. It's election year, City Council will not act on this. Craig Smith, 504 East Palmyra, did not think the street enhancements could replace the historical homes. Because Orange has a historical significance,he wondered if that would have any bearing on the project being exempt from Measure M funding? Frank Remkiewicz, O.U.S. D., 370 N. Glassell, Director of Planning, Research and Information Services. He called three major areas of the Draft E.I.R. to the Commission's attention: The reduction of 13 running feet of the overall area of Sycamore Elementary School; the substantially increased danger of their students crossing at various intersections throughout the project including Walnut and Main, Almond and Main, Palmyra and Main, LaVeta and Parker, Chapman and Flower; and the noise levels -- both short and long term impacts. He explained these three impacts in detail, noting the mitigation for these are inclusive and incomplete. Does the City intend to signalize each intersection? Will the City provide crossing guards at each of these intersections? He spoke about the sound wall mitigation in that it will give the school aprison-like quality that is unattractive, not 7 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 to speak of the graffiti problems. Have all reasonable alternatives been reviewed? Dwain Raney, 368 South Cambridge, asked where the cars will go at the end of Cambridge? There's more traffic now and that's where the spill over will go from LaVeta. He's concerned for the safety of children and senior citizens. Margo Andrews, 504 East Culver, became interested in Old Towne to help preserve and refurbish it. It seems like the City is concentrating on making Orange a bunch of fast streets; it will take away the atmosphere. You can build new neighborhoods, but cannot rebuild Old Towne. Carolyn Keating, 621 South Orange, was concerned about widening LaVeta and increasing the traffic to 37,500 cars at a cost of at least $16.3 million. There seems to be a lack of a clear sense for the need to widen LaVeta. None of the alternatives address the needs of the voters of Orange. Widening LaVeta is too high a price to pay. What about increased dangerousness, traffic, noise, air pollution, the destruction of a childrens' playground at school, making Hart Park inaccessible to the neighborhood and a hazardous journey for children? Kim Angle, 490 South Pixley, lives in the southwest section of town, which she considers a neighborhood. It borders residential neighborhoods and the hospital. She resides in a section of LaVeta that is now four lanes. The area has deteriorated somewhat since being widened from two lanes to four. As far as retaining walls, it will turn into an area for graffiti. The proposal will remove her hedge and side yard; she does not want to look at a wall two feet out her window. She thought all Orange residents should be sent a notice of this project. This will impact the entire city; not just a small section. Robert Boice, 143 North Pine, President of O.T.P.A., addressed the quality of life in their neighborhoods, but limited his comments to the project as it impacts the historical resources of the community. Many people believe the downtown area is historically preserved. The project being discussed with demolish 14 historic structures listed on the historic inventory and will adversely affect scores of others and some that are individually eligible for listing on the National Register. This information alone should be enough to find the E.I.R. inadequate and cause the Commission to send a recommendation to the City Council to deny portions of the project that 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 impact the historic resources. None of the structures affected by the project and listed on the inventory fall into the not significant category. Therefore, all are at least significant. There is only one historic district that is protected in the Old Towne area, which is the downtown core. The rest of Old Towne does not have the benefit nor the protection of being a bonafide, local or national historic district. The Old Towne significance is in its collectivity; all of Old Towne is important or none of it is important. You cannot damage the borders of Old Towne and expect it to remain viable. As a City and a community, there is an obligation to protect the physical history. Scott McReynolds, 504 South Grand, favors improvements on Main Street. The Old Towne environment attracted him to Orange. It is a jewel for the entire County and even Southern California. People come to Orange to recapture an era gone by. He's opposed to the widening of LaVeta. The oldest landmark home in the Nutwood tract would be sitting on a 5-lane highway. People are committed to improving their own neighborhood. When the LaVeta extension was cancelled so should the LaVeta widening have been. He finds it incomprehensible that Prop 111 and Measure M funds are jeopardized by the small part of the widening on the east end of LaVeta. The burden of Cal Trans' failures to adequately accommodate commuters should not be borne by Orange residents. The E.I.R. is faulty in many areas. Ron Smolka, 637 East Van Bibber, said the widening of LaVeta Avenue is only the beginning of more development projects to come. The widening project will only encourage more cars to use it. More cars means more congestion, more stop lights and more pollution. The City of Orange will then try to capitalize by seeking ways to increase tax revenues by converting properties from residential to commercial. The City needs to figure out how to balance the yearly fiscal budgets rather than giving in to special interest groups. Kimberly King, 537 1 /2 South Glassell, said while the speed limit is 25 m.p.h. on Glassell and LaVeta, the traffic does not obey the speed limit. She has complained several times to the Traffic Department, b u t apparently there are not enough officers to patrol the area and it's quite dangerous. She has trouble getting in and out of her driveway and she requested help. 9 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, wanted to keep the commuters out of Orange. She would place a no left turn sign at the east end of LaVeta and Cambridge and on Cambridge at any thru side streets going east, directing traffic to Fairhaven. Let Santa Ana take this traffic. Dean Clark, 220 Feldner Road, has property at 305 South Main. He owns the funny little gas station on the corner of Main and Palmyra. They were shocked and outraged that consultants wanted to demolish their building, which is part of his heritage. The traffic on Main Street will decidedly improve with the new Cal Trans project on the 22 Freeway in the Fall of 92 if completed on schedule. He sees no reason for this project. Jackie Mabry, 330 East LaVeta, represented her three little boys, as well as her neighborhood, and asked to please not sacrifice their safety in the name of progress. Linda Goehle, 604 South Grand, spoke about her neighborhood and how the families are making property improvements. They recently added on and were amazed how much the City cared about how their property looked. It didn't make sense for this project to be approved when the City cared about every little detail on an individual house. Joseph Kelly, 133 South Shaffer, pointed out the Commissioners are public servants. It was his hope the Commission would serve the public faithfully. Greg Lepore, 292 North Cambridge, believed five or six years ago there was an attempt to widen Cambridge Street to four lanes. He understood that proposal was denied because there were several schools on that street. He urged the City to look back at the previous attempt to widen Cambridge and look at the reasons as to denial. He assumed the same problems still exist. Wayne Spring, 1243 Fairway Drive, fought the issue on the golf course area and got the LaVeta extension removed from the General Plan, which was another endeavor to put LaVeta through from Cambridge to Tustin. He doesn't think there are that many new homes in the neighborhood to require that many more trips by the local residents to warrant that improvement. He doesn't see why Orange residents should support Main Place, Santa Ana, by infrastructure. Orange does not need another traffic 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 problem like the one on Chapman by increasing a street that goes no where. Kathleen Dolaway, 700 East Lake Drive, (community behind a one lane road). Lake Drive runs between Cambridge and the entrance to the Morningside on the Lake condominiums. There are 142 home and all residents are opposed to the street widening project. It will ruin the integrity and beauty of the community. April Bellmyer, 419 South Glassell, Director of the Montessori School, opposed the street widening project on Glassell. Her primary concern is the safety of the children. Margaret Davis, 128-134 East LaVeta, stated if the road is approved, it will cut off their trees and sidewalks and leave the road exactly six feet from their front doors. Patricia Barrios, 235 East Maple, works for the St. Joseph Health System, which is located in the Sunwest Bank building at LaVeta and Main. If she leaves work between 5:00 and 5:15, she can't get out of the parking structure. But if she leaves at 5:30 p.m., she can get right out of the parking structure and the street is empty. We're talking about a small window of time when talking about a 5-lane highway. That's sort of a night mare version of "Field of Dreams" and if you build it, they will come. Jim Bacin, 120 South Cross Creek Road, Apt. N, has had the opportunity to observe relationships between cities and developers. It appeared that Orange kept an arms length relationship with the developers. But he now questions that. He agrees there is a little bit of congestion on LaVeta, primarily during the rush hour. Perhaps that's the problem and it should be looked at in a different way. Why are five lanes needed on LaVeta? Who would benefit from the new development? There has been concern about the existing bottle necks. He thinks they're great; doing exactly what a lot of people would like to have them do. Those bottle necks are keeping traffic out of the downtown area. He found it remarkable that many people did not know each other, but had the same concerns. What does that suggest about the E.I.R.? His suggestion was to add an additional lane to the transition roads from the eastbound 22 to the 55. That would relieve a lot of the problems seen now. Are economic opportunities more important that the rights of the current residents and residential land owners? 11 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 Harold Jones, 667 South Grand, told the Commission it took him five minutes to get to the meeting because there was so much traffic. It's a challenge to get across LaVeta. He suggested putting a stop sign on each street to slow traffic. George Cassell, 634 East La Veta, said it was surprising there were five freeways serving Orange. The freeways were designed to alleviate the traffic problems of the City. Conversely, Orange was expected to alleviate the problems of the freeways by providing access for residents of the rest of the state. Orange is a bedroom community. To alleviate traffic off of LaVeta, turn the traffic at Glassell, southbound to Fairhaven. It's not fair to the residents to have a highway in their neighborhood. Steve Nelson, 357 South Olive, talked about the Old Towne domestic traffic patterns. He has seen an increase in traffic in Old Towne; one reason is because of the re-zoning. Original zonings need to be restored if the neighborhood is going to be preserved. Monica Bauer, 1921 West LaVeta, said their intent was not to slow the effort to widen LaVeta because they realize it needs to be done in their area, but to be compensated for the difficulties created by the changes and to keep their property attractive for the residents. Their businesses have already been negatively affected. Their effort is to minimize the complications which are going to be experienced due to the LaVeta widening project. Their two main concerns are parking and cross traffic. They propose that the City provide parking at a lot in the area near the community on land being acquired by the City and the City provide parking bays if at all feasible in the area across the width of their property on the south side of LaVeta. One of the mitigation measures for widening LaVeta should be to control the cross traffic problems with money to provide controlled access gates. Norma Leifer, Big Y Yardage Outlet, 440 South Main Street, spoke as a merchant against the street widening. There is a tremendous bottle neck at Main and LaVeta. They know the street has to be widened, but it will destroy their parking. If the City takes away 42 feet of parking, where will their customers park? What is the City's plan? Ray Gelgur,33921 Calle Borrego, San Juan Capistrano, is one of the owners of the shopping center at the corner of Chapman and Main. The taking of their property will be detrimental to their major tenants, Ralphs and 12 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 Circuit City. As many as 8 parking spaces could be eliminated with the widening of Chapman Avenue; as many as 20 parking spaces on Main Street. When approval was received for the development of Ralphs, they were granted a variance for up to 15% less than the required parking by code. They have encountered times when parking is used to the m a x i m u m capacity. Thus, any loss of parking would be disastrous to the center. The current plan will cut a small portion from the Circuit City building. However, the E.I.R. recommends that alignment be altered so that no part of the building be taken and they support that recommendation. Ralphs and Circuit City informed the owners they could not feasibly operate if the proposed amount of land were dedicated for the new street alignment. He submitted a letter from Ralphs which supports their position of keeping as many parking spaces as possible, along with a site plan of the property. Representatives from Circuit City also spoke in opposition to this issue. The recommended proposal to use the old Adray's site as a location for employee parking would not be feasible as it is too remote and an element of safety must be considered. Brian Johnson, Circuit City, 1407 West Chapman Avenue, said the taking of 28 parking spaces will limit the opportunity for customers to come into the shopping center. They have the second smallest parking availability and yet they're a prominent store. This is a flag ship store and they feel they represent a very strong presence in the City of Orange. They calculated $1,000 an hour based on the 28 spaces can be obtained during the Christmas season. His employees will object to having to go down to Adray's former parking lot because of safety and security issues. He brought photos and gave them to the Commission showing the parking lot being used to full capacity. By losing even one parking space would directly impact them. Michael Bank, 4949 Ethel Avenue, Sherman Oaks, represented Circuit City. They have widened a lot of streets in Sherman Oaks to 5 lanes and it hasn't done much good; it just doesn't work. The parking spaces generate between $10 and $18 an hour of revenue for the City of Orange; they're the best parking meters in town and need to be kept. If the project were to go forward, they strongly support the mitigation measure of taking the presently vacant corner lot, which could replace most of the lost parking, and reserve that as a trade on the property. The 20 feet presently proposed to be taken on Main Street would jeopardize their pile on sign which is very important to them. If it has to be done, it could be done in a way to preserve the sign. 13 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 Michael Adray, 1809 West Chapman, said in 1988 they built their new store and expanded it from 10,000 to 31,000 square feet without any help from the Redevelopment Agency. They were told about the eventual widening of Chapman Avenue of about 10 feet. At that time the City requested they deed the 10 feet to them and pay in advance for the improvements of the street. They have now found out the City plans to widen the street 22 feet. This plan will take 24 parking spaces -- this represents approximately 25% of their existing parking. They currently have a parking problem. The parking is to City code, but they feel more parking is needed. By taking the additional parking from them, would severely hurt their business and the surrounding neighborhoods. Dana Daum, 481 South Devon, owns the Main Street Sandwich Saloon located on the northwest corner of Main and LaVeta. He would lose his business if the proposed widening of LaVeta were approved. He hopes the City would have some concern as to his economic loss and to the others who have businesses along Main Street. He suggested synchronized lights on Main to help solve peak demand problems. Nora Cunningham, 264 North Main, is one of the owners of the Far Horizons Montessori School. Her concern is the loss of nine parking spaces, as well as putting the pre-school play yard right on the street. Why do you propose to take the footage from just one side of Main Street? Myron Yeager, 700 West LaVeta, represented LaVeta Monterey Homeowners Association. There are approximately 212 units in this complex. He spoke on the area of the project that has been overlooked between Batavia and Parker Streets. His concern was parking on the north side of LaVeta and stepping back the intersection on the southwest corner of Parker and LaVeta. Pat Geer, 2338 West Beverly Drive, was at the hearing because of her two children who attend Sycamore Elementary School, 365 North Main Street. Her major concern is the safety of the children. If the plan is approved, they will lose 13 feet of the kindergarten playground. What kind of safety precautions will be taken for the children? Kimberly Bottomley, 1005 Arbor Way, has a daughter attending Sycamore Elementary School. Safety of the children was her concern. It mentioned in the E.I.R. the fire station might be moved. Will the City have more 14 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 police officers and paramedics to patrol the area if the widening goes through? She opposed six lanes of traffic in front of the school and park. Evelynn Cates, 700 West LaVeta, (the corner of LaVeta and Parker). They are surrounded by freeways. They are affected by the parking. A left hand turn lane at Glassell might take care of some of the problems. Robert Green, 534 West LaVeta, is looking at the project as an improvement for the condition of the street. But you need to put in the proper improvements (i.e., a 30 or 40 foot median to divide the street in half; buffer with trees, something for noise blockage). It's the same for Parker Street -- widen that street as much as is needed. He's not sure if Old Towne is worth saving. O.T.P.A. is another enemy. The City is on one side, traffic on the other, and then O.T.P.A. Everybody wants to own your property. What can be done with that money other than widening the streets? He's not against widening the street, but if it is done, do it right! Carolyn Cavecche, 275 North Shaffer, spoke to the widening of LaVeta between Cambridge and Glassell. She wondered what was going on behind the scenes at City Hall? Instead of trying to think of ways to accommodate the traffic, she thought the City needed to find ways to discourage the use of residential streets as a raceway. The street is too busy as it is. There needs to be stop signs across LaVeta. Central Orange does not want to be used as a freeway for other areas of Orange. Patty Ricci, 618 East Culver, opposed the LaVeta widening, but spoke on the issue of North Main. Why aren't you widening both sides of the street? Her son attends the Montessori School and the street noise will be so close to the playground. Nick Samia, 344 East LaVeta, said it was appalling for the City to widen their residential street to accommodate other people. Stan Nathanson, is the Operations Manager at Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange, 480 Batavia, spoke about the lack of parking spaces if the street is widened. The noise abatement will be 27 feet closer to the Mother House, where the nuns reside and it will make for a noisy corridor. They hold weekend colleges at their location and will be faced with having to build a high rise parking structure. 15 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 Michael Yocum, 414 South Center Street, opposed the widening of LaVeta, east of Glassell and also the widening of Glassell up to Culver. There is no need to increase the traffic on LaVeta. The impact on parking has not been addressed enough. He believes the City should make LaVeta a "no thru" street and the residents should be able to park in front of their houses like everyone else does. Daniel LaCava, 517 West LaVeta, did not feel the E.I.R. addressed the economic difficulties caused to property owners scheduled for a total take by the project. He asked if the City plans to include inverse condemnation, and if so, when? His house fell out of escrow because of the proposed widening project. He's now making two house payments and would like to know what the City is going to do to litigate the financial losses he's experiencing. Commissioner Bosch noted for the record the Commission received a letter dated January 2, 1992 from Mr. LaCava, which will be entered into the record. Valerie Pinamonti, 173 North Jewell Place, reminded everyone there are homes on Main Street to be affected by this. She moved from the City of Brea four years ago because they began to develop as fast it could. She didn't care for that and left. She will not stick around to see what the City does to Main Street -- she'll leave, but not all of her neighbors have that option. She does not want to see the area destroyed. She would like to see the bottlenecks kept. The residents of Orange are not the people here seeking the widening of the streets. Fred Smoller, 630 West Palm #22, is a member of the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance. They were the people who opposed and defeated the LaVeta Extension. They commissioned a poll of the City of Orange by Statnet Consultants. They didn't ask questions about the particular street widening project, but asked a number of questions about the quality of life in the City of Orange. The overwhelming sentiment of the poll was that the people felt the quality of life has declined by 80-90%. They felt there was too much development in the City of Orange. Walter Holloman, 358 North Maplewood, shared his work experience which was similar to this one on Wilshire Blvd.. They were not allowed to widen the street so that required some creative solutions. Limiting left turns, 16 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 timing the signals and limiting entry on to the main streets were ways they accomplished their goals. Chairman Cathcart said they heard over 65 people give their point of view. The Mayor's Hot Line received 15 calls today against the widening of LaVeta. A letter has been received from the president of the Chamber of Commerce and also the letter from Mr LaCava. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Murphy said they have completed a little over 3 hours of public testimony. Several things were apparent from day one. There needs to be some more study on this. The map which was given to the Commission earlier indicated the project in subsections. He thought this project needed to be looked at by subsections and give staff some direction to come back with some creative alternatives. He was concerned about not hearing any testimony in some of the areas. He suggested going through this section by section and try to come to some conclusions. Commissioner Bosch had 30 specific questions, in addition feelings about the project as a whole that appear to coverage within the E.I.R. He would like answers to questions to assist the Commission in the decision-making The segments of the map include: Segment 1, LaVeta, between Shaffer and Cambridge Segment 2, LaVeta, between Glassell and Shaffer Segment 3, Glassell, north from LaVeta to Culver Segment 4, LaVeta, from Glassell to the Santa Fe tracks Segment 5, all of LaVeta west of the tracks Segment 6, Main, south of LaVeta Segment 7, Main, from LaVeta to Chapman Segment 8, Main, north of Chapman Segment 9, Chapman, west of Main Questions: Segments 1 & 2: Extension through how? to the general lack sufficient the following process. Does the traffic report recognize that the LaVeta the former Santiago Golf Course has been deleted? And 17 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 Segments 1 & 2: How can deletion of a small segment from the proposed arterials in this environment impact report impact Proposition M or Proposition 111 funds? Segments 1 & 2: What happens to traffic once it comes to Cambridge under the proposed plan and alternatives? Where is the detailed development of that? Segments 1 & 2: Specific impacts on the Palmyra School from that traffic? Segments 1 & 2: What about key hour signals synchronization? What would be the positive impacts towards reducing the size of the streets? Segments 1 & 2: What about enhancing the traffic movement from LaVeta south on Glassell to Fairhaven, and then east on Fairhaven in lieu of LaVeta east of Glassell? Segments 1 & 2: How about any other improvements to divert traffic from LaVeta east to Glassell while protecting Prop. M and Measure 111 funds? Segments 1 & 2: What are the impacts upon possible candi0dancy for historic designations of individual properties in the entire Old Towne district? All areas, but more specifically Segments 1 & Z: How would speed be controlled on LaVeta, east of Glassell with freer flow? How about the safety relative to that speed? All areas, but more specifically to east of Glassell, Segments 1 & 2: Why not one-way streets? One-way streets different times during the day? Segments 1 & 2: Historical resource protection -- are there exemptions from the stringent requirements of Measure M, Prop. 111 or other externally applied measures that would reduce the City's need to provide for these improvements? Segments 5, 7, 8 and 9: Regard to student protection at all major crossings? Specific noise and playground loss at Sycamore School? Provide conclusive mitigation measures. 18 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 Segments 5, 7, 8 and 9: What is proposed to mitigate other than a sound wall the losses of environment at Sycamore School? Segment 5, between Main and Glassell: Where is the aesthetic improvement for this area? (Already widened in the past with no improvements; where are the proposed improvements now?) Segments 1, 2 and 3: Where are the mitigation of impacts on historic resources proposed to be removed or adjacently impacted by the widenings? Segments 1 and 2: Why not use the City's monies which would be applied to the project to improve Cal Trans projects including the 22/55 junction? What would be the impacts of this? Segment 4: How much is neighborhood traffic vs. commuter traffic in that area? (LaVeta, west of Glassell). Segment 7: Main Street commercial. How will parking be replaced without impacting other privately owned properties? What is the plan? Segment 8: Main, north of Chapman. How will adequate and acceptable parking be provided for major shopping centers? Why isn't Redevelopment's activities coordinated with the activities of Public Works on the project? Segment 9: On West Chapman, why a 22 foot take on the north side of Chapman, west of Main when 10 feet was promised before? Segment 8: Why take just one side of Main Street; why not look at mitigating impacts? Segment 8: Sycamore School addendum question. Will the City mitigate impacts requiring reconfiguration of the entire grounds to make the school function as an entity again? How about safety? Are overpasses considered? Segment 8: One of the options indicates that the Fire Station might move. Where would it move if it does? What would be the impacts on fire safety in that area? 19 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 Segments 5, 1 and 2: What can be done with the money to mitigate traffic impacts without damaging the economy other than widening the streets? Segment 5, LaVeta and Batavia: What can be done at that location to abate noise and mitigate substantial parking loss? Will the City change development standards to allow off setting development to mitigate parking loss? Segment 5: Where a total take may occur as an option, will the City contemplate inverse condemnation and when? How will the economic impact on a residence be off set? (Economic impact including that perceived to be occurring at the present time.) All areas: What are other traffic control measures, such as limiting left turns,signals, limited entry on to the main streets, cul-de-sacs, side streets -- what are the positive and negative impacts of this relative to the primary alternatives? Commissioner Murphy would also like to see specifics on both homeowners and businesses that might be under a full take what the plans would be from a mitigation standpoint both economically, business promotion, those types of things. Commissioner Master asked what has been done to account for the isolation of what LaVeta might do regarding neighborhood integration? The neighborhood would potentially be separated by a five lane arterial. Have cross overs being considered? Commissioner Scott thought the staff should look into how it would affect the floor area ratios for the commercial areas. The property owners should be notified if they are affected. Commissioner Murphy said the idea of the effects of a no project selection on any one specific area and how it might impact the area should be looked at section by section. Chairman Cathcart's concern is long-term impacts. He had a problem with a couple of the components of the project. Taking each component and looking at it as a no project and what the effect of that would be was an excellent suggestion. What bothered him the most was Segments 1, 2 and 3. If those were a no project, what effect would that have upon the 20 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1992 overall project. He has heard a lot of sincere concern and he appreciated that. The Commissioners are concerned on how you get across the street, children at the schools, how the kids will get to Hart Park -- all of these issues need to be addressed. He suggested because of the late hour to continue the hearing. Staff requested a 30 day continuance to give them time to respond to all questions. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to continue Environmental Impact Report 1398 to a special meeting February 10, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: PUBLIC INPUT Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, wanted to see an explanation of the legal position with respect to the Joint Powers Agreement in Santa Ana and the agreements made with them dealing with the LaVeta/Grand/Main situation. He also wanted more explanation of just what the problems would be with Prop 111 and Measure M? MaryAnn Skorpanich, 292 North Cambridge, requested staff attempt to widely advertise hearings and continuations on this matter. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to adjourn at 11:10 p. m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED sld 21