Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-1992 PC MinutesMINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING Planning Commission February 10, 1992 City of Orange 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; Frank Page, Director of Public Works; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; and, Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 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. Chairman Cathcart welcomed everyone for the continuation of the hearing for the widening of La Veta Avenue, Main, Chapman, and Glassell. At the previous meeting, the public hearing was closed; however, there were a few people who were noticed between the last meeting and this one that did not have an opportunity to speak. The Commission wanted to hear their point of view and concerns. Forty- 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 four concerns were addressed at the previous hearing. Those questions were answered in a booklet, "Response to Questions - EIR 1398", which was available at the library and Public Works counters. This booklet can still be purchased for $5.00 or can be read at the counters. Many cards have been submitted by people who spoke at the previous hearing. If anyone had new concerns, they were invited to speak again. Mr. Godlewski presented opening remarks regarding E.I.R. 1398 for the La Veta Avenue, Main Street, West Chapman Avenue widening project. The E.I.R. is designed to be an information document and bring up all the environmental issues that could result from the implementation of this project. The first meeting held on this item was a staff presentation on the details of the project. The second meeting was the public comments session, where additional informational was raised. Some very good questions were brought up that were not previously discussed in the environmental impact report. The answers to those questions have been provided to the Commission and the questions/answers now become an official part of the environmental document itself. The Commission is to make a determination as to the adequacy of the environmental impact report. Does it address all the issues that have been raised, both in the E.I.R. and by the public in their concerns? If the Commission feels it adequately addresses those issues, staff recommends they certify that this document has been prepared in compliance with C.E.Q,A. The Commission may choose to note that certain environmental situations may be created that there is no mitigation for; however, if the Commission feels the over riding project is for the betterment of the community in spite of the impacts, then staff asks for direction as to what areas that is in so that a statement of overriding considerations may be prepared and forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. A number of options have been provided on the various alignments of the street. There is a recommendation in the staff report for the preferred alignment; however, the overall question is -- have all the environmental issues been brought up, have they been discussed, and have they been discussed in a manner that is adequate for the Commission to make a decision? Chairman Cathcart entered into the record letters from Preferred Property Developments, owners of the northwest corner of Chapman and Main (Circuit City/Ralphs); St. Joseph's Hospital; and from Five Hundred South Main St. Associates. 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to re-open the public hearing. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The public hearing was opened. Public Comments: Bob Goehle, 604 South Grand, reviewed the recommendations but did not feel they answered the questions adequately. He was concerned about the RFP process and felt the E.I.R. selection process was biased. It was like the City had the ability to choose the firm who was going to agree with them. He thought traffic on LaVeta should be encouraged to go north towards the Circle on Glassell towards the commercial corridor; not to encourage the traffic eastbound through the residential area. Geneva Fulton, 1801 North Greenleaf Street, Santa Ana, was interested in the northwest corner of Main and La Veta. She did not believe it was necessary to widen La Veta clear to Cambridge -- only widen it to Main or Batavia on the north side. She would be losing her house on the corner of Alpine and La Veta, but that was alright. She suggested a right hand turn going south on Main Street to La Veta as it would relieve back up traffic on Main. La Veta does not need to be widened on the south side. Doug Lawrence, 915 East Palmyra, expressed his concerns as a resident in the area. He has expressed his concerns in the past to the Traffic Commission and City Council regarding the traffic flow down his street, but did not get much of a response. The average speed down Tustin Avenue is 42 m.p.h. and the average speed down Palmyra is 3 8 m.p.h. It took quite an effort to get it posted for 25 m.p.h. The people have not slowed down in the least. The widening of La Veta would continue to make a bad problem worse. Rich Robertson, 477 South Orange Street, was upset with the answers to the questions. The Palmyra School issue, if La Veta is not widened, there would be more traffic is hard to believe. He read the City may lose Measure Mmonies -- the word may doesn't make sense. The question was not answered adequately. 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 Jim Beam, 3745 West Chapman Avenue, represented his client, St. Joseph's Hospital, and read their letter into the record, urging approval of the project. Mike Perfetti, 167 South Main Street, represented the Chili Pepper restaurant and spoke in favor the project. Scott McReynolds, 504 South Grand, said after reviewing the answers to the questions it raised more questions. He felt questions 8 and 15 regarding historic districts contradicted each other; the E.I.R. was done before the La Veta extension was cancelled; it doesn't address the question of traffic at Cambridge. He asked that the E.I.R. not be adopted. Valerie Pinamonti, 173 North Jewell Place, asked why the City was still discussing this issue? Greg Lepore, 292 North Cambridge, asked what happened to the petitions that were submitted. He felt the median strips on La Veta were a good idea. The City has the flexibility to meet the growth management mandates and hopes the City will come up with a plan to meet those requirements in the interest of Old Towne. Mike Mabry, 330 East La Veta, read the questions/answers and was dumbfounded. The synchronization of signals and one way streets were not answered. The staff report of December 20, 1991 lends itself towards a money issue and the City would be open to a lawsuit if any of the plans were to be changed. Hasn't that been done with the LaVeta extension? Evelyn Cates, 700 West La Veta #E-7, represented the La Veta Monterey Apartments and submitted a petition with 276 signatures. Future parking accommodations were requested. Craig Smith, 504 East Palmyra, asked if a study had been done on property losses and those impacts as it relates to the project. The impact on future generations is a real concern. Steve McHarris, 485 South Orange Street, wanted to know about the historical preservation of the area and if the proposed project were 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 consistent with the General Plan or was there a conflict with the Preservation Element? Lois Barke, 2022 Spruce, represented her neighbors who were very concerned about the Chapman and Orangewood area. The schools will experience more noise and pollution and the children's safety is a real issue having to cross six lanes of traffic. She asked about the fire station remaining open at it's present location and was assured it would. Ray Gelgur, 31877 Del Obiispo, Suite 201, San Juan Capistrano, spoke regarding the corner of Main and Chapman (Ralphs/Circuit City). He did not believe development of that corner was more important than the parking issue. Dan Slater, 278 North Pine Street, heard from his clients that they called and talked to City staff, who told them the project was a done deal; it would go through. Chairman Cathcart responded nothing is a done deal until the Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine Street, asked for clarification on the Notice of Public Hearing which was mailed; it sounded like a threat. Mr. Godlewski explained the notices were mailed to people in the industrial and town and country areas; and what the intent of the notice would mean to them. Marty Adair, 2390 American Way Street, said she was not paid for her property that was dedicated and asked why these people would be paid for theirs? Mr. Johnson explained new development was required to dedicate and post a bond for street improvements to take care of traffic which is generated from development. Older streets were never built to their ultimate width. Kimberly Bottomley, 1005 West Arbor Way, enjoys bike riding and asked if bike lanes would be provided on Main Street if the plan is approved? 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 Lisa Peterson, 414 North Clark #F, was very concerned about the traffic in front of Sycamore Elementary School. She asked if an independent traffic study has been made as to the speed of cars in front of the school? She said an 8 foot sound wall will not stop the noise of traffic. Chairman Cathcart stated a letter was received from the Orange Unified School District requesting a continuance for four weeks in order to work out an equitable solution to resolve the widening of Main Street in front of Sycamore Elementary School. Staff Input Bernie Dennis answered the questions that were raised. At no time did he or staff insinuate this street widening project was a done deal. Signalization between La Veta east to Glassell and from Glassell, south to Fairhaven was addressed. The City has a very active signal synchronization program. It involved Main Street, Chapman and a number of other streets. It is used for two reasons: to make the flow of traffic more efficient and as a speed control regulation. At La Veta, east of Glassell there would be two signals proposed at that section of roadway. One would be at LaVeta and Grand; the other at LaVeta and Shaffer. Commissioner Murphy said the question centered around looking at the option of signalization heading eastbound on LaVeta to Glassell; then southbound from Glassell to Fairhaven. Mr. Dennis referred to Question 6 and read the second paragraph of the response. The Fairhaven improvements are under way. Commissioner Bosch thought the question applied to wh a t improvements have been studied and what would be the result of the improvements in the signalization at Glassell and LaVeta and the freeway at Fairhaven and Glassell; then easterly on Fairhaven that might off set the loss of LaVeta, east of Glassell? Are there ways to improve that flow in cooperation with Santa Ana and Cal Trans that could mitigate the loss of thru traffic on La Veta, east of Glassell? Mr. Dennis said they discussed at length the ramifications of Fairhaven and LaVeta working in tandem at the time of the LaVeta extension. City Council elected not to pursue the LaVeta extension, which has a 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 tendency to over capacitate Fairhaven. Fairhaven was built to its optimum. If something is not done on LaVeta, there will be more of a hardship or burden on Fairhaven. Commissioner Scott's recollection of the LaVeta extension, from Cambridge to Tustin, was never on the arterial highway program -- it was a study street. (Correct.) Another question was raised about no thru traffic at Glassell and LaVeta. Mr. Dennis said that was discussed briefly in the Response to Questions. There are several intervening streets that could be used, such as Almond, Culver and Palmyra. There is an issue about speed and volume of traffic on Palmyra. The reason people use that street is because they have no alternative and it happens to be signalized at Tustin. Chairman Cathcart said the question about a traffic study was raised. How did the City arrive at the traffic counts or mitigation measures regarding Sycamore School? Mr. Dennis said there were three or four issues involving the improvement of Main Street as it relates to Sycamore School. What do we do with the children crossing the street? There is a very active crossing guard program and children are crossing six lanes of traffic at Katella, East Chapman, and several locations along Tustin. What would be the noise impacts? Staff met with the school representatives and the extent of mitigation is undetermined at this point in time. There will be a noise problem. It is undetermined if the best solution is a conventional sound wall, a wall on a berm, a wall with plantings or air conditioning the school. There are no class rooms that front onto Main Street. Regarding the loss of playground area, it is staff's recommendation that Palm Way be abandoned either in total or in part and that the north half of the roadway be incorporated into a school playground area. Commissioner Murphy asked if a traffic study had been done concerning the current traffic situation on Main in front of Sycamore School? (No.) 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 Chairman Cathcart said questions 8 and 15, which basically bring up the inconsistencies between the General Plan and the Preservation Element. Can that be addressed? Mr. Ryan responded to question 8. It was broken down into two areas: LaVeta area west of Glassell Street and East LaVeta area. He read his responses. The LaVeta area west of Glassell would not be eligible for a National Register district. The second area has been identified as a potential National Register district and the response was based on the size of the Nutwood tract and the fact that it was the City's first subdivision. The street widening project would adversely affect the formation of a contiguous national registered district in the area. It was his understanding that the Preservation Element was suppose to be integrated into the update of the General Plan. He noticed the Circulation Element did not have a matrix for identifying the impacts of historic structures upon any circulation system or widening of streets. They need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Sylvia Selaneous, P&D Technologies, said their historic resources consultant prepared the response to question 15. They do not feel the impacts of the project will cause a major problem for the nomination of the area as a National Register property district. As far as mitigating for district status, the consultant did not feel it was appropriate. There are mechanisms that can be used to mitigate for the individual buildings. The Commission determined a conflict exists between questions 8 and 15 in the way they are written. Mr. Dennis explained the answer to questions 1 and 3 and read both regarding traffic supply and demands. If LaVeta is extended, the traffic level on Cambridge, north of LaVeta stays within a manageable limit. Commissioner Bosch looked at Figure 3-8 of the technical attachment to the General Plan, which illustrated post 2010 ADT comparison for the LaVeta connection or with an augmented MPAH, which would require four lanes in either case under the current configurations. And for Cambridge, north of LaVeta, if the LaVeta extension had occurred, the connection to Tustin shows 9,000 ADT or .81 load on Cambridge, between LaVeta and Chapman. It can be presumed that those cars would head south on Glassell to Fairhaven, except there isn't capacity 8 Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 now for them to occur. What mitigation could occur with Santa Ana to help offset that problem? Commissioner Murphy noticed in the draft E.I.R., Table 2-1 -- Projected Study Area Traffic Volume Increases a typo, but wanted clarification. On LaVeta between Glassell and Cambridge it shows an average daily traffic estimate for '87 and post 2010. Is the post 2010 figure accurate? No.) Were the numbers transposed? It should be 31 instead of 13. Correct.) The volume capacity would go to Level of Service D at 80%. There was a question about bike lanes on Main Street? (There will be none. There are no bike lanes on any of the 6-lane arterials. LaVeta, as proposed, can accommodated marked bike lanes.) Question 19 addressed the corner development at Chapman and Main -- the Redevelopment issue vs. use of parking. Mr. Godlewski responded part of the negotiations along with the project would be to replace that parking. The corner piece of the property has been discussed with the Redevelopment Economic Development Committee. It was their decision not to pursue that corner for a number of reasons that haven't been discussed, and to allow that property to develop with aretail/commercial center. Chairman Cathcart had a problem with that. Mr. Godlewski took this back to the Committee and they encouraged the two property owners to try and work it out, but it's something the City did not feel comfortable in pursuing because of toxic conditions present on the property due to the tanks that were previously there. It brings up a liability issue that the Agency did not want to pursue. Mr. Dennis said staff met with Mr. Gelgur and the managers and engineers and will do everything it takes for them to stay; the City does not want to lose them as business people. They're looking at a loss of parking on that corner between 18 and 28 spaces. Commissioner Murphy said there was an issue raised by the owner of the Chili Pepper concerning what his ability would be to build to his property based on the loss of some of the frontage. What is in place as far as ensuring that the business owners who are going to lose part of 9 Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 their frontage or perhaps even full takes as far as mitigations for them to either rebuild on said properties or help them move to stay in Orange? Mr. Dennis responded it was addressed in the recommendations contained in the staff report. If the project is approved in total or part, the City will be acquiring a substantial amount of both residential and commercial property. The City is not in the property business; therefore, suggested a coordinator be assigned to make things occur. Staff suggested the Council authorize afull-time coordinator for the project. Someone is needed to maintain some type of continuity as the projects progress. Commissioner Murphy said there was a question about Measure M funding and what affects it might have? Mr. Page responded to the question of the language containing the word may". It has been an interactive process between the County and City. The City's local circulation element was designed in response to the planning process and negotiated with the County. The "may" is only in place if a link is removed from the circulation element or the MPAH, then that particular capacity has to be replaced on a lane-by-lane basis. If that process is done in an unilateral fashion or if it is not replaced, then the "may" becomes "shall" and the City will be declared ineligible and inconsistent with the MPAH. There are 400 miles of streets in Orange. Staff attempts to try and keep the streets in some kind of repair and they want to stay eligible for these type of funding programs. Chairman Cathcart wanted an explanation about equal traffic levels; not just the alternative of widening. It does not have to look exactly like the project in order to still be eligible for Measure M monies. Mr. Page said that was correct. There is a lane requirement for a secondary arterial highway of four lanes and if the City can find a way to do that in whatever manner deemed consistent, and can convince the County is an equivalent capacity, then the City would continue to be consistent and eligible for funding. Commissioner Murphy said there was a comment about choice of consultants and templates. 10 Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 Mr. Dennis explained the selection process through the request for proposal. Staff reviewed the proposals for conformance, grade the responses and select a list of five consultants. Each of the consultants are interviewed by an independent panel. Staff had an alignment analysis done early on and apprised Council of the fact. They knew what the lane requirements were and were asking the consultant how the best way was to facilitate it and what the impacts would be? Commissioner Murphy said there was also a question regarding the partial work for relief on LaVeta and Main; specifically, right hand turn lanes rather than a complete re-do. Staff has proposed that the intersection of Main and LaVeta b e enhanced. The right turn lane is proposed to be implemented for southbound travel, but also an additional three-lane be concurrently done. This would be done from Main Street from Stewart to LaVeta; and on LaVeta between the Garden Grove Freeway and the S 7 Freeway. It would be completed to critical intersection standards. Mr. Dennis indicated there are a number of mitigation measures regarding the school that have to be addressed. They will schedule that portion of work in the year 2003. Hopefully in that 10 year time frame, they will solve most of the problems. The public hearing was closed and brought back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Bosch led the discussion stating no set decision has been made yet and they needed to find the best answer. The proposal for Chapman Avenue, west of Main was the least difficult to address and the proposal for West Chapman Avenue seemed prudent. But difficult issues need to be addressed on Main Street, north of Chapman. Concerns involve traffic, speed limits, design of the curve, school children crossing six lanes, and toxic impacts. The Economic Development Committee was encouraged to re-evalu~e their decision for the southwest corner property of Main/Chapman. An issue for further study is towards Maple. Is there a need for six lanes of traffic in that area? On Main Street, south of Chapman the ultimate lane capacity appears to make sense. There was a concern about keeping the remnant parcels in circulation. Business owners should be allowed to continue as a viable business; it was suggested private 11 Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 owners/developers work with the Redevelopment Agency to come up with a solution to offset their particular losses. The Commission must defer to staff regarding the special traffic configurations at LaVeta and Main. There are some impacts and minor improvements needed on LaVeta, west of Main Street regarding loss of on-street parking. East of Main Street, specifically LaVeta and Batavia, the Commission requests to look at the street once again before the project is implemented. It is most important to maintain the health care facilities; there is a critical need to enhance that area even though there are some negative impacts involved. Joint or off-site parking at the LaVeta Monterey apartments needs to be included in the mitigation measures to preserve a viable community. They had difficulty with the level of improvements at Culver and Parker regarding traffic flow. Increased landscaping measures need to be added. The project area should include Glassell Street to Parker rather than to the train tracks. The Historical Preservation Element addresses not just individual buildings, but the Old Towne area. It's that collective concentration that creates the environment, which could be mitigated to some extent. The Historical Element should be reconsidered for collective concentration of the Old Towne area and integrated into the General Plan. Improvements to LaVeta are needed because of some deterioration. There are problems with the Circulation Element. Traffic volumes of 2,000 cars are a lot, but not radical when you look at other streets. Future studies should include an outer loop concept, enhancing intersections, establishing one way streets on selective streets -- the Old Towne street network must be looked at before anything else is done. How can the City work together with other agencies to solve these problems? Prior to implementation, the City needs to work with Santa Ana and see what their plans are; all cities need to work together. It was suggested to move the level of improvements on LaVeta to the last alternative, but look to aclose-working relationship with Santa Ana on Fairhaven to find a way to solve traffic problems. On LaVeta, east of Grand to Cambridge there is no need to do but the very least: driveways need to be kept; right of ways minimized. Take the approach if every other effort fails, at least keep the quality of life in tact. In widening Glassell, south to Fairhaven, there was a concern about adequate parking for those businesses and a concern about the significant trees, as well. The Commission asked legal counsel for a ruling regarding separating the project into separate segments and about a statement of overriding considerations. Mr. Herrick explained the statement of overriding 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 199 considerations and stated C.E.Q,A. permits the Commission to separate the project as long as there is a finding based on the facts to do so. The issue is LaVeta, east of Glassell. Because of the City's desire to preserve the character of that part of Old Towne and to address the noise impacts, those issues are different from the rest of the project and shall be addressed separately. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, that the members of the City of Orange Planning Commission have read the Draft Environmental Impact Report 1398 with regard to the LaVeta Avenue, Main Street and West Chapman Avenue street widening project and, after receiving public testimony and written correspondence which has been entered into the record, recommend to the City Council to find that it has been prepared in conformance with the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act, except within the definition of the entire project and after careful consideration of findings based on facts of the uniqueness of the Old Towne Preservation Element of the General Plan and of those areas having historical designation potential and integrated circulation element issues concerning portions of the project between Glassell and Cambridge, and Glassell north of LaVeta to the overall Old Towne circulation system that the project on Glassell, north of LaVeta, and LaVeta, east of Glassell be considered as a separate project with unique environmental concerns and an integral part of the overall analysis and mitigation of circulation element concerns throughout the Old Towne area required by the circulation element of the General Plan. It is, therefore, recommended to the City Council to approve the E.I.R. with regard to certain street widening projects, but delete from the E.I.R. those portions which must be studied as a separate project, and amend the mitigation measures as appropriate: 1. That deleting the street widening project on La Veta Avenue east of Glassell, or Glassell north of LaVeta, would not leave or create any unaddressed environmental impacts for the remaining project. 2. That costs associated with physical improvements as described by Alternative 7 would be borne by the adjacent property owners. 3. That Alternative No. 10 providing for a relocated horizontal transition on South Main Street, southerly of Almond Avenue be approved. 13 Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 4. That a program and funding mechanism for the early acquisition of impacted residential and commercial property be developed and submitted to the Commission and/or City Council for approval. S. That the Department of Public Works shall be budgeted to appoint and perpetuate a public liaison representative for the life of this project. 6. That a staff coordinator be appointed and perpetuated during the life of this project to assist and expedite the consolidation, utilization or disposal of project related surplus property. 7. That Alternative No. 6 for LaVeta Avenue be approved between, generally, Lemon Street and Parker Street to allow on-street parking on the north side of La Veta Avenue within this area. 8. That mitigation of impacts for LaVeta Avenue west of Parker be addressed to offset the loss of existing on-street and off-street parking spaces, including the LaVeta Monterey Condominiums. 9. That improvement of all areas of the remaining streets in the project be mitigated by all reasonable efforts to address adequate sound and landscaping issues upon the houses to be impacted on Main Street, south of Maple. 10. Regarding the proposed improvements on Main Street, north of Chapman: Retain all commercial buildings which currently exist in the center at the northwest intersection of Main and Chapman. It is recommended staff work in cooperation with the property owners towards mitigating parking problems, and re-address the Economic Development Committee`s decision not to acquire the northwest corner parcel. 11. That health and safety impacts need to be addressed regarding the relocation of school playgrounds, access points, sound walls and air conditioning which will affect school buildings having direct frontage after street improvements are made. 12. The City and School District need to work together to determine the adequacy and safety of the the crossing guard program within the resources of the project. 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 13. That all parties work to offset lost parking in a manner and location which will be effectively used by employees and customers. 14. That the acquisition of retail/commercial strip centers on Main Street be encouraged to assist relocating within the immediate vicinity of existing businesses through redevelopment of totally impacted parcels. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: AD.TOL'~NMENT Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED sld 15