HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-1993 PC MinutesMINUTES
Planning Commission February 17, 1993
City of Orange Wednesday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith
ABSENT: None
STAFF
PRESENT: John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning;
Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney;
Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and
Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IN RE: MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 1993
Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve the
Minutes of February 1, 1993, as recorded.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED
ZONE CHANGE 1158-93 -ANTHONY H. OSTERKAMP, JR.
A request to reclassify property from R-1-6 (Residential -Single Family District) zone to
C-1 (Limited Business District) zone. Subject property is located at 1049 North Glassell
Street.
NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
Negative Declaration 1421-93 has been prepared for this project.
Staff received a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance to the March 1
Planning Commission Meeting. Chairman Murphy also received a letter from Mr.
Osterkamp making that same request.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to continue Zone
Change 1158-93 to the March 1, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
1
Planning Commission Minutes
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING
February 17, 1993
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1997-92 -JOHN AND LISA WHITE
A request to allow the construction of a second story addition onto an existing single
story single family residence in the R-2 (Residential Duplex District} zone, surrounded
by single story residences on three sides. Subject property is located at 250 North
Center Street.
N TE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
This item was continued from the December 21, 1992 public hearing in order for the
applicant to revise his plans to address the concerns of the Planning Commission.
Those concerns were that the second story addition be designed in a manner to fit into
the neighborhood context and the architectural style and detailing on the house be
consistent with the Old Towne Design Guidelines. The applicant has gone back and
added quite a bit of architectural trim to the building. Those particular items are outlined
in the staff report, which include wood trim around the windows and doors, attic vents,
wood siding on the gable ends, wood shutters on the first story windows along the front
east side of the building elevation, revised garage door designs, and extension of the
rear porch across the full width of the building. The revised plans have been submitted
to the Commission for consideration.
The public hearing was opened.
Agalicant
John White, 250 North Center, described what their motives and objectives were for the
overall plan. They revised the plans with the exception of wood shutters already
existing on their house. The two major concerns are now addressed: the wood trim
around the windows and the architectural style. He has heard his house is referred to
as an Early California Ranch type of construction. To significantly deviate from that type
of construction would require too much reconstruction on his existing house to make it
conform to a Craftsman style house. They wish to continue the process using the
existing materials and to build their new structure as anon-conforming historical type of
addition. They feel that's a reasonable approach since it is already a historical non-
significant structure.
Commissioner Smith commented the Guidelines don't call out for a Craftsman style;
they call for pre-1940 style.
Those speakina in op op sition
Resident, 171 North Shaffer, was concerned about the style of the house and building a
new addition that is not compatible with the ranch style, by making it a two story
2
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
structure. She doesn't believe the design fits the California Ranch style. The
Guidelines need to be adhered to.
Those s ep aking_in favor
Corinne Schreck, 446 North James, owned property on this particular block. There are
several two story houses on the block and she felt this addition would fit in nicely.
Rebuttal
Mr. White passed around photos of his neighborhood, and asked the Commission to
note the architectural style of the block. There is no common style; more than half the
houses are not consistent with a distinct architectural style. His house has historical
identity -- it was built in 1921. He felt this was a good approach to try and blend in the
structure with the neighborhood.
Chairman Murphy asked if Mr. White had a chance to review the amendment to the staff
report, including the conditions. The conditions were the same as the original staff
report, except for the obscured glass windows.
Mr. White had not seen a copy of the revised staff report. He asked to change the one
condition regarding the obscured glass windows to as necessary to obscure direct view
of back yards or houses. There are some windows that look into a tree. He preferred to
use non-obscured glass.
Commissioner Cathcart asked if Mr. White could live with condition 3, obscured glass?
Mr. White responded yes.
Commissioner Smith thought the material of the garage door looked different in the
revised plan. What was the material being used? Was it a metal roll-up garage door?
Mr. White said it was not a metal roll-up door, but would have to check with his architect
on the proposed material.
Commissioner Smith requested awood-type garage door be used and Mr. White said
that would be acceptable.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Bosch desired to retain the translucent view obscuring glass in the lower
pane of the second story windows. He noted there were three pane windows proposed.
He has found from experience and talking to people living adjacent to similar structures
that obscuring the lower third cuts down their vision into as well as out from across the
rooms without being a major distraction. He concurred to adding Condition 4 requiring a
wood or wood-type garage door. He voiced his feelings relative to architectural styles.
This is a stucco house built in 1921 that doesn't meet any standards and is different
from any other house; therefore, it is part of the historic fabric of Old Towne. He felt
3
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
there is a limit as to what one can do with guidelines and the limit has been found in this
block.
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve
Conditional Use Permit 1997-92, with conditions 1-3 as noted, and adding condition 4
requiring a wood or wood-type garage door.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Smith thought Mr. White did an excellent job in coming back with the
architectural details. The house was built in 1921, but remodeled in the 50's. That's
what gives the 50's look to the house; she didn't hear that information at the first
hearing.
IN RE: NEW HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-93 - DENNIS MOTH
A request to allow the construction of a two story duplex located within the R-2-6 zone
which is bordered on three sides by single story development. Subject property is
located at 373 North Center Street.
NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report as there was opposition. The duplex is in
addition to the existing single family dwelling that is on the property, which conforms to
the provisions of the zoning ordinance. The applicant is proposing to demolish the
existing detached two-car garage and to construct a two story L-shaped duplex at the
rear of the site. The existing house will remain on the property. An addendum to the
staff report noted a change in the square footage provided to staff by the applicant. Unit
B is changed from 1130 square feet to 1112 square feet. The building elevations
indicate the proposed structure will have a maximum height of 25 1/2 feet as measured
to the highest ridge line; and the maximum height of the existing house is approximately
22 1/2 feet. Plans indicate that the proposed duplex will be set back 10 feet from the
east and south rear and side property lines, and 5 feet from the north side property line.
The Design Review Board did review this project at their meeting of January 6, 1993
and expressed a number of concerns about the design, which were incorporated. The
Design Review Board again reviewed the proposals on January 27, and recommended
several conditions. Both drawings have been attached -- the original and a substantial
modification intended to reduce the massing of the building and create a little better
living environment.
The public hearing was opened.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
A li n
February 17, 1993
Dennis Muth, 373 North Center, is proposing to build a two story structure. It's only 30
inches taller than their one story residence in the front. There are two story buildings
scattered throughout his neighborhood, but not next door to him. Directly across the
street there is a 50 foot college building. There are five large trees on the lot along the
back property line which will help screen it from the neighbors.
Those s e~q in favor
Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, spoke in favor of the project. It's a good project and
it should be approved.
Those speaking in opposition
Dale Rahn, 350 North Harwood, addressed a number of concerns about this project at
the E.R.B. and submitted his comments to the D.R.B. One of his concerns was not
addressed. The Historic Guidelines define that Old Towne is a historic district. With
that, they include the Plaza Historic District, the spoke streets and the residential
quadrants. It was his understanding that because they were in a historic district so
defined by City codes and Design Guidelines, that certain criteria, particularly CEQA,
has effects that have not been addressed. One of those is the condition that an E.I.R.
be conducted.
Mr. Herrick explained it was true Old Towne had some historic status. It was also true
that state law provides categorical exemptions on projects like this. The City has not
adopted CEQA guidelines that go beyond what is required by state law. Under state
law at this point there is no requirement for environmental review of categorically
exempt projects.
Mr. Godlewski added staff has looked into this issue. It is staff's opinion that this
particular project is categorically exempt provided by CEQA. However, they are
concerned that there may be some cumulative effects of what is happening in the
district in the Old Towne area with structures that are continually changing from historic
district quality structures to substantially modified structures that no longer represent the
district. Staff's concern is being addressed at this time. Research is being done and
they're trying to come up with some kind of a CEQA threshold limit. It's their opinion at
this point they have not crossed that limit, but are coming close to it. In the future the
district needs to be looked at as a whole; not as individual projects.
Mr. Rahn's additional concerns were regarding open space on the property, the use of
the driveways and turn around areas, the configuration of the garages, access and
egress onto the property and the ability to contain vehicles inside the property. He's
also concerned about traffic flow as there is no parking on the street because of college
use.
5
Planning Commission Minutes
R t I
February 17, 1993
Mr. Muth discussed the parking. Originally they had three 2-car garages but the Design
Review Board would rather see two of the garages go as parking spaces, which are
provided on the site plan. They propose to restore the front house completely with a
new roof and exterior painting, including landscaping of the entire lot.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Smith had concerns about the application of CEQA in this case. She
had questions as to whether or not they could accept the Negative Declaration. Old
Towne is a historic district named in 1985 and made ordinance in 1989. She has been
witness to many projects over the last 8 or 9 years where CEQA should have applied. A
lot of development in the district exceeds the context of the existing neighborhood
regarding bulk and mass. This is not a new issue and she is familiar with a number of
occasions where CEQA could have been applied, where legal action could have been
taken but was not. This particular quadrant is one of the nicest in Old Towne, the
context is good; she has concerns about this project setting a precedent. She's not sure
if an E.I.R. is needed this time, but if not, mitigating factors should be addressed which
would include decreasing the height, the bulk and mass, putting it more in context with
the neighborhood.
Commissioner Bosch also had a couple of concerns: open space on the lot and
enforcement of the zoning ordinance. He had a technical concern on the layout of the
site regarding vehicle circulation. The open air parking space placement is a problem
and there is a very limited turn around to get out. It will be an imposition on the people
who will be living in the two rear units. The applicant should reduce the drive area,
increase the open space and increase pedestrian access, and along the way reduce the
mass as it relates to adjacent single family residential homes. He can meet the
development standards because it is a large lot, but then is it the best appropriate
development to minimize the impacts upon the surrounding property owners?
Commissioner Cathcart concurred with the comments that open space and massing are
an issue; however, there is another issue which is the proximity to Chapman College
and the fact that this is an off-campus student housing duplex. There isn't enough
student housing. He can see the positive aspects of what the applicant is trying to do
and he can also see the problems with site circulation. Site circulation bothers him
more than the massing and the height of the units.
Chairman Murphy asked the applicant if he were willing to continue his project to
address some of the concerns expressed by the Commission?
Mr. Muth preferred the Commission to make a decision at this hearing.
Commissioner Smith wondered if the applicant understood what the ramifications of
possible action are vs. a continuance. She had considerable problems with the bulk
and mass of the building. Her suggestion would have been to take it down to a story
6
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
and a half, which is the height of the front building (to make it conform to the front
building). Although the bulk and mass are greater issues, she was concerned about the
circulation as well.
Commissioner Bosch's concerns are circulation on the site, the concept of backing up
on the site, the massing issue; a reduction in the size of the units could benefit the
building design in reducing the mass. The impacts to the neighborhood would be
significant.
Commissioner Cathcart thought the size of the units precluded them from being looked
at as student housing -- it could be student family housing. The square footage of the
units and the potential problem with circulation on the site are issues of concern.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to deny without
prejudice Conditional Use Permit 2000-93.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Smith's motion was made reluctantly. She felt it was a beautiful project
and an excellent design, but it's just too big.
Mr. Godlewski explained the appeal process to the applicant.
IN RE: NEW HEARING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14752, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-93 -SANTIAGO
CREEK ASSOCIATES
A request for a Tentative Tract Map to allow the development of approximately 60% of
the subject site with 240 dwelling units and a request for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow the creation of lots without direct access to a public street. Subject property is
approximately 33 acres in size and is located on either side of Santiago Creek, west of
Tustin Street.
NOTE: The environmental impacts of the project have previously been analyzed by
certified Environmental Impact Report 1143.
Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report. The project includes a 5.2 acre portion of the
Rosewood tract that was demolished and excludes the 4.5 acre parcel adjacent to
Cambridge that is owned by Orange County Flood Control District. The applicant is
requesting a Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit for lots without frontage
on public streets. This project has received extensive review over the past few years,
most recently culminating with the approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change along with a Development Agreement and a Planned Community Text that
basically controls the development standards for developing 240 dwelling units,
dedication of 12 plus acres of open space and provisions for acreage for senior housing.
7
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
The proposed development conforms with the provisions of the Development
Agreement and the Planned Community Text; however, in analyzing the various issues
associated with the project, staff has found it necessary to include a number of
conditions. These conditions will need to be completed or resolved prior to the approval
of the final tract map, and any grading or building that would take place on the site.
Staff's concerns and revised conditions are addressed in the memo to the Planning
Commission dated February 11, 1993. The major issues include maintenance
responsibilities for the open space (Condition 7), and a landscaping plan that represents
a pallet and level of maintenance achievable with the funding proposed for the
Landscape Maintenance District. A fetter was received this date from the Orange
County Flood Control District that finally details their requirements for design.
The public hearing was opened.
A~alicant
Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates, 4675 MacArthur Court, Newport Beach, made a
short presentation on the project using exhibits illustrating the areas of approval last
year. Architectural drawings were also presented for the proposed housing units. He
discussed the greenbelt channel/open space corridor. Options for the maintenance of
the open space corridor and off site improvements were discussed. Their intent was to
propose an environmental landscaping concept. They have agreed to provide $28.00
per unit, per month as a maximum for the maintenance of the area. He requested
clarification or amendments to the following conditions of approval (amended staff report
dated 2/11/93):
Condition 9 - it was their understanding access would be provided from Cambridge, and
it would be provided in conjunction with any flood control improvements. They did not
expect nor intend that access be provided from the property through Tustin Street.
They asked to delete Condition 9.
Condition 15 - it is their understanding that condition does not involve any reconstruction
of the bridge in that location, but refers to an area south of the bridge adjacent to the
proposed senior citizen housing site, and there is no widening of the bridge required in
that location.
Condition 18 - an amendment is requested by adding the following wording: "A final
map shall not be approved, nor shall any permits be issued for project grading or
development prior to approval of the Santiago creek channel design by all applicable
permitting agencies. Final design of the proposed channel will be approved by written
agreement from all applicable (delete appropriate) agencieshaving jurisdiction over
the channel design which may include the City of Orange Public Works Department,
the Orange County Flood Control District, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency prior to issuance of building permits."
Condition 37 -deals with a well site on the property. The Planned Community Text
provides for this project to dedicate a well site to the City. It is his understanding it is not
8
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
required for this project. This condition requires other improvements to the site (i.e.,
provisions for utility service). They request the 3 phase 480 volt electrical service be
deleted from the condition.
Condition 62 - add a second sentence: "This shall not preclude property owner from
selling the entire residential or commercial components of the site."
Condition 70 -they request it be deleted.
Condition 80 -construction of the channel -they request it be deleted. They will work
with the City given some of the other considerations involved.
Condition 81 -amend by adding the wording as follows: "Capacity of the low flow
channel without the creek shall be mutually agreed to between EMA, City of Orange
and property owner Said channel shall be directed to EMA for maintenance
purposes."
Condition 82 -they would like to add the following wording at the end of the sentence:
Bike trail and channel access roads shall be extended to Cambridge Street westerly of
the project site in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement"
Condition 87 -deals with the senior citizen housing site. They prefer that matter be
discussed when that site comes before the Planning Commission.
Staff response
Mr. Godlewski and Mr. Johnson responded to each of the conditions:
Condition 9 - it was never the intention of this condition to get access through the
development project, but rather utilize the service roads that would be associated with
the Landscape Maintenance District for access to the site. Clarification of the condition
might be "It is intended for maintenance purposes only and may include use aF
the creek maintenance road adjacent to the creek bed."
Condition 15 -the improvements on the south side of the bridge on the west side of
Tustin are the improvements the City is primarily concerned about. At that location
there is no curb and gutter and the sidewalk is an asphalt berm. Mr. Elfend's words of
clarification are acceptable.
Condition 18 -staff does not believe the Corps of Engineers will have jurisdiction in this
area. "Applicable" agencies is a realistic request.
Condition 37 -the request for the 3 phase 480 volt electrical service was made by the
Water Department relative to the fact that if the electrical is brought in with the tract
development, there will be some savings.
9
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
Condition 62 -there shouldn't be a problem with adding the second sentence. It wasn't
staff's intention to keep the owner from selling the property; they didn't want it to be
piece mealed or sold off in a manner that would not be in keeping with the total tract
development.
Condition 70 -refers to the 3 phase 480 volt service. Again, the intent was in
conjunction with providing electrical service to the tract depending on where the well site
is it could be a whole new service connection with extraordinary costs to develop that
kind of service connection. (It could be deleted because it is merely a repetition of what
was in Condition 37.)
Condition 80 -channel improvements -the intent was that the condition of off site
improvements was a provision of the Development Agreement and staff was trying to
clarify where the need was. There is considerable erosion on the south side of the
channel. That's where the largest need is rather than making improvements on the
north side where there isn't that type of erosion that would be detrimental to the
properties. Staff felt it should be on the south side rather than across the entire site.
Condition 81 -disagrees-with a determination by the property owner. It is staff's intent
to have the EMA take this low flow channel over for regional type flood control
maintenance. The alternatives are something the City does not want to entertain.
Condition 82 - to clarify, there is no problem.
Condition 87 -concern is from the Traffic Department. They're concerned that access
on the senior citizen parcel take place internally and that there only be one driveway out
to Tustin Street. He thought the applicant was requesting that the access rights to
Tustin not be precluded at this time, but rather be open so that at the time the senior
project comes in, it could be reviewed at that time. It is the Traffic Department's hope
that curb cuts be minimized on Tustin and that's the intent of the condition. Mr. Glass
responded there would not be a problem with deleting the condition at this time.
Commissioner Cathcart asked that everyone refer to Tustin Street consistently
throughout the document.
Chairman Murphy said Condition 37 -electrical service -still seems to be in question.
Reference was made by the applicant concerning the Development Agreement
previously agreed to conditions when it comes to the site dedication vs. improvements
to that site. He asked the City Attorney for his comments.
Mr. Herrick said the Agreement does provide that the City will not impose conditions
upon future discretionary reviews which are inconsistent with the Agreement or with the
existing rules at the time the Agreement was entered into. It does, however, make
allowances for the normal review process under the tract map procedures as they were
established at that time. He's not certain whether he can give the Commission an
opinion as to whether this particular electrical facility is the type of condition that the City
would apply in the course of a tract map approval.
10
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
Mr. Johnson thought if the provision was made that the 3 phase 480 volt service was
available within the tract, maybe not to the site, that might satisfy the concern the Water
Department had. The site has not been identified. Depending on where it is, generating
that type of voltage and phasing, the City may end up having to provide a long service
connect that would be very expensive. If done in connection with the tract development,
it would be more reasonable.
Public commen
Corinne Schreck, 446 North James, was very much in favor of senior housing and the
project looks wonderful. There are many conditions placed on the project so that's an
asset to the City.
Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, thought this was a good plan and it seems to follow the
Development Agreement as originally approved by the City.
Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, was glad to see Mr. Elfend keep his word about the
senior citizen housing. Mr. Elfend has been working with the community more than any
other developer and felt he would still work with the community after approval.
Katherine King, 222 West Palmyra, stated in June, 1992, the majority of the citizens of
Orange chose to tax themselves during the recession to keep the Santiago Creek a
greenway for much needed open space. Regardless of this fact, the City allowed 240
condos to be built on the flood control plain. This public hearing was being held with
minimal notification. She was not notified of this hearing and she spoke with others who
were not notified either.
Mr. Godlewski responded to the notification process. The project was notified to those
within the legal limits of 300 feet, but not to the extended limits. The City Council has
final authority, to which everyone could be notified.
Chairman Murphy noted for the record in reference to the bond measure last June,
while there was a majority vote in favor, the issue needs to pass by a 2/3 vote. (Ms.
King did not know that until June 3, as she said with a "wink".)
Howard DeCruyenaere, 1825 East Albion Avenue, Santa Ana, requested that
notification be sent to all interested people who have spoken at previous meetings. He
spoke on the issues of liability and flood situation. Many have seen the recent flood
waters coming down the creek. Development in a flood zone is questioned. There is
not enough open space between the center of the creek and the proposed
development. He was concerned about the usable public open space area. There was
concern about a possible second landfill site which was not included in the original
E.I.R. Would this second site require digging up and repacking the area that would be
required for the Rosewood tract. He questioned the connection of the bike trail
underneath the bridge.
11
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
Mr. Johnson was not aware of a second landfill. There have been a soils investigation
made and there are two reports -- one on the Rosewood tract; the other on the balance
of the project.
Wayne Spring, 1243 Fairway Drive, received notification of the hearing, but has not
heard of anything else regarding this project. He was upset that he could not see Mr.
Elfend's presentation and feels he was kept in the dark. How could he voice his opinion
if he doesn't know what is being proposed? He feels this is a done deal.
Chairman Murphy clarified the presentations brought before the Commission by the
applicants are to be directed to the Commission. There are copies of charts and staff
reports available for the public's review at the Planning counter.
Commissioner Cathcart stated this process has been going on for a long time. All of the
documents are available to the public. He encouraged everyone to read and become
aware of the process.
Robert Siebert, 1308 Fairway Drive, looked at the data about 10 days ago. One thing
that worries him is that the creek is being moved. Removal of dirt is a concern. He
questioned the tree removal because he hasn't seen anything about it. The notion of
improvements" to the creek is foolish. He didn't think you could improve something by
paving it.
David Clements, 1521 East Fairway Drive, asked why the residents must be subjected
to more concessions? Where does the buck stop? He questioned the reasons for a
variance and conditional use permit. He felt additional studies were needed before
approval was given. The following restrictions should be imposed to help mitigate
damages to the adjacent single family properties: provide a building setback of 40 feet
along the north property line and preserve specimen trees and/or open space to buffer
impacts on existing single family dwellings and mobile homes; preserve specimen trees
within the project interior wherever possible; provide a 40 foot building setback at the
south property line bordering the right-of-way along Fairway Drive to enhance open
space and pedestrian access trails; restrict depth of buildings on the proposed senior
housing site to a depth of the existing R-3 zone on Tustin Street (approximately 300
feet); restrict the height of buildings on the proposed senior housing site to 2 stories to
match adjacent R-3 buildings; relocate the water station to the interior of the project,
away from R-1 properties; specify total completion of final landscaping for all flood
control right of way project parameter fencing and project infrastructure requirements
prior to issuance of building permits for specific dwelling units; specify that no grading or
demolition work of any kind be started prior to submission of and approval by all
agencies, local, state and federal, pertaining to the greenway flood control channel. As
of June, 1992, the majority of the voters for the City of Orange (54°/a) requested the City
require the property for a park.
Margaret Zwener, 927 Fairway Drive, was opposed to the building of 240 homes on the
property as small as it was. She doesn't know how the water can be controlled in the
creek from all these rains. If all these homes are going to be built, where will the people
12
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
park? She thought there was only going to be one access road and she noted two on
the map. Will these be dirt roads or will they be paved? This project will make a lot of
people very unhappy.
Shelley Jensen, 336 South Shaffer, felt the open space was an issue. The
Commissioners have created the impression that they are not interested in the input of
the public. This meeting appears to the citizens as being a secret. People were willing
to pay more taxes to acquire the property as a greenbelt. She asked the Commission
who they served -- the taxpayers, the children of Orange, or the developer.
Commissioner Smith explained the Commissioners have nothing to do with the
notification process. They have a specific job; that is, to be present to hear the
proposed plan. She heard the public's frustration in what was being said. In the future
they will try to accommodate in the applicants' giving presentations to the public as well
as the Commission. She stressed the public's input is important to them. The
Commissioners were always here to serve the community and if improvement is needed
they will look into it. She also clarified the developer already has approval for the zoning
and to build on the property. It is the Commission's job to provide the best development
possible for the City. Unfortunately, the decision on whether it can be greenway or a
development has already been made; the Commission is unable to rule in that case.
Chairman Murphy suggested the public contact staff tomorrow and pick up a copy of the
staff report and pertinent data. There is no secrecy to the process. The public's input is
part of the process. The Development Agreement was handled a year ago. At this
hearing, the Commission is considering the Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use
Permit and their viability in how they match up with the documentation that has already
been approved by the City Council.
David Horowitz, 1324 East Chalynn, accepts that permission for the project has been
granted. He shared a personal experience of flooding which was a stone's throw from
his back yard. By building homes on a flood plain, they will be jeopardized. Who will be
responsible for this flood damage?
Jim Konopka, 25671 LeParc #5, Lake Forest, is a member of the Santiago Creek
Greenway Alliance. He didn't see a permit for the realignment of the creek from State
Fish and Game which is 1601. It is stated as 1603 in the conditions. The developer will
have quite a problem with realigning a creek such as this one. He believes the Army
Corps of Engineers will be involved in this with a 404 permit. It's another permit to the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, which was not mentioned. Another permit is
required which is a 402 permit for the actual construction phase to make sure the water
isn't degraded during and after construction. What will be the impacts down stream if
the creek is redirected?
John Cuervo, 1040 East Rosewood, took issue with what was proposed. He would
have liked to have seen the exhibits of what was being proposed. That was a mistake
on the presenter's part. The people of Orange feel like they have lost; they don't want
this project in the City of Orange. The applicant should not be released from the
13
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
conditions of approval. Why should the City maintain the property; the owner should
maintain it. He took some pictures of the channel the other day, which he shared with
the Commission.
Don Bradway, 803 East Tularosa Avenue, wanted to know if he would have a chance to
respond to the applicant's rebuttal? Chairman Murphy explained the hearing process
and asked for his question at this time. One of the speakers asked about access from
Cambridge; he would like to know more about that.
Rebuttal
Mr. Elfend responded to the last few questions first. The Corps will be involved and
they will go to them for a permit. This project has been to the Corps of Engineers and
the Department of Fish and Game and approvals have been obtained for concepts.
They spent over two years meeting with the community. During that time they
substantially changed a development plan that had been submitted to the City. The
plan represents a compromise of going through continual public input in trying to come
up with something that is reasonable. They agreed to give the citizens a chance to
purchase the property; thus, they paid for the ballot measure. He wasn't trying to
exclude anyone from the presentation this evening. He invited the residents to call him
with their questions. He felt they had fulfilled the ballot measure position. Notification
has been made to a tremendous amount of people regarding this proposed project.
Regarding the rain and flooding, there is no control on that property. That's why there is
a problem. With the improvements they are proposing, in which the City will participate
in aggressively, as well as the County, that will make the situation better -- not worse.
The design of the creek is consistent with their proposal. There is 300% more open
space on the site than there was one year ago at this time. The environment can be
enhanced and he welcomed the public's participation. The creek will be much more
efficient than in its current state. A maximum number of trees will be maintained around
the perimeter of the site. The reason they are asking for a C.U.P. is for phasing
purposes and there is no other reason behind that. The well site has not been
determined yet. He understands that it may be a pump; there may not be any building
or structure at all. As far as soils go, they have a mitigated monitoring report which was
approved in conjunction with the Development Agreement. He referred to the staff
report, Page 2, Item 3 regarding the parking spaces. They have sufficient parking on
site. He explained the access to the private property; it will not create a bi-pass from
LaVeta. There will be no thru traffic to Cambridge. The City has the control through the
conditions of approval for all other agencies that will be provided. The biological habitat
has been investigated and studies have been made. There have not been any rare or
endangered species located. A majority of the conditions were agreed to during the
initial process and the City is not giving in on those. They are trying to include the
applicant as a participant to that process in the conditions.
Commissioner Bosch would like the applicant to address the 210,000 cubic yards of
imported soil. Is this feasible? Also, explain to the public as part of the process, what
this represents to the final grade elevations of the developed portion of the site vs. the
adjacent property.
14
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
Mr. Elfend said there was not a final detailed plan prepared at this time. The conditions
of approval and mitigation monitoring report sets forth the information requirements for
routes, truck numbers and mitigation in that manner. He believes the trips will come
from Tustin and then how they will enter the site will have a lot to do with construction
phasing. They will fill the sites for the grades that will be required in conjunction with
removing the property for adequate protection from the flood way. The Rosewood tract
was improperly graded. Those homes have been demolished to remove the public
nuisance and that is why a lot of the soil has to be imported to bring that area up to
grade.
Eric Nilson, Keith Companies, explained the cut and fill of the land. Against the mobile
home portion they are lowering the building pads; they will be five feet below the natural
grade. As you move westward from the mobile homes, they are a couple of feet below
the existing residences with the pads (between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 feet). Pads to the very
north corner at the west end of the east/west line natural grades are about 214; lot #4 is
about 213. The pads along the creek -adjacent to the creek on the north side -lot #45
is about 211. Natural grades there are about 211. If you go over to Lot #40, existing
grades are down about 199. That's where most of the fill is occurring. Most of the fill
will be to raise it up out of the flood plain and channelize the water.
Commissioner Smith noted there were two recreational areas. How big are they? She
also wondered about the access to the community center? A community center would
be a mute point if it wasn't accessible to the community.
Mr. Godlewski responded staff's concern on the access was for the maintenance of the
property. The idea of the community center is something that came up a few years ago
with the City Council. The applicant will provide the City with a pad site that could be
used at some future time by the City for a community center. The County would be
agreeable to providing the City access along the northern portion of the site to
Cambridge; those details will need to be worked out with the County and improvements
would have to be borne by the City.
Commissioner Bosch in reading the reports thought the issue of whether a community
center belongs there is something that needs to be determined through the process.
Mr. Godlewski responded that would be subject to future negotiations and public
hearings before something could be located there.
Mr. Elfend answered the recreation question. There is one that is .12 acres and the
other one is .19 acres and they will have apool/spa and then a spa.
Commissioner Smith asked how many people will live in this development of 240 units?
Mr. Elfend thought maybe around 400 people would live there. That's his educated
guess.
15
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
Commissioner Bosch wanted Mr. Elfend to comment whether there was any difference
between the design of the lower stretch of the creek as proposed on the tract map and
that which was previously reviewed during the General Plan process.
Mr. Elfend said one of the things that has not been a part of the conditions of approval
and has not been finalized is whether or not the actual improvement will be provided
from their site to Cambridge. That's yet to be determined.
Commissioner Bosch addressed the massing of the structures. It appears the style of
housing proposed, particularly adjacent to the single family residences to the north,
maximizes the height of the roofs with a visual impact on the neighbors. Has that been
addressed to assure that it isn't creating a greater impact on the neighbors?
Mr. Elfend said their intent was that there would be attached housing adjacent to the
single family housing. They tried to create a product which would interface in a more
appropriate manner. They will also attempt to create a variegated height along the
facade that faces the single family residences. They will take a look at the roof line
issues and provide a sketch showing the rear yards.
Commissioner Smith looked through the Development Agreement and did not see any
provision for safeguarding some of the large trees. What's the plan on that?
Mr. Elfend said the Development Agreement is an agreement which embodies other
documents. It refers back to the Planned Community document, the Zone Change and
that refers back to the E.I.R. They have indicated they will try to maintain the maximum
amount of trees possible. There was no condition that required them to maintain those
trees.
Commissioner Bosch said the letter from the County E.M.A. was received this date
relative to the low flow channel design, indicating a preference fora 3,000 cubic foot per
second low flow channel. Can the potential impacts be addressed on the two creek
design options previously accepted by the City, and potential impacts on the more open
design (soil cement design). What are we looking at now -- 10 feet deeper, 15 feet
wider?
Mr. Elfend tried to answer those questions. As far as the design for the channel, it
hasn't changed. That number is constant. They need to sit down with them and discuss
the letter. Specific alternatives were not available. The changes would be minor and
would not substantially affect the design which is on file with the City.
Commissioner Cathcart asked if there was a way for the City to get clarification on the
cross sectional design? He would prefer the City Council see a more realistic valuation
of what the cross section is going to be. It would be in the applicant's best interest to
develop, as soon as possible, some closer or actual relationship of what the cross
section is going to be.
16
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
Mr. Elfend could provide that information and have it available for City Council's
consideration.
Mr. Johnson has looked at the cross section; it can be developed and is feasible, but he
didn't think they would receive an answer from the Flood Control District until the design
of the flood control improvements have been completed or at least submitted. The
applicant, in the meantime, can come up with a more definitive concept that is realistic.
Commissioner Smith was concerned about the road system in the development -- one
road in; one road out -- for this many units. How will people get out if there is a fire?
What is the function of the service roads?
Mr. Elfend responded the roads are a little bit wider than what would normally be
approved for a private development. There is sufficient room on the streets to handle a
fire.
Mr. Godlewski said service roads are indicated on both sides of the channel; that is
required for maintenance of the channel and maintenance of the open space. They run
from Tustin, on both sides of the channel, to Cambridge. This provides access for the
County to service their facility and provide access to the Landscape Maintenance
District to service the landscape that is there. They're not public streets and are not for
public access. They have limited access to those facilities through gates. The roads
are not readily available from the development. The development itself crosses a bridge
and has access to Tustin. If the bridge washes out, the emergency access can be
utilized on the other end of the tract through the existing Rosewood tract. It meets all
the requirements of the Planning staff and has been reviewed by all City departments
for access.
Chairman Murphy pointed out conditions 40-56 of the revised staff report are specifically
to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and public safety (i.e., turning radius, access,
ingress/egress).
Commissioner Bosch said all the fire prevention measures helps to assure him
something is being done right rather than creating a condition of where the whole
project could go up very readily.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Bosch made some recommendations as to the conditions:
Condition 1 -says the final tract shall be in substantial compliance with plans -- he's not
sure if that means the final tract map or final tract development. Insert the word "map"
after tract.
Condition 6 -add the phrase and shall be directed to specifically address height
and massing of building designs adjacent to adjoining single family resident
properties." at the end of the first sentence.
17
Planning Commission Minutes
Condition 9 -reword to state, "An access
shall be provided from Tustin Street to
maintenance road or service
Landscape Maintenance District."
February 17, 1993
easement for maintenance purposes only
proposed Lot #48 utilizing the creek
roads associated with the paved
Condition 15 -with the concurrence of the City Engineer, the intent is to construct Tustin
Avenue bordering the project to ultimate half-section width in conjunction with
development, and that construction does not include bridge widening (west'
side of the street, south of the creek bridge).
Conditions 16 & 17 -they both start with "The project should". Change the word
should" to "shall."
Condition 18 - a concern over who reviews and permits. Change the word "appropriate"
in the second sentence to "applicable" and add the following: "...from all applicable
agencies having jurisdiction over the channel design .which may include, btct
are not necessarily limited to the City of Orange..." He would like to add another
sentence -- "Upon agreement by permitting agencies as to the final
channel design, the design shall be referred to the Planning Commission to
determine whether significant change has occurred from fhe project
design previously submitted. And if the Commission or Council determines
a significant change has occurred, then new hearings may be held to
review potential impacts on the design." He's suggesting that the range is relative to
the soil cement low water channel, higher water naturalized channel environment. The
full implications are not seen in the tract map and the proposed grading plan.
Condition 37 -leave in tact. Relative to the water well he understands the process
continues and there is time yet to resolve with the Water Department and Edison
Company relative to the impacts of the 3 phase 480 volt electrical service to the well
site.
Condition 62 -revise to state: "A final tract map shall be recorded within 24 months
after tentative map approval and prior to the sale or lease of any parse
proposed by TTM 14752. This condition shall not preclude the property
owner from selling the entire residential or commercial component of the site."
Condition 70 -delete because it is redundant.
Condition 80 -leave condition in and add verbiage to help clarify that process. "...as
developed within the previously approved Development Agreement. "
Condition 81 -the applicant wants the owner to be involved in the mutual agreement as
to the channel design. He does not agree to adding in a requirement for the
concurrence of the property owner in the Engineer's determination on appropriate
channel design. Leave the condition as is.
18
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
Condition 82 -add the words, "In accordance with provisions of the Development
Agreement, City to acquire easements relative to the bike trail anc~
channel access roads west of the property to Cambridge Street."
Condition 87 -since the senior housing site is not currently in front of the Commission,
the condition could be deleted. The appropriate time to set conditions will be when it
comes back to the Commission for review.
Commissioner Bosch stated many people have been involved with this site and project
for a long time. He believed this should all be open space. There is no variance being
requested, but the Commission must determine in the Conditional Use Permit
application whether there are undue negative impacts upon the neighborhood plan or
upon neighboring land uses. The request is for private drives. That's not an undue
burden or hardship upon the citizens nor is it granting a special privilege based upon
what has been granted throughout the City. The bigger issue as to the adequacy of the
tract map -- it is in conformance with the General Plan Amendment that was adopted by
the City Council. He's concerned about the massing of the building designs and hopes
the Design Review Board through their review can address that. He's extremely
concerned about the adequacy of the creek past the site. He recommends with the
highest possible restrictions to the City Council that the project be approved as it is in
conformance with the City's development ordinances.
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend
to the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 14752 and Conditional Use Permit
2006-93 with conditions 1-92, as recommended for amendment. The Planning
Commission further requested the City Council to refer the final map back to them for
their review and comments during the final map process prior to the Council taking
action on the final map.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Cathcart had reviewed the plans carefully; while it is an excellent plan,
he was very concerned that the City makes sure the maintenance doesn't get out of
hand and the City doesn't wind up paying for the maintenance they didn't want.
IN RE: NEW HEARING
Commissioner Bosch was excused from the meeting due to a potential conflict of
interest regarding the next hearing.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-93, ZONE CHANGE 1146-93, TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 14747, VARIANCE 1947-93 - HANSON PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
The applicant is requesting the following:
19
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
A General Plan Amendment request to amend the Land Use Element of the City's
General Plan, changing the project site's land use designation from Resource Area to
Low Density Residential, 2-6 dwelling units per acre;
A Zone Change request to change the site's zoning designation from S-G (Sand and
Gravel) to R-1-8 (Single Family Residential), minimum lot size requirement of 8,000
square feet);
A request for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the site into 25 residential parcels,
ranging in lot size from approximately 8,000 to 15,000 square feet. Also included are
slope areas abutting Santiago Creek to be improved for flood protection; and
A request for a Variance to allow a minor reduction in the minimum lot frontage
requirement.
Subject property is a 12.6 acre vacant site located adjacent to and north of Santiago
Creek and south of Mabury Avenue between Lassen Boulevard and Orange Park
Boulevard. The site is part of the Sully-Miller aggregate mining properties.
NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative
Declaration 1399-93 has been prepared for this project.
Barbara Gander, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as there was opposition.
The applicant is proposing a future residential development of a 12.6 acre portion of the
entire 120 acre Sully Miller aggregate mining property. The project site is directly
adjacent to and north of Santiago Creek, and south of the Mabury Ranch residential
neighborhood. The majority of the site slopes slightly from north to south with more
significant elevation changes along the southern boundary adjacent to the creek. Site
constraints include a high pressure water line, 9 feet in diameter that traverses the
central portion of the site. The site's northern property line is bounded by an improved
recreation trail; it is within the street right-of-way with Mabury Avenue. The proposal
includes a change in the General Plan land use and zoning designations to allow for a
single family residential subdivision consisting of 25 residential lots ranging in size from
8,600 to 17,480 square feet. The requested density and zoning is the same as the
neighboring residential development to the north. A variance is requested to slightly
reduce the lot widths given the constraints produced by the site's access and circulation
design. Development of the site will require improvements to Santiago Creek in order to
stabilize the creek's embankment, channelize the flow and protect the residents from a
future 100 year flood. The creek improvements shall be reviewed by the Orange
County Flood Control District, the state's Department of Fish and Game, and the City of
Orange. The tract map proposes either rip rap or soil cement improvement concepts to
the creek for channelization. Since ultimately the creek will be dedicated to the County
Flood Control District, the design and construction of all improvements must comply
overall with the County's standards, although the City's preference can be addressed
through the review process. The creek improvements will include a 20 foot wide
maintenance road within the improved slope area adjacent to the creek. Access to the
site will be provided through an extension of Yellowstone Boulevard south of Mabury to
20
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
create an internal circulation system of three cul-de-sacs built to public street standards
with sidewalks and landscaped parkways. A temporary access to the site across the
creek will be utilized for construction purposes in order to import 120,000 cubic yards of
fill onto the site, which is approximately 8,000 truck trips. Several of the proposed lots
have frontage along the proposed cul-de-sac street system and Mabury Avenue. The
applicant has indicated that no homes will front onto Mabury Avenue and that a
perimeter wall will be installed along the northern property line. Staff has received some
comments from the Mabury residents who voiced concern with the impacts upon their
views which will potentially result from the development of one and two story homes on
the site and the installation of a perimeter wall along Mabury directly adjacent to the
equestrian trail. Callers claim to prefer to see some sort of landscaping to buffer the
view of the wall. There are several options that could be utilized by the Commission to
address the concerns such as incorporating wrought iron into the wall design similar to
what is currently along Serrano Avenue or modifying Mabury's existing right-of-way
design by reducing the sidewalk width and introducing a parkway that could be
landscaped. The potential environmental impacts of the project had been analyzed in
Negative Declaration 1399. The E.R.B. finds that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment with the adoption of 10 mitigation measures addressing the
creek improvements and grading impacts. The Commission is requested to make
seven recommendations to the City Council regarding this project.
The public hearing was opened.
plicant
Philip Bettencourt, 110 Newport Center Drive #150, Newport Beach, spoke on behalf of
the applicant, Hanson Properties West. He presented written facts about the project to
the Commission and explained the ownership of the property. Equestrian trail design
concepts were discussed and two alternatives were being considered. They were
willing to work with their neighboring communities and the City to resolve all concerns.
Public comments
Mike Yidder, 6317 Mabury, commented on the designs of the proposed houses. The B-
1 design was the most popular. From his residence, he would be staring at a wall or at
the back of a house. Obstruction of his view is a real concern. He preferred Plan C --
houses opening onto Mabury because it would be similar to the existing Mabury Ranch.
There was also concern about additional traffic and accidents.
Tom Brose, 6306 East Bryce, would like to see a condition regarding construction traffic,
in terms of grading, come across the creek in case the property is sold.
Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, does not want access across
Santiago Creek and the developer has agreed to that. It's also important that the horse
trail be worked out. They would like to be informed as to what they have in mind. He
has no objection to the proposed plans.
21
Planning Commission Minutes
R t I
February 17, 1993
Mr. Bettencourt thought there would be a reassurance in the neighborhood if a condition
were imposed that the utilization of Mabury streets not be used for necessary earthwork;
not for the regular construction, but for the earthwork itself. They can access the
property off of Santiago Canyon Road from the existing operation. He appreciates the
concern of the neighbors regarding the loss of view, but hopes over the long term the
project will be compatible with the existing neighborhoods and that the residents best
interests will be served. They would like some flexibility in trying to find a compatible
solution for the equestrian trails.
Commissioner Cathcart asked what the problem would be with limiting all construction
traffic from the south?
Mr. Bettencourt responded they don't have a defined right to cross the creek. They
don't have a need to park on Yellowstone; they have enough room to park on Mabury.
He didn't think there would be that much construction congestion on site.
Chairman Murphy said there was discussion in the analysis portion of the staff report
concerning a potential financial liability that the City might have to accept responsibility
on the basis of how and when the creek is improved. What type of financial liabilities is
the City looking at?
Mr. Johnson didn't know if they could come up with a dollar and cents liability figure. In
the past, where Flood Control did not have a continuous maintenance roadway where
they could traverse and hold their on-going inspections, the City has accepted the
improvements if they were built to flood control standards and City of Orange standards
with the intent that ultimately they would be turned over to the Flood Control District.
Commissioner Cathcart would feel more comfortable if the applicant would agree that
the facades of the back of the houses be as important as the facades from the front; that
they not be the left over "stuccoed back half"; that whatever elements be done to the
front be done to the back of those units.
Mr. Bettencourt agreed to the stipulation of rear facades and was willing to submit plans
for the City's review process.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Cathcart commented on the wall along Mabury. He would like to
stipulate one condition that the priority of the equestrian trail location be given the
outside perimeter first. If that cannot be worked out, then the inside along Mabury
Ranch be the last alternative of the two to be evaluated. The wall along Mabury not
provide for wrought iron as one of the elements. He would like the Design Review
Board to review the wall finish along Mabury and that, where possible, the wall move in
and out in order to give some relief. And those relief areas be fully packed with a
landscape material that doesn't proceed above the wall, but softens those portions of
22
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
panels as they move in; offers something other than a straight line corridor of a wall. He
would like to make a condition that the rear architectural plans be reviewed by the
Design Review Board as well as the wall.
Chairman Murphy complimented the applicant on the level of cooperation and effort it
appears he has taken on to work and coordinate with the other important parties
involved in the area. Two concerns were expressed about the control over not being
able to do roof mounted equipment and/or apparatus and that should be worded in the
conditions; it would be most appropriate as part of the CC&R's terminology. The
restriction on the other vehicles, as far as access, the biggest concern for the applicant
was to ensure they had an access to the property. A condition is needed in that the
access for construction would be from the south unless made impossible by conditions
of nature. At that time, limited construction vehicles would be allowed to access from
the other side.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to accept the
findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1399-93 in that
the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife
resources with the adoption of mitigation measures.
AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Murphy, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to
the City Council to approve General Plan Amendment 2-93, Zone Change 1146-93,
Tentative Tract Map 14747 and Variance 1947-93 with all the recommendations as
listed in the staff report and conditions with the duly noted amendments regarding the
prohibition of roof mounted equipment and/or apparatus; architectural, fence and wall
plans be brought back to the Design Review Board; and access for construction be
across the creek unless precluded by some environmental issue and that the equestrian
trail priority be on the north side of the creek on the south side of the project; if not, then
along Mabury Ranch.
AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Murphy, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend
to the City Council to accept staff's recommendations on the Statement of Findings for
the specific reasons for permitting a land use that precludes mineral development on the
project site.
AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Murphy, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED
23
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993
Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend
to the City Council to accept the maintenance and liability responsibilities of the section
of Santiago Creek to be improved as part of the development proposal until such time
that the entire segment of Santiago Creek through the Sully-Miller properties is
improved and dedicated to the Orange County Flood Control District.
AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Murphy, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Bosch returned to the meeting.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith to adjourn to a
study session on Monday, February 22, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room B to
review the proposed zoning ordinance update; adjourn to the study session on Monday,
March 8, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. to study the Santa Fe Depot specific plan; and request staff
to set the first public hearing on the proposed zone change for Area "E" of the Old
Towne re-zoning for April 1, 1993.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
sld
24