Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-01-1991 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange April 1, 1991 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 1991 Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve the Minutes of March 18, 1991 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS APPEAL #383 - REGARDING CHAPMAN COLLEGE SPECIFIC PLAN: An appeal of a decision of the Community Developme nt Director regarding approval of a site plan for the residence hall, now under construction on the northwest corner of Walnut Avenue and Grand Street. Mr. Godlewski reported this item was continued from the March 4 Planning Commission hearing. At that meeting Mr. Martini expressed in his letter to the Commission, dated February 4, his concern that two driveways accessing the new dormitory currently under construction at Chapman College were inconsistent with the Chapman College Specific Plan. Mr. Martini's objection is based on his opinion that the driveways equate to gateways, as referred to in the Specific Plan document, Page 2-11 and on Exhibit 2-2. Staff approval of the dorm plan considered a much less literal definition of the word "gateway" to be more of a focal point rather than an actual driveway. At the Planning Commission meeting of March 4, 1991, the Commission received a number of specific questions relating to the process followed in approving the dorm plan. Staff has provided responses to the Commission indicating that the review was conducted in accordance with the Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 2 The following eight concerns were raised: (memo of March 18, 1991) 1.To provide the notes from the meeting of the City and Chapman College Specific Plan Review Committee. 2.Traffic Management Plan - by whom was it done, under what conditions, timing and loads, parameters pl aced upon it as to the actual conditions. There was con cern over the physical characteristics of the design. 3.Opinion from the Traffic Engineer relative to the safety of driveway locations and the throat lengths and ramps and such proximity to both the street and intersection, how much flat area is there, site line clearances as well as distances to the corner for people turning left out of the intersection. 4.The question raised regarding the management and adequacy of existing and proposed fire lanes within the body of the residential zone of the campus. 5. A potential for closing other driveways regardless of the final location of driveways in this location to off set vehicular impacts. 6. What controls can exist other than mid-block crossing? What was intended to control pedestrian flow from a pedestrian gateway into the dorms? And how that impacts traffic and safety. 7. The Commission wants a legally substantiated interpretation f rom s taff of what i s a s ignif icant change vs. one that is minor or insignificant. And what that means in terms of documentation in the Specific Plan so that everyone knows the rules. 8. What is the status of construction? A range of other questions were raised during the hearing, on items related to Chapman College Specific Plan and the dormitory site plan: 1. Parking stall dimensions. 2. Number of parking and handicap stalls. 3. Height of monument sign. 4. Walkways in parking lot area. 5. Verify project reporting requirements. 6. Chain blocking fire lane on Center Street. 7. Traffic control gates at residence hall. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 3 8. Total count of student stalls. 9. Was an updated summary submitted with the plan. 10. Number of other bedrooms residents and number of parking of bu ilding square footage in other residence halls. The public hearing was opened. Chapman College Representative Frank Battaile, Attorney for Chapman College, with Ru tan & Tucker, 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, stated John Biggs of Arnel Development, also representing Chapman College, provided specific answers to some of the questions, particularly 4, 5 and 8. Their position from a legal point of view is that his answers and the answers provided by staff demonstrate that the site plan does comply with the Specific Plan. Staff's interpretation of the term "gateway" is the definition that is in the Specific Plan -- they adopted it word for word. They feel they are in compliance with the Plan and have done everything they can do to comply with the City's needs. Public Input M. J. Martini, 638 East Walnut Avenue, takes exception to the map posted on the wall. The map he handed to the Commission shows several future gateways. The map on the wall shows only one. Parking needs to be met was not done. He counted the parking spaces again and there were 202 plus the 852 he counted a month ago. Chapman is now only 187 parking spaces short according to the figures he gave the Commission one month ago. He referred to the Traffic Mangement Plan; in looking at the Tables, the numbers were based on a field study of December, 1987. Do the traffic figures of July reflect traffic during a fall or spring semester? He was concerned about traffic safety. The required width for fire .access shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Chapman has agreed to close one of the driveways to the parking lot north of Braden Residence Hall and limit access to the interim parking lot north of the Residence Hall. The Director of Community Development has stated that both of the driveways are illegal because they are too narrow. He feels both of them should be closed. He said on Page 4 of Resolution 7233, #12 states, "At the time of the site plan review, the College shall submit a summary of current building square f ootages, parking and classroom capacity up to the maximum allowed by the Specific Plan." Point 21, parking lot locations and designs should discourage mid-block pedestrian crossings. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 4 Chairman Bosch pointed out the exhibit on the wall was taken from the approved Specific Plan, Exhibit 2-2. Mr. Martini passed around Exhibit 5-2. They show two different iterations of locations of gateways. Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, asked when John BiggstoldPresidentKoenigthattheyweregoingtoputthe driveways on Grand rather than Center? At the meeting in September the display showed driveways coming ou t onto Center. Chapman College is known to be dishonest. They do not respect anyone. Why is Chapman College allowed to beginconstructionwhentheydonothaveenoughparkingfor everyone? She also brought up the child care issue. Lucietta Johnson, 512 North Grand, will need to look in three different directions when backing out of her driveway. Who do you sue when you get hit? The driveway issue on Grand is her main concern. Robert Boice, 143 North Pine, President of O.T.P.A., urged the Commission to hold both parties - Chapman College and the neighborhood - to every dotted i and period at the end of the sentence in the Specific Plan. A communication problem exists and he doesn't understand why. W. Mitchell, 2621 Point Del Mar, Corona Del Mar, owns the home at 520 North Grand. His motives are very selfish; he's concerned about the traffic conditions because his mother lives in that home. Not enough thought and consideration has been given to the condition that will be created even beyond what is there now. He asked at the previous meeting what is the normal load of traffic for that street? He hired a traffic consultant to monitor the street to determine what the loads were. Mr. Godlewski responded a total volume on Center Street, north of Walnut, according to the study, to be about 1800 vehicles per day. Existing traffic counts were not conducted for that segment of Grand adjacent to the project, bu t they estimate it to be 700 per day near Walnut, and 400 per day near Rose, based on the traffic generated characteristics of the adjacent land uses. Mr. Mitchell said, based on his study, there were 2557 average daily trips on 3/12/91 (a 13 hour period). On Wednesday, 3/13/91 (24 hour period) there were 3259; Thursday, (24 hour period) there were 3250; and from midnigh t until 11:00 a.m. on Friday, 3/15/91 there were 781. He believes there was not enough study done. The building is there, but there is a problem and he doesn't know what can be done about it. He suggested closing the exits for Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 5 the balance of the parking time they own the residences. 2,000 would be hazardous. He the Commission. lots at the school until such He understands anything over left a copy of his survey with Amy Zanaboni, 626 North Grand, agrees with her neighbor's comments. She's glad they now have an accurate traffic study on their street because for over a year she has been telling the City there is a serious traffic problem. Regarding staff's comments about the traffic studies, they were done in 1987. For some reason, they did not put a meter on Grand. They just estimated 700 cars. She crunched some numbers and came up with 672 trips per day on the street. How can 700 be an accurate number? Based on six trips per day per household there would be a rough estimate of 2,688 trips per day existing now. She understands that anything over 2,000 per day is too dangerous. Her main concern is the amount of traffic on the street. She would like to mitigate the driveway problems and try to reduce the number of trips per day. She made a proposal to Chapman College -- rather than closing the northern driveway, reduce it to entrance only traffic. In the fire lane, drop the chain and make that an exit for cars to exit onto Center. The two driveways that empty onto Rose do not meet code requirements of 21 feet for driveways. She recommended they close those two driveways because those driveways can be accessed through Center when it is re-opened after construction. The interim parking lot be opened onto Center and leave the driveway they now have where it is. It's not a total solution to the problem, but it is a start. All the neighbors are willing to try this. She doesn't care where they put their interim parking lot as long as it is not on Grand. There is a problem with cars pulling out onto Rose. She wants to know if they plan to red curb from the corner up to the parking structure entrance to guarantee there will not be any cars blocking students trying to get out. Something needs to be done there. She takes exception to Item #4. The street is approximately 21 feet wide. If it were 24 feet wide, there could be two-way traffic. The walkways coming out of the residence halls dump into the fire lanes. There is room to put a sidewalk along side of it and the students could use the sidewalk and then cross where it says to cross. Chapman College created their own pedestrian problems. They can't control the speed on Grand, but they can control their own traffic problem internally. By putting a mid-block crossing it will create more problems. An overpass is needed; not a mid-block crossing. She questioned a monitoring report listing the requirements for parking. She cannot get an answer as to what the student count is at Chapman College. Parking should be provided for the maximum amount of students there. The Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 6 traffic study done in 1987 what point does the Cit traffic study? Chapman three different times; temporary fence was put driveway on Grand. is not fair y feel it College has one being up for th to the residents. At is time to do another lied to the residents the day before the e new construction -- Mr. Godlewski addressed one issue relating to the parking study. The numbers he referred to which were 700 per day near Walnut and 400 per day near Rose, are not extremely inconsistent in looking at the traffic study that was submitted. You add the two together and come up with a daily total of about 1100. The residents' study indicates there was 3,000+. The study was done at a time when Chapma n is under construction and Center Street is closed. With the closure of the street, it would be reasonable to expect that 3100 cars would be traveled on Grand while under construction in that there are no other driveways into the dorms except off of Grand. He validates the numbers and feels it is consistent with the consultant's traffic report. Mrs. Walters was told Center Street would be open as soon as underground utilities were put in. How soon will that be? Mr. Battaile was not prepared to address all the questions/concerns mentioned. He has not counted the parking spaces or cars and he could not comment on a study that he knew nothing about. A traffic study was already done and submitted to the Commission/Council. That's study they have to rely on until they are convinced it is wrong. With regard to parking, the Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for the Specific Plan counted 941 off street parking spaces; Mr. Martini counted 850+ spaces. Somebody miscounted. The official count is the one they must go by. He could not tell Mrs. Walters what Dr. Koenig meant. He personally didn't know whether Dr. Koenig promised there would not be driveways on Grand. The only reports they can rely on are the official studies done by the City. The Traffic Engineers have indicated the driveways are safe. In answer to the question, who do you sue?, you sue Chapman College and they don't want to pay lawsuits. The City would not give an incorrect report on the safety of the ramps unless they thought they were safe. Mrs. Zanaboni's suggestions, in a general way, sounded good. They're not in a position to promise, on behalf of Chapman College, they will close both of those driveways or open up the fire lane. Mr. Boice pointed out the obvious -- Chapman College has sent a representative that cannot answer any of the questions. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 7 Mr. Martini said when the E.I.R. was done the traffic count of 941 was probably accurate. That included the temporary parking lot which has been removed for the new dorm. The problem is, according to the number of dorm rooms and the Specific Plan says you have to have 1/2 parking space per each bed, and the numbers he used for the 1241 required parking spaces were based on the 1989 enrollment of 1532. At the time the E.I.R. was done and the Specific Plan approved, March 14, 1989, they were responsible for having 1241 parking spaces. That left them 300 short. Now that they have removed the temporary parking lot, they're even shorter as far as off street parking. He is disappointed in Chapman's arrogant attitude in not bothering to show up at the previous hearing. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart was a little frustrated. Chapman College was not present to answer questions. He was angry they did not send a representative who could answer the questions. Commissioner Murphy also hoped to get more information. In March they received a letter from Mr. Martini that addressed the specific issue of gateways vs. driveways. The rest of the issues brought up subsequently are issues above and beyond the scope of discussion. The specific issue needs to be addressed. The other issues bother him greatly and he hopes to find the answers to them, but at a later time. Commissioner Scott said the other issues addressed tonigh t came through the window of appeal. Does this window open it for the other items? He looked to the City Attorney for direction. Mr. Herrick responded the specific issue in front of the Commission deals with the approval of the site plan by the Director of Community Development. However, the Commission can listen to the other issues without acting on them. Chairman Bosch said they had Chapma n College's assent through the staff report to close several driveways or modify driveways that currently exist subject to the completion of the building. Again, that's something that doesn't relate to the specific appeal before the Commission, nor does it appear to be within any approval before them. How do they act on this other than a mere stipulation in the record? Mr. Herrick said any agreement could be documented between willing parties. This agreement could be put into writing. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 8 There may be opportunities as time goes by to include that issue in future approvals. Perhaps it should be red tagged for conditions of approval for future phases. Commissioner Scott read Councilman Steiner's appeal. It was for violation of any item of the Specific Plan. He believes the items brought forward at this meeting could be acted on. Mr. Herrick responded the appeal should govern the Commission's decision -- the language of the appeal itself. The allegations of violation still center around the driveway s. Commissioner Murphy said the parking issues, traffic and several others that are in addition to the specifics of the gateway issue. Mr. Herrick told the Commission they should consider the evidence in light of the language of the appeal. Other issues, should they find that they are not addressed by the appeal, can be addressed in other ways but not at this meeting. Commissioner Master though t the gateway/driveway issue became the focal point because of the traffic problems. Each issue cascades into another one. Chairman Bosch was not comfortable with the traffic report as it stands. He doesn't find that he could perceive the conclusions reached in the traffic report as indicating that this is a safe traffic environment on that street. They must start with the definitions in the Specific Plan. How does the mitigation reporting program work? Do we have the right number of parking spaces out there? What happens internally on this campus in terms of monitoring the Specific Plan between applications or during that year, how do they get them back in synch along the way? The definition issue is probably the easiest of the problems before the Commission. He doesn't equate gateway with driveway. He equates gateway as being a major entry point that may be vehicular, pedestrian, or a variety thereof that typically occurs at an intersection. But he also does not see how they can term the intersection at Grand and Walnut a gateway until Chapman College controls more of that intersection and does something substantial there to identify that as an entrance to the campus, whether or not there be driveways at that location. He thought Mrs. Zanaboni's comments relative to helping solve the problem by mitigating the added traffic on Grand was good. All the driveways on Grand should be closed except for the underground access to the dormitory, which he sees as the Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 9 most limited impact on the neighborhood. Staff acted appropriately, based upon information before them, and identifying that the driveways were not a gateway. That's not the issue. The issue is what are the impacts out there for new buildings as they're built? Staff should investigate to see the real facts relative to the traffic, parking, the count on Grand, the overall campus parking situation, and to look at specific legal interpretation as to the enforceability of segments of the Specific Plan that the City has adopted before additional permits for any use would be issued to Chapman College. There is a huge problem with traffic that is very unsafe. Commissioner Scott was concerned about the mid-block crossing. Many cities are doing away with the mid-block crossing because of the safety issue. Staff should re-evaluate the suggestion of a mid-block crossing. Chairman Bosch agreed. No way could it be safe and meet the needs. That's something that will need to be addressed. Commissioner Scott referred to the City Attorney's memo of March 25 regarding the stop work notice. What position is the City in? Where do they stand? Mr. Herrick said his memo was directed to a specific question that was raised at the last meeting, which is if the Commission were to decide that the approval of the site plan was not properly done, what would the remedies be that the City could undertake? The two basic means of enforcing some sort of decision of that nature would be either an administrative stop work order or an injunction (court action). The conclusion reached after reviewing the issue was there was no basis for an administrative stop work order because in each instance which that is permitted under the Orange Municipal Code, is for a specific violation of the code provisions. A court action was also not the case. Commissioner Cathcart felt a driveway is not a gateway. He's not clear as to the findings on whether the increased traffic on Grand is based on Center being closed. He also liked the idea of looking at an alternative of closing certain ingress/egress parking lots until there is more information available. Mr. Herrick responded there must be some legal violation in order to close a driveway. At this point there is no finding that there has been any violation of the code. Chairman Bosch said the Specific Plan requires the College to submit an annual monitoring report at the beginning of Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 10 each academic year. The purpose of the report is to monitor any campus expansion and determine if any additionalSpecificPlanrequirements, such as parking, need to be met.Not having that report before him, it appears the monitoringreportisshowingcircumstantialevidencethattherearemajorimpactsduetosomeworkonthecampusthatmaymeanadditionalSpecificPlanrequirementsneedtobemet. Mr. Herrick's initial reaction is that you require things atthetimeofapprovals. There is no new approval in front ofthem. We're talking about undoing an old one. Mr. Godlewski said they started with a base that wassubmittedwiththeSpecificPlanin1989. With theapplication, staff was provided with a document that answersallthosespecificquestions (i.e., number of parkingspaces, number of students, and everything that was requiredintheSpecificPlandocument) . Originally it was dated1989whentheywereffirsttalkingaboutthedormbeingbuilt. They switched architects. The new architects cameinwithaslightlydifferentproposal (a year ago) and theinformationstaffreceivedontheannualbasisasrequiredwasupdatedwiththenewplanaswell. The updated copy isdatedJune, 1990 and staff expects another report sometimeinJune, 1991. Chairman Bosch feels that the permanent driveway for theundergroundparking, whether or not it is the best locationforadriveway, is not a gateway. Staff was within it's power to make the interpretation that the driveway was in conformance with the plan. However, at the same time, hebelievesthattheconfusionofinformationbeforetheCommission, or lack of relative to traffic plans, monitoringplans, their content and value, clear evidence in theneighborhoodofthehugeimpactcausedbytrafficand circulation, requires further review by the CommunityDevelopmentDepartment, the City Traffic Engineer and theCityAttorney's Office relative to the purpose, intent and vehicles available through the monitoring program to review the other impacts of the Specific Plan at this stage of the development of the campus, parking and circulation, and to report back whether or not there are other violations existing at this time. He also feels the Commission should request not only that the specific driveways stipulated tobyChapmanCollegebeclosed, but again the whole concept of internalizing all the vehicular circulation on the residential district and out of Center Street with appropriate traffic control devices should be negotiatedwithChapmanCollegeatthistimeuntilChapmanCollegedoes control the means to make permanent traffic improvements on Grand that would mitigate the impact on the neighbors. He Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 11 felt they should direct staff to investigate as to whether they are in conformance with the Specific Plan. They should attempt to reach an agreement with Chapman College to mitigate the non-conformities, which may include closing of all the driveways on Grand except for the one now under construction to the dormitory. The Commission discussed the specifics of the appeal vs. the other issues. They would like to see it combined as one issue. There should also be an on-going review of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Cathcart thought two motions might be in order: one finding that the staff did not incorrectly establish a gateway and driveway; the other, that staff work with Chapman College to negotiate an internal circulation pattern in a friendly atmosphere with a monitoring of all those items to come back to the Commission at a later date. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart to deny Appeal #383 and find that the Community Development Director acted in good faith with regard to the Specific Plan regarding gateways vs. driveways. The motion died from lack of a second. Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, that the Planning Commission find that the original findings of the Community Development Director and the City's Chapman College Specific Plan Review Committee that the development plans for the residence hall, phase one, to wit, that portion currently under construction immediately north of Walnut Avenue, met the goals, intentions and stated policies of the Specific Plan in that the driveway into that unit does not equate to a secondary gateway as indicated on the Specific Plan; and that further, the information brought in testimony before the Planning Commission either in written form or oral testimony, indicates there is reason to believe there may be violations of the Specific Plan with regard to adequacy of parking currently available on site, relative to specific location to existing uses and the proposed dormitory, as well as to the current student count on campus. And, further, the circulation in the immediate vicinity of Grand, Walnut and Center Street linkage of the campus as depicted in the traffic report provided to the Commission both in written form and verbally, may not accurately reflect the actual safety and congestion conditions in that portion of the City; and that further, staff be directed to undertake further investigation and seek agreement with Chapman College as to mitigation measures to reduce the traffic impacts currently existing, which would further be exacerbated by the completion of the dormitory project by limiting or eliminating all driveway s Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 12 on Grand Avenue until such time as internal circulation within the Chapman College Specific Plan area can be implemented to alleviate the problem, or that off site mitigation efforts by Chapman College to preserve the integrity of the residential neighborhood be implemented to the satisfaction of the City. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1882-91 - DON WATSON A request to create a lot without direct access to a public street. Subject property is located at 2630 East Denise Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1375-91 has been prepared to assess the environmental impacts of this project. Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report. The property is an irregularly shaped parcel just under a half acre in size. It is located on the northeasterly end of the cul de sac at Denise Avenue. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing lot into two parcels. It's a hillside parcel. Both parcels would be without access to a public street. The C.U.P. request is to allow for the creation of an additional lot without direct access to a street. The applicant has provided a preliminary plan, which illustrates the potential site layout of building pads and driveway locations. However, it should be noted these plans are only conceptual and depending upon the final site design, there may be changes in finished grade levels. Planning Commission action with regard to the C.U.P. request is directed towards the configuration of the lots. In this hillside area, it is anticipated that there will be substantial grading, several retaining walls possibly ranging anywhere from 0 to 23 feet in height. The exact location of the future garage is not known. It is difficult at this time to determine whether or not the turn around area shown on the preliminary plans would provide adequate maneuvering space. The public hearing was opened. Applicant John Stevenson, Stevenson, Porto & Pierce, 18195 McDurmott, Suite C, Irvine, said in the preparation of this proposal they worked with staff to prepare a preliminary grading plan Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 13 shown on the wall). One of the concerns is maneuverability or fluctuation in the pads. They would be happy to agree to those pad elevations as maximum pad elevations. They paid special attention to the views of the property owners above Mr. Watson's property. They talked to the Fire Department and adjusted the slope of the driveway, width of driveway and turn around room at the top. They have agreed to sprinkle the building. A soils engineer was at the site to make a preliminary investigation at the suggestion of the Engineering Department. If the request were approved, they know a detailed soils investigation would be required to determine exact soil parameters for the construction. Commissioner Scott noted on the preliminary grading plan there would be no cut or export. Mr. Stevenson apologized for that. It is a preliminary plan and he did not go to the expense of calculating earthwork volumes. There will be cut and export off the site, but he does not expect any fill. They will be cutting into the hill to create the pad. The conceptual plan incorporates four covered garages and parking behind those garages so there won't be any street parking down below. Those speaking in favor Dennis Ricketts, 2642 East Denise, is also planning to do a lot split like Mr. Watson. There must be a compromise of all the neighbors. They have expressed their concerns about having the raw land there. It has been a real maintenance problem throughout the years. The only thing for wildlife habitat is the gopher and squirrel problem. There are problems with fire control and erosion problems. The best way to maintain the land is to develop it. CC&R's are in place and development will not impair property values. He had an agricultural permit pulled on his property; he's had it for five years. Commissioner Master questioned the agricultural classification as the property is zoned R-1-6. Mr. Ricketts pulled the permit with the Engineering Department. He was doing some erosion control for road maintenance. Mr. Upchurch told him to obtain a permit. All fees were waived. Mr. Johnson said this was discussed earlier. He has not seen a copy of the agricultural permit and was not aware of what it was. They normally issue grading permits in preparation to structural grading for site development. Other than that, there aren't any permits they issue. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 14 Possibly, a staff person issued a grading permit based on the desire to brush his property. They are concerned about the cutting of the slopes. In the natural condition, the natural slopes have been known to be unstable. A detailed study must be made at some point in the future. Those speaking in opposition Ren Francis, 2800 Marywood Lane, has no quarrel with his neighbors; they've been good neighbors. He's had only modest difficulties with his slope over the last 25 years. Recently he's had to re-do his pool for structural reinforcement because of a slippage or earthquake damage. His concern lies with the stability of the hill. There's a lot of natural water seepage there. Tanya Chapin, 2804 Marywood Lane, worries about the proposed development because in the past 25 years she has had problems with the slope in her backyard. She has had to put a retaining wall at the top of her slope to keep the yard from eroding. She experienced some slippage which caused her pool to slip and crack. Engineers provided her with a report about the soil expansion problem. She does not want to be responsible if something should happen. RPhu tta 1 Mr. Stevenson is just as concerned that nothing will happen to the hill side. There will be sub-drains in the foundation to take any ground water that may be in the hill side ou t and down the driveway. The grading plan and soils report are to be checked by Public Works and it will be done to the City's standards and specifications. Chairman Bosch said the purpose of the application was to locate a lot without direct access to a public street. The Commission is required by both Municipal Code and State Planning Law to make findings that indicate that if a permit is to be granted is based upon sound principals of land use and response to services required by the community, that it will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems in the area. The Commission has heard a lot addressed to soil, but he would like his specific comments relative to those planning issues as to the appropriateness of an additional residential unit of the type that would need to be constructed on this lot. Mr. Stevenson does not foresee a single additional home on that private street as excessive. He would be willing to have a Traffic Engineer take a lot at that and give them a letter. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 15 The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart had two concerns. One is the addition of the residence. By approving this one, the Commission would be setting a precedent where the next individual would be doing the same thing. The other concern is that he doesn't feel comfortable with the Negative Declaration because of the unstable earth conditions. The geotechnical engineer did not do a subsurface test. There are a lot of maybes" in the Negative Declaration. He would like a geological study to be made. Commissioner Master was aware that one lot has had serious problems. He's concerned about taking an action that technically could be a problem later on during development. The Commission has been concerned about exposed above ground water tanks because it is an eyesore. Seeing a wall over 20 feet high exposed as it is at that elevation is going to be an eyesore as well. Commissioner Scott reviewe d the mitigating measures 2-5 in the Negative Declaration. He counted 8 "maybes". Were they really addressed as part of the report. He asked if a survey could be done on the two lots before submission of a final map? Mr. Johnson said the applicant was informed he would have to file a parcel map, but he was hesitant to do that until the C.U.P. was approved. Commissioner Scott asked if this was the area where a lot of subsurface drainage was coming to the surface, as well as an earthquake fault zone? Mr. Johnson responded they have been present. Before development occurred there were problems. The Peralta Hills fault has been identified to be in this area. The subsurface drainage problems are well documented. Chairman Bosch is concerned about the visual appearance of development (i.e., height of retaining walls). A 23 foot high retaining wall will have an impact on the neighborhood and could set a precedent. Traffic, too, is a concern. The Commission, on occasion, allowed more than four houses served by a private drive of this size, but it's typically been where the private drive opens directly on a relatively major street so that there is pretty good traffic circulation out of it. It is his opinion this has strong potential detrimental impacts on the existing residential scale of the neighborhood. It's the owners responsibility to mitigate the slope problems. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 16 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, that the Commission finds Negative Declaration 1375-91 to be inadequate based on the inadequate evaluation of visual and geologic impacts to the site. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to deny Conditional Use Permit 1882-91 based upon the findings that it would violate sound principals of land use for the R-1-6 zoning district in that the increased density provided on extensions of private drives would cause deterioration of bordering land uses and that the proposed site solutions which may include extensive retaining walls, heavy drainage and mitigation of unknown geological impacts would also create special problems for the bordering land uses. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Godlewski explained the appeal process. The Commission's action can be appealed within 15 days after this decision. It shall be made in writing to the Community Development Department accompanied by an appeal f ee of 105.00. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1898-91 - CLARK KAWASAKI A request to allow a retail motorcycle sales and service facility in the M-2 Industrial zone. Subject property is located on the northeast corner of Batavia Street and Angus Avenue, addressed 721 North Batavia Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. There was no opposition; therefore, a staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Don Clark, 5901 Grandview, Yorba Linda, represented Clark Kawasaki which is presently located at 607 West Katella. They are looking for a larger location for their business. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 17 Af ter examining many locations, they discovered the site at Batavia and Angus. Since their business is more industrial in nature than commercial, they felt this location would be an ideal situation for them. They would be able to take a lot of off site storage and bring it in their building. They would also be able to expand their service area and have a better show room/parts department. They like doing business in Orange and hope to remain here. Commissioner Cathcart asked if the applicant had reviewed the staff report and conditions? Mr. Clark was aware of the conditions. The only problem was the address change, but he realizes he had the option of using North Batavia. He had no other problems. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1898-91 with conditions 1-7. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: PUBLIC INPUT Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, resents the attitude of Chapman College. He has listened to arguments between the College and neighbors for years. A public statement saying that Chapman College is not acting in the best public interest when they refuse to bring representatives to meetings who can answer questions. That attorney was sent here to stall the situation and who could have obviously prepared himself, but did not. Public safety needs to be addressed by the College. Valid issues must be addressed. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, that the Planning Commission communicate with Chapman College that on matters regarding planning they make sure they have representation who can answer the technical questions of planning and to empower the Chairman of the Planning Commission to address a letter to Chapman College. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1991 - Page 18 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn to a study session on April 8, 1991, at 5:30 p.m. to discuss exotic animals in the Weimer Room. The next regular Planning Commission Meeting will be held April 15, 1991. Then, meet Wednesday, April 24, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. for a study session, subject to confirmation by adjournment at the next regular meeting. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. sld