Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-15-1991 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange April 15, 1991 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy ABSENT: Commissioner Scott STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistnat City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF APRIL 1, 1991 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve the Minutes of April 1, 1991 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scott Cathcart, Master, Murphy MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1901-91, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1374-91 - THE BREMCO COMPANIES: A request to allow the expansion of an existing truck terminal facility. Subject property is located on the southwest corner of Taft Avenue and Case Street, addressed 640 West Taft Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1374-91 has been prepared to assess the environmental impacts of this project. Staff commented a condition of approval was inadvertently omitted. Condition 16 is to be added: "Payment of TSIP fee as required by City ordinance." A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Richard Darling, 3470 East Spring Street, Long Beach, represented The Bremco Companies, which is the general contractor for M.W. Transport. M.W. Transport is ex- panding this particular facility to further their Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1991 - Page 2 of business. The impacts would be minimal from the stand- point that this is a cross dock operation rather than a warehousing operation. Types of trucks to be used are 28 foot vans rather than the large 45 or 50 foot trailers. It's in keeping with the current zoning. The operation will be exactly the same; that of a trucking operation for local distribution. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Murphy noticed the Negative Declaration listed on the staff report was 1374, but it is referenced as 1375. Ms. Wolff said 1374 was the correct one. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Master, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1374-91 in that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scott Cathcart, Master, Murphy MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1901-91 with the conditions as noted, #1-16. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scott Cathcart, Master, Murphy MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS COPdDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1901-91 - SPECIALTY RESTAURANTS CORPORATION: A request to allow tandem parking in a valet parking lot and to allow a portion of the parking lot to extend into the A-1 Agricultural Zone. Subject property is located on the south side of Chapman Avenue between Canyon View Avenue and Calle Grande, addressed 6410 East Chapman Avenue (Orange Hill Restaurant). A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes Ai~'ril 15, 1991 - Page 3 Applicant William Tallichet, 2099 So. State College Boulevard #300, Anaheim, proposed the expansion of their existing parking lot to bring their current parking from what is now 108 stalls self-parking to the intended 197 spaces shown on the plan. The reason for their needing the additional space is because they have a parking problem. There is quite a bit of business and sometimes the parking lot does not work well. They proposed some additions to the restaurant, which includes a patio deck and a cocktail lounge expansion. By City code, they needed to have over 190 stalls for that. They've tried to use every inch of space on top of the lot to make the parking work. They have tried to come up with a scheme for the parking lot to dedicate all parking in a valet situation. Mr. Tallichet referred to Condition 4 -- a minimum of two valets provided Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and six valets Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Currently, the volume of the restaurant during day time hours makes it difficult to staff valet attendants during the day. Their intention is to provide valets during the evenings bulk of their business). They are closed Saturday for lunch and Monday for lunch. Instead of having to staff a minimum of two on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday they request the Commission waive that condition for valet attendance during day time hours. They will comply with five valets during the evening on Friday and Saturday. They propose to have three valets during Sunday brunch and two during the evening. Referring to Condition 9 regarding a 10% of the landscaping; he barely has 3% of ground area to use with the proposed plan. The Commission and Mr. Tallichet discussed the land- scaping in depth. Sloped areas are to also be landscaped with trees in addition to the flat areas. Valet parking was discussed. The intention of the valet lot is to be able not only to have more parking available on site, but create a receiving area so as to accept people. He's asking to waive the valet lot during the day. Self-parking is available during the lunch hours. The safety issue was brought up and Mr. Tallichet has spoken with the Fire Department about this. A monitoring program was suggested to make sure there are no problems. Ms. Wolff had a copy of a letter which was addressed to staff, of which a copy was sent to the Fire Department. The condition was pulled from a portion of the letter. The condition could be modified if the Commission desires. Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1991 - Page 4 Chairman Bosch wondered about banquet business during week day lunches. Mr. Tallichet said it would be in their best interest to provide the best service possible to their customers. Valet service would be provided for banquets. The Commission wanted a way to assure that conformance to a safety issue would be adhered to. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bosch thought some type of review or certification by the land owner that they are complying in good faith was needed. In the Commission's motion they ought to include that whenever the banquet rooms are in use, that valets would have to be there. Perhaps a semi-annual review submitted to the Planning Department would be in order. He suggested adding Condition 15 requiring a semi-annual report be made by the applicant to the Planning Department indicating the number of occasions in which they've utilized valets and numbers different than those included with the approval, and to modify Condition 4 to match the letter regarding number of valets that the Fire Department reviewed (except for the banquet condition). Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1904-91, amending Condition 4: No valets would be required during the day time during Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday except when the banquet rooms are used; that there will be a minimum of two valets provided on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings; five valets on Friday and Saturday evenings; and five valets (day and evening) on Sunday; with a minimum of six valets on holidays. Also, to add Condition 15 requiring a semi- annual report be made by the applicant to the Planning Department regarding valet parking. AYES: Commissioners NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy Scott IN RE: NEW HEARINGS MOTION CARRIED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 3-91 - CITY OF ORANGE An amendment to the Orange Municipal Code providing implementation measures intended to reduce traffic congestion within the city. This amendment has been prepared to meet the requirements of AB 1791. Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1991 - Page 5 Mr. Godlewski introduced the Traffic Demand Management ordinance. As mandated by state law, cities are required to implement this ordinance. Planning and engineering staff have been working on this jointly and the engineering division has taken the lead on this. The Commission has received two written communications this evening; one from Foothill Community Builders dated April 15, 1991, and one from the Orange Chamber of Commerce dated April 10, 1991. Frank Page, Director of Public Works, presented the staff report on the proposed amendment. On June 5, 1990 voters approved Proposition 111 which was a gas tax. In order to get the gas tax approved there was a desire to establish a transportation blueprint for the State of California (AB 471). This required congestion management planning. The plans require certain elements that cities have to follow in order to become eligible for receipt of funds that are collected from this gas tax. Cities are to meet levels of service standards on the congestion management system. In the County of Orange they decided it should be the minimal system at this time. City of Orange only has one super street - Katella. There are only two intersections that are to be counted or measured. If you don't meet your level of service standards, you are required to establish a deficiency plan. The city is required to have Capital Improvement Plans that go out seven years to conform to the new California Transportation Commission cycle of doing the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). They are attempting to meet the deadlines of this planning effort, which requires them to have intersections counted, the Capital Improvement Plan and T.D.M. Ordinance ready by April 24, 1991. The bare minimum requirements include the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance which must be met by July 1, 1991. Staff has not attempted to make the city's TDM Ordinance any more stringent than AQMD. In fact, AnMD will soon go from the 1.5 A.V.R. requirement to 1.$ A.V.R. requirement and the City of Orange will have some difficulty meeting that. Bernie Dennis, Traffic Engineer, discussed the Traffic Demand Management Ordinance. In February they submitted copies of the document to the Transportation Planning Committee, the Chamber of Commerce and indirectly to the Irvine Company. Their staff received a number of comments and he went over these because they were pertinent to the document. Corrections were made in the document. As a program goal they were trying to achieve a 1.5 A.V.R. The ordinance is predicated on number of employees 100+). A recorded document will be required, but it will state that there are only program requirements and Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1991 - Page 6 the document will be on file in the office of the City Clerk. A major issue with the Chamber was compliance. Once a year an employer is to notify the City to say their TDM programs are still in effect. The document has been amended to reflect certain conditions. The Chamber was interested that the TDM Ordinance do nothing that would jeopardize the City's competitive environment within the County with other cities. Commissioner Cathcart asked about a gas station on the property of the Orange Mall; would it be exempt from the ordinance? Mr. Dennis said in his earlier exa~ple of a gas station, the City would not have any involvement with the gas station, but AQMD would. The only time the ordinance would be applicable is if the employer were seeking some type of discretionary permit from the City. Chairman Bosch asked if a building permit were a discretionary permit? Mr. Page referred to Page 9, Section VI.B. which speaks about a building permit as being a discretionary action. There was considerable discussion about the ordinance and gradfathering the enterprises into compliance based on the 100 or more employees. At the time a particular business exceeds 100 employees they would have to implement programs to a 1.5 A.V.R. The fee structure of $100,000.00 seemed excessive. The fee structure is based on an hourly rate plus 350 overhead). The $100,000.00 is a ceiling rate. The appeal fee, as advised by the City Attorney, may not be applicable; it might be too high. The purpose is to reduce trips and in so doing the City will get money from the State. Referring to Section VII, standards are not quantified. Standards was not a good term to use; facility improvements or another term would have been better. It's not necessarily true for quantitative evaluation on all of these. Rather than using the word "goal" in the document, use "requirement"; it's not strictly a goal or hope, but a requirement. The public hearing was opened. Paul Pursell, 16561 Alliance Avenue, Tustin, president of the Orange Chamber of Commerce, made comments on the document. The Chamber wished to express it's appreciation to Bernie Dennis and staff for their cooperation in this Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1991 - Page 7 matter. He pointed out a couple of key issues: They asked that businesses not be saddled with restrictions that exceed those requirements. They are trying to make Orange a more profitable and lucrative place to do business. They have a concern about the definitions of employer and worksite. They are concerned about the smaller businesses in the community. They recognize the AQMD is attempting to increase the A.V.R. They understand that 1.5 is the goal. This is a tough goal to achieve. They feel strongly. about the trigger mechanism. It should only apply when the businesses change and will result in an increase in the number of employees. The fee structure needs a limit by some identifiable measure. Mike Erickson, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, Vice-President of Transportation for the Irvine Company, complemented staff on their knowledge of a difficult issue and willingness to listen to the concerns of the people. The Irvine Company is very supportive of the ordinance as a whole. He voiced three issues and suggested some specific changes in the ordinance. Refer to Attachments A, B and C as part of the letter received from Foothill Community Builders, dated April 15, 1991. He asked to not refer to specifics, but rather have a goal to shoot towards. Flexibility is needed. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Herrick clarified that in Section IX, Page 16, Paragraph B.l. -- due to the requirements of State law with respect to cities imposing civil penalties, he suggested it be changed to, "Failure to certify annual compliance by January 1 shall constitute a misdemeanor from time certain of breach until receipt of letter of compliance." And specify that each day is a separate offense (such as in Paragraph 2). "Each day of breach shall be a separate offense." This would be more consistent with the powers of the City. Mr. Dennis responded to the public's input. Pegarding the 1.5 A.V.R., there needed to be some given number or design criteria. There is no problem with using the term "goal", but staff feels it is important to retain the 1.5 A.V.R. He commented on facility improvements, immediate accessibility (1/4 mile is realistic). The two ordinances staff was most familiar with were from the City of Santa Ana and City of Tustin. Copies could be provided to the Commission. Tustin used the verbiage contained in the Model Ordinance. The City of Orange is extremely liberal. Orange is consistent with the other cities regarding employer/worksite definitions. Orange is probably less restrictive with the ordinance than other cities. Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1991 - Page 8 Commissioner Cathcart asked about a reduction in TSIP fees. He thought there should be some relief along the line. Staff did not know for certain about a reduction in user fees. Mr. Page stated it is the City's intent to meet the requirements of the C.M.P. and the Growth Management Plan. If they don't the City will be in violation and the State will stop sending checks. Staff sees a problem in the future if the goals are not met. The City must adhere to the C.M.P. to meet Measure M; it cannot afford to ignore it. The Commission went through the Draft Traffic Demand Management Ordinance page by page and made specific changes or comments. The City Attorney's Office will codify the document upon completion in an attempt to make it more manageable. Section II - Policy. Leave 1.5 A.V.R. as a goal or to conform to the A.V.R. adopted by the S.C. AQMD. Section IV - Definitions of Words and Terms. Discretionary permit to be addressed in M. "Development Project" Page 5). This is not limited to discretionary permits. Building permits are not typically thought of as being discretionary, yet they are conditioned on code compliance. In the process of codification, if it appears to be a problem, staff will include that in the staff report to the City Council. Addition to E. "Employee" (Page 4): "...performing their normal workday employment services on the worksite." Addition to F. "Employee Generation Factors" (Page 4): based on the methodology outlined in Section V." The Chamber had a concern about "Employer" (Page 5) being in concert with that adopted by the AQMD. It is the Commission's understanding it does conform to that. J. "Immediate Accessibility" (Page 5). The Commission prefers leaving 1/4 mile from a land use and access point of view. R. "Remote Parking Facilities (Mode Mixer)" (Page 6). Parking structure changed to parking facility. W. "Worksite" (Page 7). Insert "in excess of 24 feet" after right-of-way (last line). X. "TDM Program Plan" (Page 7). Stress 1.5 A.V.R. goal. It was suggested to do a search and replace for 1.5 A.V.R. to say 1.5 A.V.R. goal wherever mentioned in the document. Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1991 - Page 9 Section V - Applicability (Page 8). Add 1.5 A.V.R. goal to last line. Section VI - Trip Reduction...(Page 9). A concern was expressed relative to predetermined measure for identifying approval of the plan rather than subjective determination. It will come through the full report which has to be filed by the developer in which he moves towards the goal. A concurrence statement could be added as number 5. and making 5. number 6. The City Attorney felt addressing this concern through the appeal procedure would be more appropriate. Page 10, D. Correct statement reads: "With the mutual consent of the participants and upon approval of the City Council conditions of the TDM Program may be changed." Section VII - Facility Standards...(Page 11). Rather than Facility Standard, a suggestion to use Program or Facility Options was made. Use that throughout the document. Chairman Bosch agreed with the Foothill Community Builders suggestions relative to that section putting action language provisions in. Provision of participation incentives would be a good change to keep the syntax. Provision of bus use incentive (under C.) Page 12). Provision of HOV support vehicles (under F.) Page 13). Chairman Bosch disagreed with the proposal to modify the shower facilities provision under D. to saying buildings having over 100,000 square feet because this is a menu of options available to the developer; it's not a mandate that he do any particular one of them. There was concern about the staffing of a Transportation Information Center. More and more, we're running into staffing requirements to monitor that. It might require a user friendly computer terminal that accesses information that doesn't require a staff position. Mr. Dennis responded staff could be a computer terminal or be a phone number indicating where there is a knowledgeable person who could address questions that might be asked. Mr. Dennis suggested the Commission take a look at K. and L. for future reference. A variety of programs will introduce K. and L. concepts, different than this document. At the bottom of Page 14, *Facility standards be changed to Program or Facility Options. (Search and replace). Section IX - Enforcement Penalties (Page 16). Delete from B. 1. "result in a penalty of $100" and put in language similar to 2. "misdemeanor from July 1 until receipt of letter of compliance." and "Each day of breach shall be a separate offense." Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1991 - Page 10 Section X - Appeals (Page 17). Mr. Herrick questioned the 30 days for an appeal. Mr. Godlewski said Planning is working on a 45 day schedule. It could be reworded to say "as provided in the ordinance." Section XI - Fees (Page 18). There were two earlier comments, but no conclusion. A fee schedule based on project size was suggested rather than leaving it open ended. The Master Fee Resolution was referred to. It is amended from time to time by City Council. Most of_ the fees are simple processing fees. But there are several of them that fall within the other category i.e., Development Agreements). Eliminate $100,000 and state "not to exceed the amount adopted by the Master Fee Resolution." The City Attorney suggested adding, fee as set by City Council by Resolution." The appeal fee should be a reasonable fee and should be consistent in accordance with City ordinance. Schedule A (Page 19) - how does this compare to the current parking standard? It's a take off from current City ordinance. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to recommend to the City Council to adopt Ordinance Amendment 3-91 regarding Draft Traffic Demand Management Ordinance as amended by the Planning Commission. AYES: Commissioners NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy SCOtt IN RE: ADJOURNMENT MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Master, to adjourn to a study session Wednesday, April 24, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the landscape ordinance. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scott MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. sld