Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-03-1996 PC MinutesC', (2-cL~ L_ MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange June 3. 1996 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero. Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager 01 Current Planning - Commission Secretary;StanSoo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney, Bob VonSchimmelmann, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 5/20/96 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith. to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero. Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING 2. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-95 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposed ordinance amendment modifying provisions 01 the Orange Municipal Code Title 17.36 "SignRegulations", more specifically relating to the length of time allowed lor display 01 banners and A-frame signs and conditions for such display.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt Irom the provisions 01 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311 01 the State CEQA Guidelines.This item was continued Irom the June 19, 1995, August 21, 1995. October 16, 1995, January15,1996, February 21,1996 and April 1, 1996 hearings.)Commissioner Carlton abstained Irom discussion 01 the Ordinance Amendment because she hadnotattendedtheprevioushearingsonthis issue.John Godlewski, Manager of Community Enhancement. said at the last meeting when they discussedtheSignRegulations, a consensus was made and the last lew changes were made to the SignOrdinanceAmendmentsothatitcouldbelorwardedtotheCityCouncil. The changes were incorporated intothestaffreport. Some of the highlights are an extended period 01 time lor display 01 banners andportablesigns - -150 days a year over what previously was allowed, 45 days in any six-month period. Additionally,there was some specific display criteria to make it very dear to the merchants as to what is acceptable.Commissioner Smith realized the fees would be levied by another Department of the City. but should itbecontainedsomewhereintheOrdinancethatthereisafee? To read ij as it stands now, it would appearthatit's just carte blanche. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 Mr. Godlewski said it was those sections 01 the Sign Ordinance bel ore the Commission that deal with this type 01 sign. The larger part of the Ordinance specifies lees will be paid according to a schedule. That schedule is addressed annually to make sure it is kept up to date. The public hearing was opened. Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, said the A.Irame signs were a concern as to where they are placed. She was curious about the balloons flying all over. Is the City going to allow large balloons on top of buildings? She wanted clarification on what a sign could say. Mr. Godlewski responded the new Ordinance specifies a merchant can have two signs. Right now ~ is not being enlorced and the merchants are doing whatever they want. There will be two signs, in addition to permanent signage. They would be limited to 150 days a year. The area and location in which the signs can be located is specified in the Ordinance. Balloons are still listed as a special promotion nem. Balloons and streamers, etc. are under the single display, not to exceed 45 days in any six-month period. And, it has specilic requirements as to where they can be shown. Large balloons is something the Ordinance does not allow. If they are being displayed and the City is notified, stall willlollow up and have them removed. What the signssay.. staff does not regulate copy. That's a Ireedom 01 speech issue and stall has not gotten involved with that. If there is a mannequin with a display 01 merchandise, then the Ordinance covers that and it is not allowed. "it's not a display 01 merchandise, then they must decide whether or not it is to be considered a sign or not, and treat it as such.Ms. DeNiro asked the questions because over on Tustin there is a business with a sign, "Touch 01 Romance" and n's a porn shop. She was concerned because it was in her community.Chairman Bosch said the Commission received the flyer she gave them. He didn't know if it was directly related to the Sign Ordinance Amendment. but let her know the City Attorney's office was working on her concern with regard to the current City ordinance.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith was appreciative to the public and staff over the last several months who worked so hard to bring lorth the Ordinance Amendment on Signs. She was comlortable with it.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero. to recommend to the City Council to approve Sign Ordinance Amendment 1- 95. AYES: NOES:ABSTAINED:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Carlton MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch stated this was a very emotional issue when talking about commercial advertising. There was a concern lor long lasting potential detriment to the community by having too much sign age or uncontrolled signage. It was very difficult to balance what's appropriate to maintain community guidelines and standards and still allow sut1icient advertising 01 businesses to carry on well and keep their locations in the City 01 Orange. He was not totally happy with everything in the Ordinance, but it was a reasonable try and a good move lorward from the last three or lour years. He's hopelul 01 its approval in order to put it to the test and try it out lor the next year or so and see if any other hardships are uncovered and need to be corrected, or see a prolileration 01 signs in spite 01 the City's best ellorts that needs to be further Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 IN RE:NEW HEARINGS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2153.96 - THE PLANNING CENTER, FOR PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES A request to install additional wireless communication antennas on the rool top 01 the building located at 7444 East Chapman Avenue. The combined height 01 the building and antennas exceeds the height limitation 01 the zone.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt Irom the provisions 01 the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Sec!ion 15311.Commissioner Romero excused himself from the hearing due to his economic involvement with the homeowner' s association where he lives.The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant Todd Chambers. The Planning Center. representing Pacific Bell Mobile Services, 1300 Dove Street 100, Newport Beach, was available to answer any questions the Commission had.Commissioner Smith asked why the antennas need to be as high as they are proposed? Are the antennas 6 inches by 2 inches by four feet in height?Mr. Chambers responded that was an engineering issue and the reason they needed the height was to provide the service to that area. The way the personal communication system works is on a line 01 sight.The panels that will be erected on top 01 the building will projec! a beam 01 their transmission and reception. The size is correct; it's the size of the panel that will be mounted on top of a pole that will be attached to the parapet. The pole will be roughly nine leet in height; the antenna will be mounted onto that. It won1 eX1end above the height of the pole, but attached to it.Commissioner Carlton wanted to know il Pac Bell has done any projections lor future development in the capacity lor these antennas, as to when they might need to increase them?Mr. Chambers didn't believe they would need to increase the antennas at this site. If there is increased capacity, additional subscribership, that is taken care 01 in the base transceiver systems. which are the brains 01 the antennas. They will also be mounted on the roof and is about the size 01 a relrigerator.Those will be screened behind the parapet. At this time, they will put in one to accommodate the service.In the luture, they have asked to have two. The technology lor those systems is changing rapidly; it's his understanding they will be reduced in size to eventually be the size 01 a television.Chairman Bosch understood the whole height 01 the equipment enclosures would be below the parapets. Is an emergency back up battery intended for the s~e? Where would that be housed?Mr. Chambers didn1 believe there was a back up battery. There was another smaller unit that would be used lor the telephone service itself where it hooks into the telephone line. All equipment would be contained within the parapet height.Chairman Bosch noted the applicant had an exhibit attached to the application wherein they addressed the required findings with regard to the conditional use permit: it's principles 01 land use, potential deterioration or impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and effect on community plans.Commissioner Smith asked il Pac Bell did not get the antennas on this building, what would they do?3 I Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 Mr. Chambers responded il they didn't receive approval lor this site, they have other sites in the area that would be considered. It was his understanding they would like to have this site as it lits in well with the provisions 01 the luture Ordinance in that they are co-locating with an Air Touch lacility, it's a tenant improvement on the rool top 01 an existing building, it's screened well and is not close to residences. It' s set back from the Ireeways.Public Comment Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive. Orange Park Acres, was concerned about the number 01 antennas on this particular rool. There must be about a dozen antennas; one is about 20 leet high. This one is sort 01 shielded. How many more antennas do they have to look lorward to? Maybe the City should limit the number 01 antennas in anyone spot, especially if they are clustered together.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith did not find the antennas to be invasive, given the lact they are tall. But they're not very wide. She was not opposed to their installation on this building.Commissioner Pruett shared Mr. Bennyhofl's concern. This building points to the concern and he expressed it when they went into the cellular antenna ordinance -- the prolileration 01 the antennas is something the City has not addressed. It's a concern and they should continue to be concerned about it. In this particular situation, it's not a big deal, but it's not going to be long belore the issue must be addressed. Chairman Bosch was concerned about the prolileration as well. As discussed earlier, they hoped the antennas would be grouped together to diminish the number 01 sites that had to be monitored and reviewed lor the potential impact in terms 01 design 01 the structure and it's impact on the neighbors. That's a benelit lor this. With regard to the proposed design, he was fairly adamant about how he felt about the appearance of antennas above the architecturalleatures 01 the building. The only thing that compels him on this one, is that there is already a mini lorest 01 antennas above the building. Otherwise. he would be against it. He hoped there would be more clustering on this building rather than other structures in the community. He would go along on this one lor that reason. Commissioner Smith was also concerned about the prolileration 01 antennas appearing there. This particular one does not appear to be invasive, but echoed the same concerns of the Commission. Commissioner Pruett hoped as the Planning Center represents their client, they work Irom the standpoint of not just bringing what their client wants to the City. but also take back to their client what the City would like to have and to achieve in terms 01 some 01 the concerns expressed at this hearing. By working together, some 01 the engineering issues and design could be worked out to be something more lavorable in the luture. It was noted the project was categorically exempt Irom CEQA review. Chairman Bosch felt strongly the Commission should carefully word their findings to indicate that they relate to the specific installation on this site, given the existing conditions of the buildings and antennas so as not to even suggest a precedent with regard fo above the parapet or extra ordinance applications in other areas in the City without a very stringent review. There are very specific conditions that make this palatable on this location. 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2153-96, with conditions 1-3. The CUP is granted in response to services required by the community.This site is unique to providing that service. It's also granted because its not going to provide or cause a deterioration 01 bordering land uses or create special problems because 01 the current use 01 antenna activity on the building. It's not being done lor the individual welfare 01 the applicant, but lor the general well are 01 the public. These lindings relate to the specific installation on this site, given the existing conditions of the buildings and antennas so as not to suggest a precedent with regard to above the parapet or extra ordinance applications in other areas in the City without a very stringent review. There are very specific conditions that make this palatable on this location. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Romero returned to the meeting.4. THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-96; AND ZONE CHANGE 1181-96 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to amend the Southwest Redevelopment Plan by adding approximately 22 acres 01 land comprised 01 a total 01 13 properties to the existing project area. The proposal includes amending the General Plan Land Use Elemenl of 10 residential parcels on the east side 01 Alpine Road from Low Density Residential (2 to 6 dwelling units per acre) to General Commercial. The proposal also includes a Zone Change to reclassify the residential parcels Irom R-1-6 (Residential- Single Family District, 6,000 sq.It. minimum lot size) to C-2 (Umited Business District).The project site is bounded by Culver Avenue to the north, La Veta Avenue to the south, Main Street to the east, and Alpine Road to the west. The specific addresses 01 the properties are as follows: 405.415,423,433,443,453,461,471,481, and 491 South Alpine Road. 1422,1426, and 1430 West Culver Avenue. 1425 and 1435 West La Veta Avenue. 402,406,410.414, 418,426, 428, 430, 440, 444.448, 454, 456, 458, 462, 464, 472, 474, 482, 484, and 490 South Main Street.NOTE:In compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) 1500-96 has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of this project. The DEIR was circulated lor a 45- day review period beginning on April 4, 1996.Victoria Cleary, City 01 Orange Economic Development & Redevelopment Agency, explained the Redevelopment Plan Amendment portion 01 the DEIR. The process began back in January, 1996 in which the Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plan lor the Third Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, which started the ball rolling lor all the other requirements for public hearings and actions that must happen throughout this process. This is adding territory only to the existing Southwest Redevelopment Plan. The Plan Amendment would add 13 parcels; the three parcels at the northwest corner 01 LaVeta and Main, and the 10 new residential parcels that are on the east side 01 Alpine. The southerly parcel on Alpine at the northeast corner of Alpine and LaVeta has been acquired by the Public Works Department lor street widening purposes, and the structure at that site has been demolished. The Plan Amendment does not make any changes in policy as set forth in the existing Redevelopment Plan. There are several reasons lor the Agency pursuing a Plan Amendment. All the commercial property to the north 01 Main is already in the Project Area. The property to the south, at the southwest corner of LaVeta and Main, is also in the Project Area, as are the properties on the northeast and southeast corners 01 LaVeta and Main. The street widening, which takes place from Culver to Main,then west on LaVeta, leaves commercial parcels that would be difficult to market without some sort 01 public intervention. Also, given the complexity 01 the assembly of parcels, it's very unlikely that any private developer would undertake redevelopment 01 the existing remaining commercial site. Therelore. in order to increase the viability 01 the redevelopment of that site and Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 Project Area, it was necessary to enlarge the site. Without the ability for the Agency to assist in an acquisition process, to provide tax benelits to property owners whose properties may be acquired, to make a Redevelopment Project leasible, it's unlikely a developer would buy that property on spec and hope they could obtain all those parcels and entitlements; hence, the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. In order to remain competitive with other cities and to entice and encourage additional private investment in the community, the Agency and staff are requesting approval of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. While there is no project at this time, approval 01 the Plan Amendment would provide the Agency with the opportunity to work with a developer that might surface in the luture. It would also promote the effect 01 land utilization 01 the area by providing the ability to assemble adequately sized parcels that are expected Irom the development community and will provide needed public improvements in the area. The two maps in the EIR (Page 1-3, Rgure 1 and Page 2, Rgure 1, Appendix A) lailed to show the original area in the Southwest Project Area. That area would be the City Shopping Center, the commercial properties, with the exception 01 the Doubletree Hotel. That is not in the Project Area. The Resolution on Page 1,Section 3, the very last line, should read, '10r the purposes of carrying out the Third Amendment will conform to the General Plan."Jerry Haag, the City's Planning Consultant, addressed the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change portions 01 the EIR. These two actions are done to assist in the implementation 01 the proposed Third Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. A General Plan Amendment would change the land use designation on the 10 existing single lamily residential lots Irom low density residential to general commercial, to be consistent with the existing commercial development on Main Street. The Zone Change would change the existing R-1-6 single family zoning designation to C-2 general business, to be consistent with the amended General Plan. The Zone Change would encompass the same 10 lots as the General Plan Amendment. "approved, the Amended General Plan and C-2 zoning would allow for a range 01 retail uses, office uses, and similar type uses as permitted under the Zoning Code. Since no specific development project is proposed at this time, luture developments on the site would be subject to additional levels 01 City review at the time 01 submittals. This could entail a conditional use permit and site design reviews. The Planning Department is aware that these requested actions could affect an established single lamily neighborhood along Alpine Road. Therefore, an EIR has been prepared to identily potential impacts and to recommend mitigation measures to protect the neighborhood.Pat Mann, Cotton-Beland Associates. addressed the EIR, which was prepared under his direction. The environmental process had an Initial Study which made a preliminary assessment 01 the affects 01 the project. That document was released to the public and public agencies onFebruary9, 1996 lor a 30-day review process. Following the completion of that process, they conducted their analysis 01 the project's affects and prepared a Draft EIR which was published on April 4. for a 45-day comment period. That period is now closed and they received comments from lour other agencies. The Draft EIR includes the comments and responses to those comments from the other public agencies. "additional comments are received on the environmental report, then responses to those comments would be included in the Rnal EIR prior to its certification by the City Council. TheyreceivedcommentsfromtheGasCompany, the City 01 Anaheim, the State 01 Calilornia, which statedStateagencieshadnocomments, and the Orange County Transportation Commission, which requested a bus turn out be provided on the project site.Basically, the commenting agencies did not find substantial problems with the analysis. They identified one potentially significant effec!, Which could not be mitigated. That was a long-term cumulative effect on air quality, since the region does not complywiththeNationalAmbientAirQualityStandards. This project is sulliciently large and the trallicexceedsthethresholds01theSouthcoastAirQualityManagementDistricthasprovidedlorconsideringprojectstohavea significant ellect on air quality. A number of other impacts 01 concern were addressed by mitigation measures. The first is the land use ellect, Which was discussed by Mr. Haag. The change 01 character in the neighborhood could be a significant ellect unless it is not mitigated. The most important mitigation measures are that no vehicular access to the site be provided Irom Alpine Road so that there would be no commercial trallic which would use Alpine Road. In addition, the City requires a 15 foot setback Irom the right- ol-way so that behind the site there would be a 15 loot landscaped setback and then an 8 foot wall behind that with landscaping. Other alternatives would be the landscaping 01 the structures provided at that site, use 01 a berm to minimize the height 01 landscaping and the visual character 01 the wall. as Planning Commission Minutes June 3. 1996 01 having a commercial site across the street Irom a residential area. Other environmental effects that could be mitigated include construction noise. The long-term noise could be mitigated by specilic time limits, no test drives on Alpine Road (if a car dealership were to be approved) and no exlerior paging. The visual aspects 01 the project could be significant; however, the requirement for a landscaped buffer and barrier wall would provide sufficient mitigation for that potential ellect. Other than air quality, they lelt that all the potential effects of the project could be mitigated to less than a significant level.Commissioner Smith asked about public comments in the EIR? Were scoping meetings held and were the residents notified 01 their ability to offer comments?Mr. Mann replied there were no public comments received during that process. A scoping meeting was held to review the EIR process. That meeting was held in early March. They took comments Irom the residents and they were helplul in helping to define what the potential impacts 01 this project might be.Those comments are not specifically incorporated into the EIR. They took notes and wrote down the residents comments and they could be added to the document. Public comments during the circulation 01 the Draft EIR are required to be included and responded to in writing. Comments made during the Notice 01 Preparation prior to the circulation of the document are not required.Commissioner Smith did not know what the residents thought by reading the Draft EIR. She lound it extremely obvious by omission that there are no comments in the document by the residents. Howmanypeoplewereatthescoping meeting?Mr. Mann said the residents did not make comment on the Dralt EIR. The scoping meeting was heldpriortothepreparationoftheDraftreport. They talked to the neighbors even before they started theprocess01preparingtheReport. Their concerns were trallic and noise and those were included in theReport.Approximately 15 people attended the scoping meeting. They were informed the EI R process would take place and their written comments would be accepted during that period.The public hearing was opened.Public Comment Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, said when this was first approved, residential property would not be taken lor the development 01 commercial property. To his knowledge, this was the first time the City wants to take a neighborhood and wipe it out lor commercial development. He was not opposing the project, but wondered why at this stage Redevelopment would want to take these properties. Will this be the first of several? He wondered if the citizens really understood what was happening.Chairman Bosch's recollection was similar except that no residential properties would be includedwithouttheagreement01thepeoplewhoownedthem. Several people came lorward during the publichearingsbywhichtheRedevelopmentareaswereestablishedandaskednottobeincluded. They were specifically excluded. That was the key. The City would be looking at specifically utilizing condemnation,which isn~ mentioned in this proposal, except lor the house that was acquired lor the widening 01 LaVeta.Chris Jamison, 460 Alpine Road, didn't receive a notice to attend the scoping meeting. It might have come to his house, but maybe it wasn't in a lormat that was important enough to take notice 01 it. He knew 01 several neighbors who didn't receive a notice about the scoping meeting. He knew something serious was taking place when the house at the corner 01 Alpine and LaVeta was demolished. Is this goodCityplanning? He heard a car dealership was a possible development lor the site, but he now understands there is no interest by Ford. There are big buller zones between commercial and residentialproperties,especially car dealerships. He worries as a homeowner that it will negatively impact his appraisal value01hisproperty. He talked to his neighbors and the consensus seems to be the residents are opposed to this. He obtained their signatures to a notice 01 opposition, which he handed to the Commission. He lelt more thought needed to be given to developing the area without including the Third Amendment. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 Chairman Bosch commented part 01 the process is the public hearing and lor the Planning Commission to consider not only the documents provided to them, including the various stages 01 the environmental documentation. as well as the work that occurred several years ago on the Main and LaVeta street widening project and on the Second Amendment. The Commission is to recommend to the City Council what they see as the best potential impact, taking into account all aspects. Any comments received at this public hearing that relate to the environmental documentation must and will be (by law) included in the documentation and need to be reflected in the mitigation measure programs. Alter this hearing. it is forwarded to the City Councillor additional hearings belore final action is taken. Mr. Jamison suggested holding a couple more hearings on this matter. He thought the City would get much more response from the neighbors. Stu Dugert lives at 147 North Grant Place, and owns the residence at 443 South Alpine. He submn1ed his responses to the plan and he drew up a separate plan to scale. There are three property owners on the residential lots. When he bought the house 17 years ago, he thought something would happen to the block some day. He was very concerned about the residential properties and what will happen to them. There are only three reasons the Redevelopment Agency wants to include their properties: 1) to eliminate a lack 01 productive land utilization and prevent the occurrence of blight within the Third Amended Area; 2) to provide lor the assembly 01 adequately sized development sites appropriate to modern development; and 3) to provide needed public improvements. With regard to the Amendment Area. which is Alpine. there are no public improvements going in. There is no sewer, curb and gutter, no street widening. no storm drain. These improvements are the widening 01 Main and LaVeta. They have nothing to do with Alpine. The City already has the property along LaVeta so it doesn't need Alpine to widen LaVeta. The City already has the means to go ahead and widen Main. It would seem to him the Cny does not need the residential properties to achieve their goal 01 public improvements. He didn't know what adequately sized parcels was. He lelt it was what a developer needed to build on. His plan did not include the residential units. The site could be 01 adequate size lor development and il doesn't need the single lamily residences to get the desired amount of land. In the Third Amendmenl documentation it discusses blighted conditions. When he looks at the nine residential lots, he doesn't see them as being blighted The only thing that could be said in the report is that there is some peeling paint on the houses. That's not an adequate reason to pull the residenliallots into the Redevelopment Area. Other blighting physical considerations occur on land the City already owns. He thought this was disgusting. He spoke about the exposed trash enclosures, exposed pipes, etc. The nine homes are not contributing to the physical blight. The economic blight is there and its on the existing commercial property that is already in the Redevelopment Area. There should have been some energy expended in doing something with this. The empty lots could have been planted with green grass. He felt the report was a sham because none 01 the three items hold any water. They cannot be justified. There is no development proposed lor the property. What happens if there is no project in the next three years? The City will have to maintain the properties. It seems like a big risk lor the City to be taking. Trallic was brushed over in the environmental report. Any trallic coming out onto Main or LaVeta and wanting to go north, how will that be done? Cars will have to come down LaVeta, turn right and then go to Alpine or Bedford to make a right hand turn. Any trallic wanting to go north is going to end up going up Alpine or Bedford. That wasn't addressed. Chairman Bosch thought all the property owners had been contacted and had agreed to be included in the Amendment. What he's hearing now is that isn't true. You may have been contacted, but didn't agree. Mr. Dugert sat on the PAC Committee, but has not agreed to n. Chairman Bosch asked if a development proposal were in hand that addressed the purchase 01 his property. along with the others on Alpine. then would he be in agreement with the Amendment? Mr. Dugert responded he possibly would be in agreement, if it were a good development and he was offered a lair price. B I Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 Commissioner Sm~h asked il the site plan Mr. Dugert drew included the widening 01 Main Street? Was the property deducted off 01 Main to allow lor the street widening? (Yes.) Gary Knickerson, 423 South Alpine, got a copy 01 the environmental report and attended some of the meetings. The problem he had was the salety issues on the corner of Culver and Alpine. There is a stopsign. II you want to make a right or lelt turn, you cannot see because 01 the tree and parking on the sides01thestreet. He travels northbound and he has a hard time getting out. II they widen Main and cut off LaVeta, he will have a much harder time getting out. Staff and the consultants tried to help them to the best 01 their ability, but still many 01 the residents did not understand what was going on. Many 01 his neighbors were not notified. More residents would show up at another hearing. Hector Berger, 453 Alpine Road, likes his neighborhood, but doesn~ like the way this was handled. TheyfirstgotnotificationtovolunteertobeinthePAC. He was the only one representing his landlord. He was told the properties could be taken by eminent domain. He didn't want to worry about having to move in the neX1 90 days; something needed to be done and the residents needed to be told about it. Do something with it or lorget it! Norma Lealer owns the Big Y Yardage outlet on Main Street, 011 01 LaVeta. She has been to everymeetingsince1986. Their business has grown; they have more than doubled their space. They rent Irom Geneva Fulton. They sit neX1 to the empty, ugly lot. It's not taken care 01. Trucks park in the emptylotonthecorner01CulverandMain. Their building is very old, but they take care 01 what is needed. Theywouldliketoknowwheretheystandbecauseiltheyhavetomove, they will have to liquidate. They don't know what is happening and it was a very insecure feeling. It has been 10 years since this started and theywouldliketoknowwhat's going on and when it will take place. Simon Goodyear, 422 South Alpine, just moved into their house in February. The house was vacant lor awhile; they spent quite a bit of time in the neighborhood belore buying the house. It's a quiet, lamilyorientedneighborhood. He got a letter lor the scoping meeting. It was addressed to "Resident". He was opposed to having a Ford dealership in his Iront yard. They moved there because 01 the neighborhood.He didn't know when the written comments were due lor the Impac! Report. Alter the last meeting, he sent a letter to the City regarding the proposed Third Amendment 10 the Southwest RedevelopmentPlan. Eric Montalongo, 404 South Bedlord, has lived in his house almost six years. Traffic has been cut down a lot since it is one way. but still there is trallic on the street. It's possible to turn right off of LaVeta to gonorthonBedford, as well as Alpine. His concern is the increased traffic lor the area. He has two children and there are a lot of kids in the neighborhood. He had a hard time believing that any increase in the development 01 the site in question will not impact the traffic lor the area. He believed that indirectly therewillbeanincreaseoftralliconAlpineandBedlord, going north. Increased trallic will force people to find shortcuts. The property would make sense if it were developed for ollice use. The existing car dealershiphassecuritylightingandtheskyismupatnight. That's a significant impact. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Cleary addressed most of the comments made. Regarding Mr. Bennyholl's comments that this appears to be a departure Irom Redevelopment policies, yes this is the first time that such an action would be taken involving residential properties. Stall did some research and is 01 the understanding it is aninlormalpolicy01theCouncilatthetimetheTustinStreetProjectAreawasadoptedin1993thattherenot be any residentially zoned properties in the Project Area. Stall has not lound anything indicating that a lormal policy was established in the lorm 01 an ordinance or resolution, and there have been live additional Plan Adoptions andlor Amendments between 1984 and 1988. Property owners have been excluded in the past; in lact, that was the reason for the need to include the three parcels at the northwest corner ofMainandLaVeta. As lar as policy, excluding residential properties, she would have to deler to LegalCounselaslarastheimpactonaninlormalpolicy. It appears the property owners have hesitated in investing additional dollars in their commercial properties because they have been waiting to see what will happen with the street widening. There has been a lot of uncertainty and she has heard of rumors that 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 she had never heard belore. There is no change to the power 01 condemnation; it is included in the existing Redevelopment Plan. That would be Iriendly or unfriendly condemnation with the use 01 eminent domain. The City Council has never used their power 01 eminent domain belore. II a public agency acquires a piece 01 property, they must (by law) pay lair market value. The building that was demolished was part of the slreet widening project; it would have happened anyway and has nothing to do with the Plan Amendment process. Some residents prelerred that something be done to the property without involving the residential properties. It's unlikely at this time; otherwise, something would have been done by now. In today's market developers are hesitant in investing any money in a property that could transition lor lear 01 losing their investment. Regarding public improvements, there is a private sewer line that has been somewhat inadequate from time to time, which serves the commercial properties along Main, including the three properties that are proposed to be included in the Project Area. There is also Redevelopment money in the street widening project. Staff has been looking at a Resolution to eliminate parking along Main Street. Some were concerned there was no project and therelore, they could not support the Third Amendment. Without the Redevelopment Agency, projects could not be developed and improvements could not be made. In the past, property owners have benefited by having their properties acquired by the Redevelopment Agency. In 1989 stall had met with a developer who was interested in redeveloping the site, but they are no longer interested. It's dillicult to put together a viable piece 01 property when taking up to 30 leet 01 the Irontage along Main Street, and then with the uncertainty that in five or ten years maybe the property could go high rise. She spoke to the issue 01 notices being sent to the residents. Not only were they mailed, stall posted notices on trees in the neighborhood. A certified mailing to 32 individuals was made notifying them 01 this meeting and an inlormational meeting. All cards were signed and returned to the Agency. Commissioner Pruett asked about the power 01 eminent domain and who had linal authority or who could take action? II a business is asked to relocate, does the Agency assist them in linding a location prelerably in Orange? Ms. Cleary explained the Redevelopment Agency also sits as the City Council. It would require an action by the Redevelopment Agency. All hearings are noticed. She also explained Relocation Law lor residential and commercial owners and tenants. The Relocation Consultant is directed specifically to find other business sites in Orange if a business needs to be relocated. Commissioner Smith asked if the 30 loot widening on Main Street came off 01 one side? Mr. VonSchimmelmann said n was the west side of the street and it should be noted it isn~ exactly 30 feet. Commissioner Smith said the last time the City tried to take houses through eminent domain was in 1985. The houses were located across the street Irom her on Shaller and two on North Center. That wasn't a Redevelopment Area at the time, but the purpose of the take 01 the houses was to expand the Library parking lot, which would have been feasibly lor the public's good. To her knowledge, that's when the policy was instituted that residential takes would not be part 01 the vocabulary in the City 01 Orange. She thought n was a good policy to say it's a last resorl. Is if presumed the City will actually buy this entire block, or would that be something the City would hope a developer would come in and buy? Ms. Cleary responded the Agency would assist in the acquisition. The Redevelopment Agency does not have the money at this time or in the near luture to acquire all those properties on its own. Hence, the need lor Redevelopment and some sort 01 Memorandum 01 Understanding with a developer. Commissioner Romero asked if this project were approved, could a developer build around a resident if the resident didn't want to sell his property? Ms. Cleary told the Commission that past projects have been abandoned because there have been one or two hold outs. The Redevelopment Agency would have to make the ultimate decision as to whether to use eminent domain on that property. 10 1 Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 Commissioner Romero asked about the three parcels that were purchased. Were the amounts because 01 the additional compensation lor redevelopment and relocation? Mr. VonSchimmelmann said the owner asked lor $2.5, which the City paid. That was all inclusive 01 relocation, all the F & E involved, etc. Commissioner Carlton asked lor the current status 01 the street widening project? Mr. VonSchimmelmann explained the project is part 01 a three-street widening -- LaVeta, Main and Chapman. The first phase 01 that is the intersec!ion at Main and LaVeta. ThaI project will go on LaVeta. from Alpine to Main, and then on Main, Irom LaVeta to Culver. They are still in the process 01 acquiringright-of-way. Then, they can go lorward with construction. It's hard to give an exact date 01 when the project will be completed. Stall hopes by the end 01 June next year that all the right- of- way could be acquired.Chairman Bosch asked Mr. VonSchimmelmann to bring the Commission up to date as to how the widening is going to help prevent unwanted trallic to turn northbound on Alpine Irom LaVeta, alter the widening occurs?Mr. VonSchimmelmann said currently in place are the traffic divertersthatpreservetheneighborhood.Those will stay in place and will be moved back once the street is widened. The integrity and intent will remain the same. The widening. per se, will have no effect on the neighborhood intrusion. There should be no increased demand through there due to the widening. The widening will give them the ability to add lelt and right turn lanes into that intersection.Commissioner Pruett asked if there had been any discussion 01 cui de sacing Alpine on the south?Mr. VonSchimmelmann replied no. It's something that could be looked at. but there has been no discussion on it. He didn't know if the residents would like that because they wouldn't beabletoturnright out of their street.The residents did not want a cui de sac in their neighborhood.)Commissioner Smith said it seemed to her that if you took 28 to 30 leet off 01 the west side 01 Main Street and you don't convert the residential properties. it would end up being a whiteelephantpiece01property.Once the street widening occurs, and this Third Amendment was not incorporated into the Redevelopment Area. would that be a buildable piece 01 property? How big will it be and what is lelt?What is the status of the vacant lot, that has been vacant lor years?Mr. VonSchimmelmann could not tell her exactly what the remaining piece 01 propertywouldbe. As per the Zoning Code. it would be permissible to develop that property. Whether ornotitsadevelopablepiece. he couldn't say. It could be developed depending on the size 01 the buildings, but it may not be economically feasible to the purchaser. The owner 01 the vacant lot has submittedplanstotheBuildingDepartmentandhastentativeapprovalforadevelopmentthere. The ownerhas not progressed any lurther.Ms. Cieary pointed out the map failed to show the take 011 01 the southerly parcel on Main and LaVeta.Mr. Mann addressed the specific comments about the Draft EIR. There was acommentmadeaboutPage8-8 of the Executive Summary, lourth paragraph, talking about no lurther environmental documentation iI a project is proposed that is within the scope 01 the EIR. Part oftheirresponsibilityinaninlormationdocumentliketheEIRisathirddisclosure01howthatdocumentmightbeused in the luture in the process 01 approving projects. It's within the ability 01 the City to use the environmental report lor the approval of luture projects, which is consistent with the projectdescribedintheenvironmentalreport.There are a wide range 01 conditions under which the EIR could be used as the environmental clearance lor that project s~e, in addition to the approval of the actions that are contemplated in Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 issues included trallic salety on Alpine. It has been well described the traffic diverter system in the neighborhood works very effectively to keep out thru traffic and it has resulted in there being very little trallic in the neighborhood. During his noise monitor, he only observed 18 vehicles using the street during a hall hour period during rush hour traffic on a Tuesday night. They were not thru traffic vehicles, but destined lor Alpine. While a new project could have some effect on increasing thru trallic, there would not be a substantial addition in trallic in the neighborhood. A potential for parking associated with a potential use on that site to use Alpine lor parking -- their recommendation lor mitigation to provide no access, vehicular or pedestrian, through the rear 01 the parcel on Alpine, would make n inconvenient lor people to use that area for parking. With the land use mitigation measures included in the project, they would not expect a signilicant problem with parking lor commercial use. Per the view 01 their trallic consultant, with the improvements on Main and LaVeta by providing much smoother turning movements at the intersection would reduce the demand lor thru trallic to use Alpine or the other streets in the neighborhood. There was a final comment regarding the lighting at night. The City does have lighting standards and they speCifically included the indication that lighting would be required to be down lighting and would be required to be directed into the property.Chairman Bosch spoke about the mitigation monitoring program. Some attention was made to Land Use,Item 1, about an 8 loot high wall 01 solid wood or other dust and noise attenuating material during any construction were a project to go ahead on the site. If a project were to go lorward. it was his opinion to include the lact that maybe this wouldn~ develop as one entire parcel. There may be several involved which means phased demolition and construction. He has seen successlully used, and it becomes a design and policy issue, a requirement that the permanent wall and landscaping be installed in such situations to mitigate impacts on neighbors belore any structural demolition or new construction occur.Experience with a solid wood wall or other attenuating materials without any other attributes to them has proven to be highly ineffective and impossible to maintain.Mr. Mann said this was their recommendation strictly lor the construction wall. They could provide the condition subject to review by the Planning Department. It might be dillicull to actually construct the project in the event of the permanent wall already being installed.Chairman Bosch said discussion has been made that one potential thought lor development 01 the site may be a new car dealership. What is the requirement in terms 01 entitlements in the C-2 zone lor a new car dealership? Mr. Jones replied a new car dealership in the C-2 zone would require a conditional use permit, which would give the opportunity to place additional conditions upon the development to make sure it addresses all the issues and concerns or potential impacts.Chairman Bosch noted the mitigation program recommends a 15 foot landscaped setback to an 8 foot permanent masonry wall along the east side 01 Alpine were a project to move ahead. This is the C- 2 zone being requested. What lurther setback or what height at the 15 foot setback could a building be buill without a conditional use permn, but by merely pulling building permits?Mr. Jones believed when commercial backs up to single lamily residences there is a 20 foot setback. In this case. there is no 20 loot setback requirement. It can be built at the 15 loot wall line.Chairman Bosch understood that although the mitigation addresses the provision 01 an 8 loot wall, there then could be a 20 loot building wall at that line, and that has not been addressed clearly in the environmental documentation.Mr. Mann said their assumption was, and is stated in the report, either the building wall or the setback wall would be constructed at that 15 loot setback line.Chairman Bosch asked if they accepted the concept that the 8 foot wall was really a Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 Mr. Mann interjected the 8 loot wall was to provide a noise buffer and be a visual and security barrier to the commercial site that would prevent people from parking on Alpine or walking through into the commercial site. That wall. with landscaping on the wall, would provide a visual buffer to the neighborhood. There then could be commercial buildings built close or at the wall. Chairman Bosch asked il that were the purpose 01 Item 3 under Land Use. and item 2 -- was it the intent to move beyond the 8 loot wall? It wasn' clear. (That was correct.) That's something that needs to be addressed relative to the structure at or behind the wall.Commissioner Smith noted across the street there were high rise buildings. She didn' want to overlook the lact that this parcel could indeed be built as a high rise. Has that been discussed in the Plan in terms 01 zoning? Chairman Bosch replied no, but staff could address what type of setback would be required in terms 01 allowed building height lor C-2 properties and distance Irom residential property lines, regardless 01 what is existing adjacent to the project. Mr. Mann stated with regard to the environmental impact report, the report deals wnh a project 01 0.5 FAR -relatively a low rise project. They found projects greater than that would be expected to have a high range of additional significant effects and would require additional environmental review. In the Dralt EIR they are simply looking at the possibility 01 a 2-story retail and perhaps some office project. Mr. Jones thought the height on commercial buildings is 32 leet, subject to a conditional use permit lor additional height. Mr. Lau said the setback would only be 10 leet; the 151eet was an additional mitigation measure. Commissioner Pruett said there would be commercial on one side of the wall and residential on the other side. Then, the setback would be based on the nearest residential zone. Can that be done? Mr. Haag believed the residential zone was 6.000 square leet and he didn' know il they could get that inbetween the block wall and right-ol-way. Staff would have to look at it to see il it were leasible.Commissioner Carlton wanted to see how deep the remaining commercial lots on Main would be once the street was widened. She believed they were looking at 156 feet Irom the eventual curb on Main to the back of the lot, not counting the proposed additions.Mrs. Fulton wanted to speak to the depth 01 the lots.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to re-open the public hearing.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett. Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Geneva Fulton, 1801 North Greenleal, Santa Ana. informed the Commission the lots were 229 leet deep.To set everyone straight, the Ford dealership is not going in; that's a dead issue. To set the record straight, she was 84 - not 86. She has been trying to sell her property lor the past 15 years. The widening 01 Main Street is the biggest issue as to why she can't sell. The commercial buildings were built in 1956 -1960. The brick buildings will probably last 100 years It they are not tom down.Mrs. Lealer said because of Alpine and Bedlord being one way streets, the alley in back 01 them is used constantly because people cannot turn left any place else.Mr. Goodyear said the registered notice that was sent out was lor an inlormation meeting; the written notice lor the EIR was due the day belore the inlormation meeting. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 Mr. Montalongo lorgot to mention the amount of trallic on Culver. His wile personally witnessed two car accidents at the intersection 01 Bedlord and Culver, mainly due to the lack 01 visibility on the north east corner 01 that intersection because 01 the apar1ment complex and the constant parked cars. Chairman Bosch noted to Mr. VonSchimmelmann there was a vision zone problem 01 some type at Bedlord and Culver. The Commission requested the City's Public Works and Traffic Division look into the situation to see if something couldn't be done to alleviate that problem. Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, asked illt would set a precedent il eminent domain were used on this project? She was concerned about eminent domain and all neighborhoods; not just Old Towne. Mr. Jamison was opposed to the Third Amendment, but It seemed like the Commission was exploring every avenue 01 the project. He wanted to state for the record that some 01 the mitigating measures that are being proposed are not enough. The wall that is being proposed for this project is not very high; he proposed a 15 loot high wall. A cui de sac in their neighborhood is a mitigating measure that should be considered. The 15 loot wide buffer zone, he thought, was too little and would request a little bit more. Mr. Dugert stated the private sewer that was mentioned is on the commercial site; it doesn't serve the residences and has nothing to do with the residential properties. The public hearing was re- closed.Commissioner Pruett appreciated the concern about eminent domain. He thought the City had been involved in eminent domain, but Irom a Iriendly standpoint. It is something that exists, but the City has not gone through unlriendly eminent domain, which is basically taking property. He also thought a Redevelopment Area could be developed; in fact, it is created and eminent domain is not being implemented. By placing the addition in here. it's not going to create eminent domain. It will set lorth an area that is destined to be developed. Even the property owners who have purchased property there.purchased it with the concept that it will be developed some time. The neighborhood is changing. It' s important lor the people to be involved in the process and be part 01 the plans. Assistance can be coordinated and worked out with the business and residential property owners. It's important that this project move lorward.Commissioner Carlton thought the thing that bothered her the most was that there was nothing coming lorward; there is no plan for development 01 the project. That might change alter the street is widened.But it would be premature now to go ahead with the Third Amendment. She was not convinced the site cannot be developed profitably the way it stands without the 10 homes being taken. She would like to see a delay in this until the street is widened to see what kind 01 response comes forth from prospective builders.Commissioner Romero saw this as a necessary change 01 zoning with the property. A larger parcel will allow much more to be built. He could not see a wall being a large detriment for the residential communities, especially iI properly landscaped with a 15 loot buffer. In one regard, yes, It would be a lesser amount of residences/neighbors, but it could make it very pleasing to look out the Iront door and see a nicely landscaped, planted area. This parcel would be inellective if lelt as it is. He had a leeling that it was going to be a matter 01 time belore the 10 houses are taken out and used lor construction. The properties will sell based upon a proper development plan that everyone will be happy with.Commissioner Smith said this country was built on the backs of the working class and she would never want to minimize the voice 01 people who classify themselves as part 01 the working class. The residents have the right to voice their opinions and have the right to speak up about it. It really irritated her that the public does not get the information they need to come out and delend their neighborhoods. She knew the planners involved in this project were some 01 the best in the County and saw that their ellorts to inlorm the neighborhood in this project have been good. But, she didn't understand how a person gels a letter the day after the information was due. When that happens, she thought some bit 01 purpose was in it so that the inlormation was not acquired. She really relied on public input in the environmental 14 Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 documents. It irritated her that the public input was not part 01 the documentation. Without public input.the process IIys on the heels 01 those agencies and corporations and public entities that give their input.And, they are not the people who will live across the street Irom the project. She was not ready to re- zone the residential properties into commercial properties at this time. This neighborhood was at such risk a lew years ago that the City spent considerable time and money to keep the traffic out 01 the A- B-C streets.The people came lorward and said they did not want traffic and the Council got behind themandputupthebarriers. Now, the proposal is to zone an entire block commercial on one 01 those streets, which would have to increase the traffic there in some way. She appreciated Mrs. Lealer's comments thatlolksarejustusingthealley; it shows the traffic is there. The Cny should do something to change that so people do not use the alley. She can see where II is going. No one ever realized Orange would get so big, so last.Recently on a project in Old Towne the Commission voted to convert an entire block 01 residences to a parking lot and that broke her heart to do that. But the property owner had acquired the entire block and that was part 01 a Specific Plan. She needed more inlormation Irom the residents and the City in terms of what the plans were lor the development 01 the property, and there needs to be more mitigation lor the site She personally did not like the politics of what is going on with the guy who hasn~ developed his property lor years and years. It's a nuisance and eye sore lor everyone else. She thought it sets a precedent lor the Redevelopment Area to go into other parts 01 town and take a block 01 residences and convert them to commercial. She would not be in lavor 01 voting lor this at this time.Chairman Bosch had a couple 01 comments. He looked at a lew technical things first and then back to the basic policies. He was convinced that eventually this will occur. All the property owners appear ready to sell and convert the land and change the zoning now. That doesn't necessarily make the planning the best lor the community. He had specific concerns with the technical issues regarding the mitigation monitoring program. He lelt, regardless 01 what is done at the Planning Commission, eventually something is going to go lorward to the City Council. He wanted to make sure the Commission includes the conditions and potential mitigation lacts that need to be taken into consideration. He thought acquiring a cui de sac on Alpine Road would help to preserve the neighborhood. It will be an assurance 01 no thru traffic" that will help traffic stay off 01 those residential streets. He would also like to see beginning. prior to demolition, that the permanent masonry wall and landscaping be installed alter detailed review by the Design Review Board so that it is in place. He wasn't sure il the 8 loot wallwastallenough.Landscaping, buffers and berms can help reduce the problem 01 the imposing wall. Maybe a higher wall should be considered particularly since there may be (automatically) a 20 loot wall at the setback.Windows in the wall have not been discussed and should be looked at to see how it is mitigated. A new car dealership on the site is not the best use lor the property, when therearemoreprolessionalbusinessessurroundingit. He shared the concern about notifications on the public input process. He asked those people who received notices alter certain dates to come lorward and assist the Commission and stall by sharing that inlormation to rectily that problem. The other issue is timing. A sound offer is not going to be made on the property unless people know what is going to happen to it. When is Main Street going to be widened? It's not 1974 and people are still waiting. A developer is not going to come in on an existing property with the existing zoning unless he knows what the physical improvements are in terms of timing: he will need better assurances. With regard to zoning, no one is going to come lorward and make an offer on the property unless they know they can get the zoning, it's going to becontingentinanyevent. Then, the timing and everything else that ties into it in case there may havetobeIriendlycondemnationtoassuretaxprivileges -- that takes time too. The Commission must decide if they leel it is appropriate lor the residential properties on the east side 01 Alpine to be included intheRedevelopmentAreaallorpart01atsometime. Eminent domain concerns him greatly. This may be a case where they are talking about friendly condemnation lor tax purposes that the City used elsewhere, bul now they're looking at single lamily residential property. That becomes a big concern. How do they avoid making a precedent in that regard? Can it be avoided only by stating everyone is a willing seller, the timingisrightandthedevelopmentproposalandpriceisright; therelore, it isn't a problem. The Commission needs enough inlormation to assure that what is in their purview is included in the conditions recommended lor approval belore it moves ahead. Who is going to decide whether there is an economic impact and how it's taken care ol? People need guarantees. He was not sold on the aspects of policy and legalities, and extent 01 potential precedent with regard to residential properties that ought to be addressed. Also,mitigation in non-physical matters -- they need to find a way to address appropriately in their recommendation to the Council to assure the physical mitigation measures offset potential economic Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 impact, both to preserve the residents and their atmosphere and their values without lurther cost to the City. Commissioner Pruett thought a cui de sac on Alpine would be a good idea. The cui de sac could be drawn out of lots 9 and 10. There is something they haven1 talked about: that is. the benelit too in the left turn approach Irom LaVeta onto Main Street. A lot more cars could be stacked there because there would be two blocks rather than having to break it up the other way. That may help avoid circulation into the residential neighborhood. Commissioner Smith needed help with the process. They can recommend changes in the Plan lor the cui de sac and the wall. She would like to recommend the additional mitigation measures and monitoring program be included in the EIR, if it were to go lorward to approval. That a cui de sac be put in on Alpine at LaVeta. Prior to any other demolition or new construction in the Project Area, an 8 foot high wall made 01 solid concrete masonry unit and landscaping in the setback between the wall and Alpine Road be installed. Although she lelt the public input was not as good as it could have been, she did not leel it was weighty" enough to deny the approval 01 the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Soo-Hoo believed the City had a larger process to lollow regarding the cui de sac on Alpine. It would include studies by the Traffic Division and more importantly, it would include a public participation process to make sure the people want the cui de sac. Rather than mandate that occur. the Commission might want to reler the matter to the Traffic Commission as a mitigation measure to undertake the proceedings necessary to cause that to happen.Chairman Bosch appreciated the advice, but what would happen n the Commission lelt the project was not worthwhile without the cui de sac?Mr. Soo-Hoo said the problem was that it could conceivably create the deviation from the existing process,as well as implementation 01 something that the larger amount of public input may cause dillering opinions on.Chairman Bosch said that may be something the Commission might want to consider that they can1 take action on the overall until the process has occurred. He understood what was being said and he appreciated it from the legal sense and process. but on the other hand, it appears often when they do that as a Commission taking into account the input received Irom a process they delend, and creating issues through that review, that may be pivotal to their decision, lor or against or to modify a project. Then, they see those specific issues not carried lorward in the luture. which would have changed their position potentially on the outcome when it was belore the Commission. Then, the order the process takes is pretty important in terms 01 things the Commission starts to leel are key to the overall project. Then, it becomes a matter of the Commission to determine, based on that process. whether they are wiliing to take the risk and if it is a pivotal issue. or they need that information prior to making a decision.Mr. Soo-Hoo thought as lar as making a recommendation to the City Council was concerned, it was line.The Council will then have to decide what to do with such a recommendation, whether to modify it as a mitigation measure or approve it as is.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to accept and approve Environmental Impact Report 1500-96 with the inclusion 01 the lindings on Pages 7 and 8 of the staff report, and with the inclusion 01 the mitigating measures that calls lor a cui de sac at Alpine Road and LaVeta, as well as modification on Page 5 01 the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Item 1 -- that the 8 loot high wall be constructed 01 a solid masonry material and that a 15 loot landscaped setback also be installed. and both subject to Design Review Board approval prior to any demolition or construction (and then continue the sentence - along the site's boundary on Alpine Road and Culver Avenue.) The timing lor the construction 01 the wall would occur prior to the demolition 01 the residences and bel ore any building could occur on the property. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero. Smith None MOTION Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City Council to deny the Third Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, to deny General Plan Amendment 1-96; and to deny Zone Change 1181- 96.Discussion Commissioner Pruett voted against the motion because he thought this was a chicken and egg situation.They need to move to deal with the issue at hand. It's needed to make the project or bring a developer forward for that lot. No one will step forward wnh the site the way it is currently.Commissioner Smith agrees it is a chicken and egg process and the City needs to sit down and widen Main Street or not as part of the process.Chairman Bosch was not in lavor 01 the motion because he lelt there was a couple 01 pieces 01 inlormation missing to make a decision. He thought that policy with regard to eminent domain on a single lamily residential properly does become a land use issue. It affects the viability and continuity 01 the zoning. He heard Ms. Cleary state relative to the applicability 01 what seemed to be policy in the past. that she would defer to legal counsel, and he presumed she meant special Redevelopment counsel, as well as perhaps advisory to the City Council to identify what the policy is, and whether it is inlormal or lormal, because that is a land use issue. It makes a big impact on what happens here. Maybe there is a better plan regarding the Main Street widening project. They need to find out what the road block is. Timing becomes everything on this, in addition to the land use ramifications 01 eminent domain.Commissioner Smith requested her motion be withdrawn, rather than to have it lail. Chairman Bosch would like to see a continuance in order to obtain additional inlormation.Ms. Cleary said in order to keep on schedule with the Plan Amendment process, stall would need some sort of recommendation from the Commission on at least the Plan Amendment process. It is scheduled lor a joint public hearing next week with the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. Without this going lorward before the end 01 June, they would have a 6-month delay based on the liscal analysis by the County Assessor's Office lor establishing their base year evaluation. They would be looking at this project coming forward in December.Commissioner Pruett heard Ms. Cleary to say even il the Commission continued the item, it would be a problem. ( That was correct.)Commissioner Smith asked il it were presumptuous to schedule the joint hearing belore action was taken by the Planning Commission?Chairman Bosch explained it happens all the time in order to set up the dates. There is a legal process with regard to these Amendments and thresholds 01 days.Ms. Cleary said the Planning Commission's recommendation is a part 01 the report to Council, whether that is lor approval or denial. or approval with conditions.Chairman Bosch withdrew his objection to deny the project because he was concerned that they inlorm the Redevelopment Agency and City Council clearly as to what the Commission's concerns were in putting lorward the denial and make a strong urging to them, since they have the ultimate authority. to solve the problems, and that would be the basis 01 the denial.Commissioner Carlton asked if the project were continued lor six months, would that have any fiscal effect on Redevelopment lunds that might be coming in?Ms. Cleary responded if it were delayed lor six months. it would not impact Redevelopment Agency funds in that the site does not, and would not be anticipated to generate a significant increment to Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 She clarilied a couple points on the noticing. In stall's diligence to inlorm the public. they over-noticed and created some additional confusion.The Commission added their concerns to the motion 01 denial:Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City CounciltodenytheThirdAmendmenttotheSouthwestRedevelopmentPlan, to deny General PlanAmendment1-96: and to deny Zone Change 1181-96. The purpose 01 the denial is to assure thatotherprocessesarecarriedlorwardtoallowthatallinformationbebroughttothefinaldecisionmakersinatimelymanner, and through their hearing processes, which also allow lor additional public input. The denialisbasedupongrantingthatright; it's one 01 the few privileges with regard to the process. Therearesignificantquestionswithregardtotheeffectofpolicy, ordinance, or clear definition relative to unlriendlyeminentdomainonthesinglelamilyresidentialproperties, which become a significant impactuponthedecision-making process with regard to land use issues that may be encumbered by thatright. Better inlormation is needed on the timing and impacts on the property and adjacent properties atMainandLaVeta, right-ol-way acquisition and project implementation is important to the decision makingaswell. Also, the concern was expressed that residential properties were being taken 10 providelorcommercialbusinessintheRedevelopmentZone. A closer look is needed regarding the widening 01MainStreet. There was not adequate public notice or involvement on a project of this size. The alley needstobeaddressedtostoppeopleIrom using it for trallic circulation.AYES:NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton. Romero. Smith Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Pruett still voted against the motion. He thought by approvingtheadditiontotheProjectArea. that in itself is not a taking. The taking is when the action is taken by theCityCouncilortheAgency.By expressing concerns about it and raising the issue is one that maybeshouldbelookedinto. That shouldn't preclude the Commission from taking action.Chairman Bosch explained the reason he changed his vote was not becausehewasagainsttheproject;he's in lavor of the project subject to certain guarantees being put inplace. What overwhelms him is they're talking about another 6 months or year 01 people not knowing what isgoingtohappen. The best way he sees to move the project lorward and yet get the things he wants to helpprotecttheresidentsistovoteagainstit. Otherwise, it dies for six months.Mr. Jones explained the next step 01 the process. The notice lor the June11CityCouncilpublichearinghasbeenmailed. The residents were encouraged to attend that hearingandprovidetheirinput. The Council set two hearings: June 11 and June 25. On the 11th, the Council willbetakingpublicinputandwillnotbemakingadecision. A decision will be made on June 25, 1996.IN RE:MiSCELLANEOUS Commissioner Pruett wanted staff to look into the requirement lor aliquorlicenseatbarestablishments:specifically. that there be a requirement for a clear view into thoseestablishmentsonalllutureconditionalusepermitsIromtheexterior. That is lor public salety reasons.IN RE:ORAL PRESENTATIONS Carole Walters. 534 North Shaffer, was concerned about going toaPlanningCommissionmeetingoneweekandthengoingtotheCityCouncilmeetingoneweeklater. It isbeingrushedthrough. One week does not give the people enough time to meet with City Council Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1996 Barbara DeNiro. 111 B East Adams, said with her problem up on Tustin Avenue with the pornographic material, they also have a lingerie store. All the pornographic material is behind a big cover. Apparently. they know how lar they can push. She wondered about the legality 01 that and asked the Police Department to look into it. Bob Bennyhofl, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, commented the City Council will need to make a decision one way or the other about eliminating single lamily housing lor commercial development. Once it is approved, the door will be opened for a very interesting luture. IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to adjourn to a joint study session with the Design Review Board on June 17. 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in the Weimer Room, to share inlormation as to the joint purpose of the two separate bodies. The meeting adjourned at 11 :10 p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett. Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Isld 19