Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-1992 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission July 6,1992 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF JUNE 15.1992 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve the Minutes of June 15, 1992 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED ZONE CHANGE 1 151-92 -CITY OF ORANGE ON BEHALF OF 19 PROPERTY OWNERS A request to change the zoning classification from R-2-6 Residential Duplex District to the R-4 Residential Maximum Multiple Family district for the property. Subject property consists of 19 parcels located north of Palm Avenue on both sides of the 300 North Olive Block and the east side of the 300 North Lemon Street block, exclusive of the Orange Unified School District Headquarters property. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1408-92 has been prepared to address the environmental impacts of this report. This item was continued from the May Planning Commission Minutes Jere Murphy, Manager of Ad report. The Commission cc requesting staff to look at that meeting. Those questi the 20% Housing Set Aside loss related to the propose the Redevelopment Agency set aside funds would bE development of new afforda used to offset any economic between different zones c discussed this matter exte who might do the work difference in value of a var way from an existing singly unit. The six different s~ include all of the basic alter July 6, 1992 anced Planning, presented an updated staff itinued this item from the May 4 meeting some of the questions that were raised at ins revolve around two issues: 1) Whether unds could be used to help offset economic re-zoning. Staff has discussed this with end the only expenditure of those housing for assistance to the rehabilitation or ale housing units; those funds could not be loss in value on the property. 2) The value r developed parcels of land. Staff has sively and talked to several consultants to provide information identifying the qty of different development types all the family dwelling unit up to a new 4-plex enarios listed in the staff report would natives for the Old Towne area. Staff still has some work to do with regard to how the study might be performed, who would perform it, what the cost might be of that study. Staff recommends the Commission continue this matter for two more weeks so that they would have additional time to discuss the matter and attempt to determine where the source of funds might come from. Commissioner Murphy stated there was one additional request from T. J. Clark, who requested his statement be read into the Minutes. He received a memorandum from Jere Murphy on June 29 indicating subject zone change had been scheduled for July 6. He was previously verbally advised this meeting would be on July 8 due to the 4th of July holiday. Having made plans and commitments he was unable to attend the 6th and requested a postponement to the 20th of July. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to continue Zone Change 1 151-92 to the July 20, 1992 meeting. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1973-92 - ALBERTSON'S INC. A site plan review for a commercial center, in accordance with the requirements of the Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan, and a conditional use permit request to allow the construction of a car wash and two drive-thru restaurants within the commercial center, and to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages from a proposed supermarket and drug store within the commercial center. Subject property is located at the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Jamboree Road. N E• The environmental impacts of this project have previously been analyzed by certified Environmental Impact Report 868. This item was continued from the June 15, 1992 meeting.) Also included in the staff report is a request that the Commission make a determination on the on-site coverage requirements as specified in the Specific Plan. Staff has received a number of letters from the neighbors concerning the access on White Oak. It should be pointed out that issues of access on Jamboree and Chapman is to be considered a separate issue that will go before the City Council. There are dedicated access rights on Jamboree and Chapman which must be cleared up by Council action. A recommendation on those items would also be appreciated. Chris Carnes, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. The proposal is to construct a new commercial shopping center at the southwest corner of Jamboree and Chapman. The specifics of the proposal include the construction of a large building that would contain two large tenant spaces anticipated to be for a super market and a drug store, with several small connecting multi-tenant spaces between them. There would be four satellite buildings in the parking lot for the center. The satellite buildings are anticipated to be used for two fast food restaurants and one of them is anticipated for the mini-mart and an office for a proposed gas station and car wash. The project is bordered by Jamboree on the east, Chapman on the north, and White Oak Ridge on the south. It's surrounding land uses include a joint police station and fire facility on its southeast border, single family residences to the southwest, the Santiago Junior College on the north 3 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 side of Chapman; there are condominiums on the west side of the site and vacant land to the east. The subject site is unique in that the southwest corner (a portion of the site) is 20 feet higher than White Oak Ridge. It's 30 feet higher that the condominiums adjacent to the site on the west and it's 20 feet lower than the intersection of Jamboree and Chapman. It has several large slopes bordering it on all sides. The proposal includes a major off site improvement which would be the removal of the existing landscaping planter on Chapman and replacing it with two left turn lanes to turn into the site. This would allow eventual traffic coming from the east to turn into the site without having to turn onto Jamboree. There have been numerous calls from the neighbors today. Their main concern was with the driveway on White Oak Ridge. The additional traffic could not be handled by White Oak Ridge, which is considered a residential street. There would be an increase in air pollution and that there would be an increase of driving hazards to children who cross White Oak Ridge to go to the community park and school. Commissioner Smith asked where the school and park were located in relation to the shopping center? Mr. Carnes pointed out the location of the school and park on the exhibit posted on the wall. Subject site was designated as Lot 14. Lots 1 1, 10 and 9 are the park sites and school. Children living in the areas of 1 and 12 would have to cross White Oak Ridge to access the park and school. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Scott Thayer, 1180 West Lambert Road, Brea, is the real estate manager for Albertson's. He walked the Commission through the project and gave more detail to the site plan and elevations. Chairman Cathcart clarified they were referring to the revised plan of June 24, 1992. Mr. Thayer said the site is approximately 13 acres. It is accessed with one full turning movement off of Chapman. They also have a right in and right out at two access points off of Jamboree. There is another 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 full turning movement off of White Oak Ridge. Their proposal includes the site plan and conditional use permits, fast food drive location, the car wash, as well as liquor sales in both Albertson's and Longs Drug Store. For pedestrians, the site will have good access. Pedestrians can walk through the Chapman entrance, all around the perimeter of the center and also get down to the meandering sidewalk at the patio location, down at the most southerly point on Jamboree and also off of White Oak. They're trying to use as much of the site as possible. A lot of landscaping is around the perimeter. The shops, A, B and C, are approximately 2200 square feet. He showed the Commission the elevations for Albertson's and Longs Drug and explained the proposed design. They were trying to obtain a "village" look. He realizes the rear elevations might be a concern. Treatment to the back of the center, along with enhanced landscaping, will be pleasing to the eye. The slopes will contain many trees and other landscaping material to buffer the rear elevations from the neighboring community. He reviewed the staff report and had some issues, but preferred to address them after hearing the neighbor's input. Those speaking in opposition Paula Clark Wayne, 8215 East White Oak Ridge, #92, was opposed to the entrance on White Oak Ridge. She was concerned about the amount of traffic on that street, there is no stop light, and statistics indicate they are going to double the traffic on White Oak Ridge. It would be prudent to look at a pedestrian access and ramp rather than a street leading into the proposed shopping center. She wanted the Commission to re-consider that entrance and exit on White Oak Ridge as it would be detrimental to the entire area. The neighbors are aware they are closing the Garden Grove campus for Rancho Santiago Community College and adding 3,000 new students to the Orange campus. She was concerned those statistics were not included with the traffic statistics and the general population will be using White Oak Ridge as an access to the shopping center. Akira Okazaki, 8343 East Star Pine Road, recently moved into the area. He takes issue with the traffic and safety of the children. There is a blind curve towards the proposed entrance on White Oak Ridge. 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 Jeanette Okazaki, 8343 East Star Pine Road, participated in the signing of the petitions. Everyone has expressed concern about the traffic and noise. She asked if they will smell the trash from the center? Bob Hahn, 7620 East Briarcrest Lane, was glad Albertson's has made a proposal to develop the commercial center; however, he does not agree with the proposal because of the access road directly behind the fire station. That road is very narrow. Cars park on White Oak Ridge. People cannot safely walk, jog or ride a bike down that street without fear of being hit. Dave DeLorenzo, 120 South Sage Hills Road, said White Oak Ridge is not even marked with a lane down the middle. It is two lanes wide, but there is no marking on the street. His issues include traffic and maintenance of the berm level. Was any consideration given to backing up the shopping center to Jamboree and Chapman in a "L" shape so that truck and trash access would be off those two main streets with no residential area; thus reducing the noise and traffic? Kevin O'Connell, 7702 East Knollwood Drive, was concerned about the amount of traffic on White Oak and making access as far as the driveway. He suggested additional police in the area to enforce traffic or even a stop sign. Mark Ross, 8131 East Candleberry Circle, said his main concern was access onto White Oak Ridge. Alcohol sales will add to the safety danger. Was White Oak Ridge designed to hold additional traffic? How high is that block wall going to be built? Will it be designed for noise reduction? Cheryl Mottel-Fanten, 7935 Fox Run Lane, was concerned about the sound wall issue and landscaping for the area. There's still a lot of noise on Chapman Avenue. Janet Gaaut, 8339 East Flowerwood Avenue, was thrilled to have Albertson's come in; it's going to be an improvement for the area. No one wants the shopping center to fail and not be successful. By eliminating that White Oak entrance, she didn't think it would be detrimental to the shopping center. She spoke about the 3,000 students being added to the Orange campus, which is approximately 1,800 additional trips -- there will be additional traffic just from the 6 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 college (something that was not included in the original traffic studies). The sight vision is not the best because it is on a curved area. Mary Miller, 122 South Sage Hills Road, felt their area was a residential community and White Oak Ridge was presented to them as a residential street. She's worried about the noise, air pollution and the hazard to the children in the park. Access on White Oak Ridge would devaluate their properties. Tom Mayer, 160 North Dogwood Street, is at the park every weekend. There is a limited amount of parking at the park and it overflows rapidly. Cars must park on White Oak Ridge. Most of the traffic generated for the shopping center will use White Oak Ridge because it is a short cut. Was the degree of that curve considered in the plans? Craig Miller, 7926 East Briarwood, passed out a picture of the area from the neighbor's perspective and he highlighted the green belt area from the school to the park, across White Oak Ridge, extending to the corner of Chapman and Newport. The highlighted crosswalk is used quite often by residents in the community. The park is the community center for all of them. With the proposed exit on White Oak, the neighbors are concerned about the traffic coming down that area. Pam Arden, 8215 East White Oak Ridge, #121, was concerned about the traffic increase, volume of cars traveling White Oak Ridge, increased noise, air pollution and the issue of trucks exiting onto White Oak Ridge using that entrance. That will be a major problem, especially with the children crossing to and from school and going to the park. She felt the traffic studies which were based on the Northeast County Traffic Model were not representative of their area, especially the street being as narrow as it was. Did the City do a noise impact study? A stairway or some type of walk way for handicapped access was suggested at White Oak Ridge. Another concern were the truck deliveries between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Special problems will be created with the increased traffic volume and the safety factor for the children. Ashley Fellowes MacCarthy, 8247 East Star Pine Road, wrote a letter to the Commission, which was included in their packets. She also submitted another petition of 150 signatures opposing the project. The community does not want the White Oak Ridge entrance. By adding the additional commercial traffic, it will fundamentally alter the 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 character of their neighborhood. It will put children's lives at risk, particularly near the park and it will expose the City to an unnecessary liability. The community urged the Commission to eliminate the White Oak entry/exit plan from the Albertson's proposal. Michael Bohlig, 8315 East White Oak Ridge, #24, opposed the White Oak Ridge entrance. Craig Clark, 8207 East Star Pine Road, voiced his concern regarding the entrance/exit off of White Oak Ridge. By deleting this exit, the developer will still have the needed circulation. He suggested doing away with the entrance/exit and leave the walkway; then add some stairs and a light near the greenbelt. Leslea Meyerhoff, 229 North Lazy Meadow Road, requested a continuance because the environmental documentation used to support this project, the Upper Peter's Canyon Specific Plan EIR, adopted in 1984, was based on 1979 data collected when the draft EIR was prepared. This data is outdated and inadequate to provide assurance that no significant environmental impacts would occur upon implementation of the proposed project. Under existing and proposed AQMD air quality guidelines, the proposed Albertson's shopping center requires that an EIR be prepared to assess all environmental impacts associated with the proposed project which include (in addition to air quality) traffic, noise and safety issues. Craig Kegel, 361 Fawnwood Lane, asked if access onto White Oak Ridge is really needed? Truck parking and access is an issue. Where will they park? Scott Rutledge, 229 North Lazy Meadow Drive, expressed his concern over four specific areas with regard to the White Oak Ridge entrance: the traffic capacity on White Oak Ridge, noise and air quality concerns, as well as safety. Philip Quartararo, 8215 East capacity of White Oak was; also asked about the short project. The potential for development. White Oak Ridge, asked what the design what it was originally designed for? He and long term effects because of this increased traffic is evident with more 8 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 Craig Wooldridge, 8215 East White Oak Ridge, #9, voiced concern about the traffic and safety issues. The easiest solution for exiting the center will be to use White Oak Ridge. Total traffic will be more than 30%. He wondered if the entrance off of Chapman could be moved down further onto Chapman or maybe get the trucks to enter and exit off of Jamboree as a further noise reduction. How do we make those truck drivers follow the rules of the developer? He was unhappy about a blanket" C.U.P. approval. Frank Luketich, 8244 Star Pine Road, felt noise and safety for the children were issues of concern. He was a little suspicious to the initial design of that entrance on White Oak Ridge. He hopes the City doesn't blindly sign off on the agreement for the entire development while using the entrance on White Oak as a bargaining chip. He was concerned about noise, the Santa Ana winds blowing and creating more trash, odor, smell and sale of alcoholic beverages. He would like some guarantees as to the time the trucks will be able to deliver to the shopping center. He would also like to know the hours of construction. He requested the elimination of access for 18 wheelers on White Oak. Steve MacCarthy, 8247 Star Pine Road, said they live in a well planned community; it was designed so that people could walk through it with their dogs and kids. It was designed as a residential community. No one is opposed to the shopping center, but that entrance would impose a lot of commercial traffic. He can't see the reason to alter the nature of the community when you have two very busy roads out there Jamboree and Chapman). Gretchen Staff, 215 North Deerwood, doesn't understand the necessity to have a back entrance to the shopping center. Robert Matson, 8324 East Candleberry Circle, said the average rate of speed is not 25 or 35 m.p.h.; it is definitely a blind corner. He's opposed to the possibility of increased noise pollution. He obtained signatures on petitions for the White Oak Ridge opposition. A number of houses on White Oak Ridge are up for sale because there is too much noise and traffic on the street now. He urged the Commission to reconsider the plan and to remove that entrance and exit off of White Oak Ridge. 9 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 Scott Anderson, 176 Shadow Pines, said if the access were eliminated, there will still be a major traffic problem. Could the City help the developer to find a better way for an entrance/exit into the center? buttal Mr. Thayer jotted down all the concerns he heard and went through them. The major comment heard was the White Oak access. With any retail development, access is very important in order for the center to survive. Without good access to the center, it dies. In designing the center, they were trying to get people in and out as safely as possible. A traffic signal at Chapman would be great as it would ease up the circulation in that center and provide a safe turning movement. But there is no signal there and people leaving the center will be making a left hand turn and will not be protected at this time. Some people who do not like turning left, will use the White Oak access. That's why the design was there. As development occurs, there will be increased traffic and noise. These concerns were addressed in the studies that were the formula for this project. A traffic study was done, as well as a noise study. As part of the noise study, they have eliminated any truck deliveries to the shopping center during the night time hours. Those hours are between 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. They are aware the community does not want truck deliveries during the night. There is a six foot wall along the condominium project which is sufficient and will keep them within the City's noise standards. They have an 8 foot wall to the rear of the shopping center, and a 9 foot wall backing up to the fire station/police facility. The noise study was analyzed in great detail as it relates to the surrounding community. The shopping center is within the City's noise ordinance. There will be no truck movement on White Oak Ridge. They have a map showing how to access the center and how to leave and at what times they are to occur. This map is at all of their stores. There will be increased traffic; it's something that comes with development. They have asked for the sale of alcohol in Albertson's and Longs Drug Store. They have not asked for a proposed restaurant or service station. If that should occur, those developments will need to go through the C.U.P. process. The pad level or berm will remain approximately the same, give or take a few feet. There will be some grading that has to take place to recompact the shopping center so that the buildings can stand. He was not aware of the increased enrollment at the College. A traffic study was done as part of the project. The proposed design will work best because parking lot 10 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 lighting and fast food establishments would impact the residences if they flipped the buildings to a reversed configuration. They are not asking fora "blanket" C.U.P.; only for two fast food tenants and the service station. They will stay within the City's time frame for construction of the shopping center. Joe Faust, principal with the firm of Austin-Faust Associates, did do the traffic study on this project. With regard to the student population of Rancho Santiago, a lot of concern was expressed that students would use White Oak Ridge to get around the system. That's probably true. They were included in the traffic study. They looked at the development in 1997 and that includes as part of the Northeast Orange County Model the complete ultimate build out of Rancho Santiago College. With a major center you would expect at least 60% at the main entrance; the other 40% must be split up somewhere -- 30% may go to that rear area driveway. White Oak Ridge is a 2 lane collector street and will result in additional traffic. It will typically have a maximum capacity of 9,000 to 10,000 cars per day. They're looking at a 25% reduction in that maximum capacity given the parking, curves and all the other restrictions of White Oak Ridge. A traffic count has been made out there and it's carrying between 1,500 and 2,000 cars a day. This project will impose another 1,600 trips on it. He suggested maybe the City wants to look at signalization. If you close that rear driveway, that 30% will be re-distributed and will go to the main entrance. This location will surpass the minimum signal warrants and impose additional difficulty on traffic trying to get in and out. Chairman Cathcart said given the present economics of the situation that there won't be a lot of development to the east at this time, it will be south. A lot of the traffic coming to the center will come up Jamboree. There's no way for them to access the center from Jamboree coming north. How do you feel about that? Mr. Faust said with the rear area access there is an opportunity to turn left and come in the back door. Failing that, however, then you have to turn left at the signal at Chapman and essentially make the left turn into the main entrance. He didn't think it was practical to look at two major entrances on Chapman and Jamboree. The project would love to have two, but in terms of the raised medians, there can only be one. It seems to fit best on Chapman. 11 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 Commissioner Alvarez asked if there were other alternatives considered such as a restricted area (entrance only or exit only)? Mr. Faust said they did not examine if it was only going to be an entrance only or exit only. Mr. Thayer commented on trash collection. They have a trash compactor at the rear of the store. The operation of that will be restricted to operating between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The odor/smell should be well contained. It's a steel machine, fully covered and gets picked up when it is full. He did not know if a deodorizer is used for the compactor. Commissioner Bosch asked why they elected to design the center with the shops Ling to the back side, rather than the L of the shops to Chapman and Jamboree? Mr. Thayer said they like to design the center towards the front of the two major streets for visibility purposes. It's a safer area for people because it is not blocked. Commissioner Bosch asked about delivery truck circulation patterns? Mr. Thayer said truck movement would come in from Chapman and wrap around the shopping center to the rear to the loading docks shown on the site plan. They will exit either Jamboree Road or go back through the shopping center and exit onto Chapman. It's aone-way loop behind the stores. Commissioner Bosch asked for an alternative that might keep the truck noise away from the west property line adjacent to the condominiums? Is there a practical way to handle deliveries without having the one- way loop behind the buildings? Mr. Thayer responded no, not the way the site plan is shown. The truck movements were taken into consideration in the sound study and are within the noise levels of the City. Commissioner Bosch said another question that came up related to both noise and traffic and is operating hours for the proposed drive-thru restaurants. The concern was that of 24-hour operations. 12 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 Mr. Thayer has not looked at the hours of operation for the fast food operations. They must, however, abide by the rules that are in place at that time. Commissioner Murphy asked if they have reviewed both staff report/documents and conditions of approval? Mr. Thayer referred to Page 1 -- Pad "G" needing 20 feet of interior turning radius. He explained their reasons for easier movement. Commissioner Murphy was afraid certain types of vehicles would be unable to make that turn. That's a tough spot. Mr. Thayer would like clarification on a 20 foot inside radius. Mr. Glass said the design turn radius used for passenger vehicles has an outside radius of approximately 30 feet and an inside tracking of about 20 feet. He's not sure about trucks around the same corner to be able to make the turn without getting into the on-coming lanes. A radius the size of 32 feet might be needed. Mr. Thayer referred to the July 1 report and addressed item 2 in which it said some or all of the surplus parking shall be removed from the site plan and additional landscaping shall be provided. This additional landscaping area shall be located adjacent to the sidewalks in front of the buildings in the central area of the parking lot. He doesn't see that to be necessary. They try to get as much parking in from the shopping center for the patrons. That is vital parking for them. Item 3 states the DRB shall specifically review the rear elevation, sidewalk and paving material and placement of landscaping planters. They are shown on the site plan. They still must go before the D.R.B. and recognize there may be some comments. Item 5 -there shall not be any truck deliveries between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; he concurs with that. He doesn't understand the last two -- Sundays and holidays. Mr. Carnes responded that condition was added because Sundays and holidays are the same requirements as evenings. If you're meeting the code requirements in the evenings, you also have to meet them on Sundays and holidays. 13 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 Mr. Thayer continued with item 8, adequate site distances be provided at all driveways....to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. Their concern is making sure that the full turning movement access is not eliminated. He would hate to see an approval today and then the City come back to say they are going to take away the left hand turning movement. That would hurt the center severely. He wants to make sure they have full turning movements at a major arterial. Item 10, the eight parking spaces in front of shop A. They're asking them to be eliminated. Originally, four were eliminated. That building needs the rest of the parking spaces to make it work. Item 1 1, the sidewalk off of Jamboree, going down the driveway closest to the intersection -- staff is asking for a five foot sidewalk being added at that point. He believed by adding the serpentine sidewalk going down to the 5500 square foot pad that gets the people down into the shopping center without having to go down a driveway. They have provided access into the shopping center at that point. Referring to Page 6, #4 and #5, they would like to make sure that the design of the shopping center and the shops are such that the patrons can use the front of the center. They would be willing to specify that the rear doors to the shops have windows placed in them so that the merchants can keep on eye on what is going on out there. Commissioner Alvarez wanted to address the sidewalk at the northern driveway on Jamboree. Staff is convinced that the driveway would be used as a sidewalk rather than the serpentine walkway. Have you considered reversing it to create a jog and then come the other way? Mr. Thayer said they had a plan showing that, but they were trying to meet the handicapped requirements. That driveway is at a 10% grade. It's his understanding the maximum handicapped is 8.3%. That was eliminated in lieu of putting in the serpentine sidewalk to keep it accessible to the handicapped. Commissioner Alvarez asked him to consider marking it so that people getting off the bus would be directed in that way rather than the driveway? (They're not opposed to that.) Commissioner Murphy understood the sidewalk is an additional expense, but probably small in comparison to the overall cost of the project. Could a second sidewalk be considered? 14 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 Mr. Thayer said they would eliminate the serpentine sidewalk and use the other. Commissioner Murphy asked what would happen if you had both? The idea is to provide a safe alternative pass for those that might take human nature at its extreme and take a straight course to where they're headed. Mr. Thayer thought if you provided people with a means to get down into the center, they will use it. He doesn't believe people will go down a driveway if they provide them with the access shown on the plan. Mr. Godlewski said it was staff's concern to put in a sidewalk at that point due to the bus stop location. Mr. Thayer said all sidewalks are handicapped accessible. Commissioner Murphy said on the original staff report, Page 6, #1 1, it talked about off site improvements associated with implementation of project. In Section A it mentions the two driveways on Jamboree shall each be 35 feet wide with one travel lane entering and exiting. He noticed on the last plan the dimensions are noted 30 and 40 feet. What is the accurate measurement? Mr. Thayer is using the current plan and feels that is accurate. It is to provide more landscaping as an entrance focal point. They thought they could live with the smaller drive to obtain that. It was wider. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch had a couple of questions. First, with regard to White Oak Ridge. It's clear there are problems on White Oak regardless of this application that should be addressed by the City. He would like to recommend that staff be directed to undertake a field study of existing traffic conditions on White Oak Ridge relative to the desirability of adding striping, speed controls (including additional stop signs) and perhaps some restrictions relative to providing adequate vision zones at intersections, driveways and parking lot entrances. These may be up to standards, but it sounds like there are serious concerns. A look at this by the Traffic Division is needed to assure everything has been done to provide for safety in the area. He 15 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 recommends staff make that study and bring their recommendations to the Traffic Commission for either verifying either the adequacy or maximization of safety measures on the street, or recommended additional improvements to mitigate the problems. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the the City Council that staff be directed to undertake a field study of existing traffic conditions on White Oak Ridge relative to the desirability of adding striping, speed controls (including additional stop signs) and perhaps some restrictions relative to providing adequate vision zones at intersections, driveways and parking lot entrances. It is further recommended the Traffic Division staff make that study and bring their recommendations to the Traffic Commission for either verifying either the adequacy or maximization of safety measures on the street, or recommended additional improvements to mitigate the problems. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch's second question was relative to the viability of Certified Environmental Impact Report 868 because it was written in 1984. He doesn't have major doubts about it himself, but it's important to get a legal reading relative to how CEQA views a continued application of an older EIR as it applies to subsequent developments. Mr. Herrick responded the Commission is the body that has the ultimate authority to make determinations as far as the recommendation to the Council, and determining whether or not CEQA has been complied with. There is no rule of law that indicates that EIR data is to be disregarded merely because of the passage of time. The determination is based upon whether or not there has been a substantial negative change in the impacts or circumstances that would justify an additional environmental impact report. That determination can be made by the Commission based on the factual testimony they receive, technical input from staff and the public's testimony which is of a factual nature. Commissioner Bosch said the EIR document is in place to fulfill the needs of the development of this site if there are adequate mitigation measures for the impacts on the site. The key is traffic, noise, and 16 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 circulation problems. He made a couple of general observations. He's opposed to the driveway on White Oak as well. By eliminating the driveway is to assure the residents that the non residents of Santiago Hills won't be using the driveway to the shopping center. Unfortunately, he didn't think it will make a whole lot of traffic difference overall on White Oak, but it becomes Santiago Hills traffic primarily. It's unreasonable to expect that the City can guarantee there will be no delivery trucks that would take short cuts despite the elimination of the driveway. He thought they should look into requirements of signage at the entrance on Fort Road to be placed to limit commercial vehicle traffic. The truck circulation through the site with the one-way loop is really only the practical way to do it. You're going to have many more problems, noise and danger by trying to back and fill turning the trucks around. There's another issue to White Oak that should be addressed. He proposes to add a condition indicating there would be no construction access off of White Oak to the site. It's a key problem. If the Commission acts to approve the C.U.P. requests, that they set operating hours for the drive-thrus. He proposed a condition limiting the operating hours of any of the drive-thrus to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. A letter was received from the developer addressed to the City Manager July 6 relative to the potential for a signal on Chapman Avenue. He concurred that it be included in the study for traffic mitigation of future development in East Orange. He shares the concerns about the drive thru pad adjacent to Chapman -the 20 foot inside radius. He didn't like the design there. It's not going to be marketable and it will cause traffic congestion. He would like to see a re-design of a portion of the site with regard to the exiting of the drive-thru to remove that condition. Chairman Cathcart had a concern about the internal traffic circulation on the site. He would like to see Pad G removed and brought back to the Commission. Commissioner Murphy said the other piece to that is the consideration of the truck traffic concerning that turn out that main driveway. Commissioner Bosch thought the sidewalk problem adjacent to Pad E can be resolved by moving the terminus of the sidewalk at Jamboree Road being in close proximity to the driveway at Jamboree with appropriate signage to encourage people to utilize that. He had a 17 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 problem with walks immediately adjacent to the main circulation points. Commissioner Smith was opposed to the driveway on White Oak. Are semi-trucks permitted on White Oak because it is a residential street? No.) That concern then is already addressed in the code. The EIR concerned her. Mr. Herrick said the reference made during the hearing was to an AQMD handbook for implementation of CEQA. He has not seen that particular document, but it is not a document that is binding on the City as far as it's CEQA review. The City is bound by the State's guidelines, which do not have a specific reference to shopping centers of any square footage requiring such a study. Commissioner Smith was in favor of the surplus parking because that's one of the places the City falls short in the shopping developments. You can never find a parking place. She would be in favor of the surplus parking plan for the future. Her concern with the project is the north bound traffic on Jamboree that can't get into the shopping center. That needs to be looked at because it will generate traffic problems. Commissioner Murphy suggested a condition to establish a testing procedure to validate that the attenuation of sound is being handled within the guidelines of City regulations. Commissioner Bosch suggested six months and 12 months after occupancy of both the anchor stores. Commissioner Murphy explained the difference between off-site liquor licenses and on-site licenses to make sure the neighbors understood the request. There are site coverage issues that need to be discussed. The other issue is what does the closing of the White Oak access do to the overall circulation of the center and are there other things being created that have to be looked at from a design standpoint? There needs to be clarification on this issue. Commissioner Alvarez wondered if the developer had looked at the option of making it restricted? If it were restricted by an exit only, it would reduce the impacts on it. If they remove the White Oak access completely, it would bring on the necessity of a traffic signal. It 18 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 sounds like some type of development agreement is being requested. He's in favor of the White Oak access, but it needs to be restricted. Chairman Cathcart was adamantly opposed to the ingress/egress on White Oak only because the people are strongly opposed to it. He has a problem with Pad G and the turning radius. He had a problem with giving the developer an agreement that says there will be a stop light at Chapman because Chapman is an east/west arterial and it will lose its effectiveness if a stop light is added. There's a traffic ingress/egress problem at this corner. It has to be looked at a little more carefully. He wants to see this project developed; the elevations of the building are beautiful. It can be a great asset to the community. Commissioner Bosch said they had a catch 22 situation. He thought at this time a signal at the driveway on Chapman is a bad idea, but he didn't have any proof of that. The Irvine Company had a decent suggestion to throw that into the traffic analysis for the first phase of development of East Orange. There also needed to be some discussion on coverage. The Upper Peter's Canyon Specific Plan sets a 70% combination of some definition of total paving, parking spaces, drive aisles and buildings vs. the 76% that is proposed with this project if the major drive aisles are included. Commissioner Bosch was not clear whether the Specific Plan is a rock solid 70% or it's a guideline that has leeway based upon the actual constraints imposed by the site and any benefits from the plan before them. Mr. Godlewski believed the Specific Plan does have some leeway. This is the only commercial site addressed in the Specific Plan. Certainly, any decision the Commission makes is precedent only on this particular parcel. The Specific Plan states that coverage will be determined by building footprints and parking areas. The Upper Peter's Canyon Specific Plan states that the building site coverage of principal structures and parking areas shall equate to 70% of the site coverage. The lower plan shown on the wall indicates those areas that are somewhat in question. The blue is landscaped areas. The white is either parking areas or building areas. The pink are the areas in some question, which is not included in the verbiage of the Specific Plan for coverage. If you eliminate the access to White Oak, there's another 20% that is now blue instead of pink. It's a call the Commission must 19 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 make as to whether or not this plan is consistent with the Upper Peter's Canyon Specific Plan. In response to the letter received from the Irvine Company, discussions with the applicant and the Irvine Company were such that the applicant would very much like to have a signal put in immediately at their expense. Staff's discussions with them indicate that staff's concerns was that there would be a 15% reduction in capacity on the traffic volumes that are available on Chapman. Because of that, staff, in general terms, went to the Irvine Company, and said if this segment offers a 15% reduction, then that means the demand must be reduced in an equal form to compensate for that 15% reduction if the City agrees to put in the signal. Therefore, the letter states that if they put in a signal now, the demand is not going to be there from the generated activity of the East Orange Plan; that is not yet developed nor will develop for at least five years. They're suggesting at the time the plan comes in for development, then at that time a traffic study will be done to see how this segment reduces the available build out in the East Orange area. The other finding staff is asking the Commission to make is a recommendation to the City Council on whether or not a curb cut or access to Chapman and Jamboree should be allowed or afforded this development. Access rights have been dedicated on both Chapman and Jamboree and in order for them to get a driveway on Chapman or Jamboree, a separate action will have to go to the City Council to ask permission to have a driveway. In that recommendation, staff is also asking the Commission to recommend on whether or not a signal is appropriate at Chapman. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to recommend to the City Council to approve the site plan and Conditional Use Permit 1973-92 subject to the following conditions, modifications and recommendations: Conditions 1-1 1 as indicated in the revised staff report and providing additional conditions, one of which to adjust the eastern terminus of the pedestrian sidewalk accessing from Jamboree Road to Pad E so that it is adjacent to the driveway to encourage pedestrian use of the walkway in lieu of the driveway; and that appropriate signage be included to orient pedestrians to the availability of the walk. 20 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 At six months and 12 months after occupancy of the two major anchor stores, supplementary acoustical reports shall be prepared based upon field review of actual conditions in the delivery area with delivery trucks to identify the mitigation measures constructed in accordance with the original acoustical report do in fact work. That the proposed driveway off White Oak Ridge be eliminated. That safe access crossings be provided in the parking lots crossing to the buildings. That a pedestrian walk and/or stair be provided at the west corner of the site from White Oak Ridge across from Box Canyon to the site to afford similar pedestrian access for the residents that was provided at the originally proposed White Oak entrance. Pad area "G" not be included in this approval until such time as a revised site plan for Pad "G" is submitted to the Planning Commission for validation and to the Traffic Division for validation of required turning radius for delivery trucks and for vehicles exiting the drive up window of the restaurant with adequate sight lines and vehicular movements to avoid crossing into opposing traffic. No construction access shall be allowed off White Oak Ridge to the site. Operating hours of drive-up windows or drive-thru establishments be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The proposed site coverage is in substantial conformance with the intent of the Upper Peter's Canyon Specific Plan in that the slightly increased site coverage is mitigated by elimination of the White Oak access in lieu of landscaping; and that the articulation of the building footprints and architectural design further mitigates the footprint of the buildings on the site. Relative to the applicant's request to signalize the main drive access from Chapman Avenue at this time and mitigate the impacts of traffic capacity reduction on Chapman Avenue based upon inclusion of the signal in future traffic analysis for the first phase of development in East Orange, that prior to approval of said request, the Traffic 21 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 Division and the developer's traffic engineer meet and analyze to the full extent possible at this time based on current traffic engineering knowledge and the approved General Plan for the East Orange development, what extent of development decrease and areas of decrease would be required to mitigate if in fact 15% or 20% reduction capacity occurred. (There may be some technical aspects of control for monitoring the traffic flows and signalization that might alleviate the Commission's concern. That signalization on Chapman be synchronized and then set off by stacking internally into the shopping center -- it might be a way of mitigating that now.) Adequate information has not been given at this time to have any level of confidence. The development be provided access rights at one location to Chapman Avenue and two locations to Jamboree Road as provided in the development proposal. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Godlewski said there was a provision in the CTR zone that gives the Planning Commission the authority to make a determination on commercial uses which in the opinion of the Planning Commission are similar in character and not more detrimental than any use enumerated in the commercial section of the CTR. There is an applicant that is requesting to put in a pawn shop. His letter suggests the pawn shop will be limited to items of jewelry, clothing and objects of art only. He does not intend to get into T.V.'s, electronics, guns or things you would typically see in a pawn shop, nor is he proposing to advertise it as a pawn shop. However, if the Commission finds this to be consistent with other uses that are typically found in the CTR zone, then the Commission can make that determination and allow the applicant to apply for a conditional use permit. Pawn shops are permitted by C.U.P. in both the C-2 and C-3 zones. Commissioner Alvarez asked if there were other types of uses already on Tustin that fits that description? Mr. Godlewski was not aware of any pawn shop activities. 22 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, that the Commission finds that the proposed use is not similar to other uses allowed by C.U.P. in the CTR zone. It is not compatible with other uses that are being encouraged on Tustin Avenue. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1975-92 - KHAJENDURI-McLAUGHLIN A request to allow live entertainment in an existing restaurant. Subject property is located at 1722 North Tustin Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. The public hearing was opened. Aaalicant Lily McLaughlin, 1722 North Tustin, would like to separate two issues ABC from the conditional use permit. The only way she can get her ABC license is if she complies with the regulations. She would like to get her entertainment license first. She refers to live entertainment as musicians, music and belly dancing once in awhile. Those speaking in opposition Bill Chavez, 1602 East Briardale Avenue, lives immediately behind this place of business. He related some of his personal experiences thus far. In six years he has experienced clean up crews operating between the hours of 2 and 3 o'clock a.m., parking automobiles in the alley, playing their radios, slamming doors; there was some construction going on at this business during the night time hours. In regards to the music and belly dancing, it could be heard from inside the establishment. Because of the noise, they have to keep their windows closed and keep their air conditioning on. He didn't understand how the permit process worked because he has heard this activity since 23 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 January. They've had to deal with noise, boisterous talk, fights, speeding vehicles and destruction of property. Trash pick up and disposal of food is a major problem. He did admit it has been quiet in recent months. Chairman Cathcart said the previous owner ignored the correct way of doing things. The new owner is attempting to do it as it should be. Gene Somers, 1539 East Candlewood Drive, had a problem with Heart Throbs. It took almost two years to get of them. He didn't want to see that occur again. He's concerned there may be unnecessary confusion. Rebuttal Ms. McLaughlin bought this restaurant six months ago and she wished she never bought it. She asked for a chance to operate it as a family restaurant. She keeps her trash inside the building. She's closed Mondays and Tuesdays. Linda DeFiori, owner and one of the partners of the shopping center, explained Lily bought the lease in January. She has nothing to do with what happened a long time ago. Mr. Somers did have trouble when there was a bar at this location. She asked the Commission to at least give Lily McLaughlin a chance. Heart Throbs has nothing to do with this applicant; she's trying hard to make a nice business. Commissioner Alvarez said the neighbors' concern is noise. Chairman Cathcart said it was the Commission's charge to either control or alleviate some of the concerns that are being addressed by the neighbors. Ms. McLaughlin installed sound proof doors. She can't stop people from washing their cars in the alley. The Commission discussed the project and found the operating hours to be a bit confusing. Current operating hours are noon to 10:00 p. m. Monday through Thursday; noon to 1:30 a.m. Friday and Saturday; and 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Sunday. Live entertainment is proposed for only three days. There will be patron dancing as well. They asked why 1:30 a. m. was essential for a closing time vs. 1 1 o'clock or 12 24 Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 1992 midnight? How late is food served in the restaurant? She served food until 12 - 1 o'clock -- the same time as the entertainment. What is the occupancy of the restaurant? Occupancy is between 75 to 100 people. They can have up to 299 people according to the staff report. She only has one entertainer so far. She proposes belly dancing on Fridays and Saturdays. Commissioner Alvarez asked if she had a chance to review the staff report? (Yes she had. There is no need for a security guard.) Commissioner Bosch asked her if she agreed with the conditions of approval i.e., hours of operation? Ms. McLaughlin really needed her restaurant to remain open until 1:30 a.m.; she thought it was very unfair of the condition to restrict the hours of operation. Mr. Godlewski explained the hours of operation, which is consistent with what they've done with other applications of a similar type. The conditions are listed as a suggestion. The public hearing was closed. The Commission has the opportunity of putting in a condition to periodically review for police service calls. Or, it could be conditioned fora periodic review by the Commission. The key problem is this establishment is within 20 feet of a single family residential zone. Very stringent review times and conditions are needed to consider this request. There needs to be some method of accountability for yanking the permit immediately if something goes wrong. The original review period should be no more than 90 days after said operation starts. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1975-92 with conditions 1-6 as noted, with the additional condition that there will be a review cycle of 90 days from the granting of this permit to review that the conditions and operation are as specified in the permit. Said review will be noticed and held as a public hearing before the Commission. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED 25 Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: PUBLIC INPUT July 6, 1992 Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, commended the Commission for putting the brakes on that last minute request for a traffic signal. Jamboree is increasing almost daily and there's one big mess building out there. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn to a public work shop for the study of Section A on July 8, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room. It is also noted there is an additional study session on Planning Commission procedures and CEQA, as well as a joint meeting for a trail study at 4:30 and 5:30 respectively on July 29, 1992 in the Weimer Room. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. sld 26