Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-1990 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange July 16, 1990 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Jere Murphy, Administrator of Advanced Planning; Mary Ann Chamberlain, Sr. Planner, Advanced Planning; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Jack Brotherton, Subdivision Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 1990 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Minutes of June 18, 1990 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1126-90, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14329, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1843-90, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1347-90 - IRAJ MAVANDADI: A proposed 29 unit townhouse condominium development on property located at 238 South Flower Street. The following requests are proposed by the applicant: 1. Zone Change from C-1 (Limited Business District) to R-3 Residential-Multiple Family District). 2. Tentative Tract Map to allow a 30 lot subdivision and condominium ownership of properties. 3. Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of 2 story, multiple family structures within 70 feet of a single family residential district, development of the project as a planned unit development, and creation of lots without frontage on a public street. This item was continued from the June 18, Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 2 Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. The property is located on the west side of Flower Street, south of Almond. The northerly boundary of the project site abuts the rear property lines of single family residences located on the south side of Almond. The site is also adjacent to a mini-warehouse storage development on the east, and a 2 story apartment complex on the sou th. The site is zoned C-1 with surrounding zoning being R-1-6, single family residential to the north and east, R-3 zoning, which is multiple family residential, to the south, and mobile home M-H) zoning to the west, where the storage facility currently operates under a conditional use permit. There have been other C.U.P. requests approved for this property within the past couple of years, one of which was a request for 125 units senior housing project. It was approved, but that C.U.P. has expired and the project is no longer in the works. A second permit was issued in 1988 to use the site in its present condition for a youth care facility. This project consists of 29 two and three bedroom townhouse units. The units range in size from 1200 to 1600 square feet. Each unit has its own two-car garage and also a private fenced patio area. Each unit is located on a separate lot. The common recreation area is provided along the northern property boundary partly to serve as a buffer between the project and the adjacent single family residences. Additionally, 10 unenclosed parking spaces are provided by guest parking. A 6 foot high block wall will be located on the north, west and south property lines. Project density is about 15 units per acre and it is consistent with the existing low-medium density General Plan designation which allows 6-15 units per acre. The project, as a whole, meets the development standards of the R-3 zone, with the exception of the 2 story height, which occurs at a distance of less than 70 feet from a single family residential zone to the north. The buildings range from 10 feet to 65 feet from the single family district rather than being back the 70 feet as required. The Commission's consideration needs to include the zone change from the C-1 district to the R-3 zone, which if approved, would provide consistency between the zoning and the existing General Plan for the site. Another aspect of the project to be considered is the Planned Unit Development designation of the property, which is needed by the applicant to provide the flexibility desired to create this townhouse type of ownership proposed. As now designed, the project in the individual lots do not meet setback, open space or access requirements as would be required of any lot being developed on its own. But a P.U.D. designation could allow the project to be considered as a whole as one single Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 3 entity. The Zoning Ordinance states that the intention of the P.U.D. is to allow greater flexibility for a developer if the developer can provide at least an equal or better living environment than otherwise possible through strict application of zoning regulations, and greater, more unified open space areas. One other issue for consideration is the grading and drainage concept for the site. The tract map and site plan show the site will be built to facilitate surface drainage to Flower Street. If the project were to be built in that manner, a retaining wall situation could result and at the northwest corner of the site, a wall as high as 12 feet could be possible as viewed from the neighboring properties. Staff has discussed this issue with the applicant and as the staff report notes, there is a potential alternative drainage concept that could involve a mechanical pumping system. However, the site plans and tract map have not been changed or revised to reflect the change in the project. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Iraj Mavandadi, 9422 Warbler Avenue, Fountain Valley, said his plans are very nicely designed. They have met the City's requirements and are changing the zoning from C-1 to residential, which would be advantageous to the neighbors. He feels the area will be a more desirable place to live when his project is completed. Commissioner Greek asked if present at the meeting? (No.) Those speaking in opposition the applicant's engineer was Estelle Dufrane, 2412 West Almond, submitted a petition from the local residents concerning their opinions of this project. They feel the project would be disadvantageous to the neighborhood. Because of the heavy flow of traffic on Flower, the City closed off all but two entrances from the south. Two stop signs were put in to keep the speed down. The staff report said approximately 232 additional car trips per day will be traveling down Flower. She felt there was a conflict with the traffic. The new project would impose on the neighbors' privacy. She was also concerned about the big old trees; they help harbor the wild life and keeps noise and dirt down to a minimum. This project would not be pleasing or beneficial except to someone's pocket book. Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 4 Paul Shaner, 215 South Flower, agrees with Ms. Dufrane about the traffic -- 5,500 cars per day and an increase of 232 cars per day, based on the San Diego traffic study. The closure of Flower Street has not helped too much because the traffic is coming in from the other direction (off of Chapman into the apartments). He questioned the 60 foot right-of-way. There is presently 40 feet. ~ Where's the other 20 feet? Who is going to pay for it? The area has a high incidence of crime; #1 in the City of Orange for crime. Mr. Brotherton responded to the concern about the width of the street. There will be no change as there is a 60 foot existing right-of-way. From curb to curb it is 40 feet; the other 20 feet takes in the parkway and sidewalks. Rebuttal. Mr. Mavandadi understands the most important objection is regarding development of the project. The property is zoned for C-1. A shopping center can be built there that will generate more traffic and crime. The units average 1500 square feet and are nicer than any house in the area. The wild life will disappear no matter what is built on the property. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greek's major problems were with the tract map. It was submitted with certain statements and conditions. Does it meet the City's standards for minimum submittals? Mr. Brotherton asked the applicant's engineer to make some corrections, but they were not made. Commissioner Greek said they could end up with a 6 foot retaining wall and 12 foot garden wall at the northwest corner, which would create a severe problem for the residents. If the tract map is not an adequate submittal, he saw no reason to act on the project. Commissioner Bosch said it was important for all procedures to be followed, not only to protect the City but to also protect the eventual owners of this project. He looked to the proper application of a planned unit development as it is understood through the zoning ordinance. The project not only u tilize s every potential square inch of the land, bu t squeezes into the 70 foot setback, that has been determined in the past to be the least generous type of environment for the neighboring single family residences. The recreation area is minimal in terms of its potential open space use for the project and one that provides the greatest impact rather Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 5 than buffering to the adjacent single family residences by placing trash areas, pool equipment and play pools adjacent to their back yards. The invasion of privacy, the density, ratio of 3 bedroom units, the very minimal private open space and the very tight circulation, including very dangerous circulation with driveways, blindly around the corner on the main entrances, gives a plan that is not environmentally .equal to or better than traditional practices. It does not meet the intent of the tract map nor the standards of the City. Commissioner Greek questioned whether or not the Fire Department regulations could be met with this development? Ms. Wolff stated the Fire Department has reviewed the plans and in a minimal way, they do meet the standards. It's not an easy circulation pattern. Commissioner Scott corrected the site location to read 238 South Flower. He was concerned with the traffic study that was prepared for this development. He didn't know if the study were prepared prior to the diversion of LaVeta and Flower or if it wasn't considered. The circulation should be re-studied as the additional trips per day have been added. In the f uture, regarding street diversions or traffic changes on a commuter should be referred to the Planning Commission from the Traffic Safety Commission before going on to the City Council. As far as the amenities being offered for a planned unit development, he felt the pool, spa and two .benches were very sparse; it doesn't meet the intent of what a planned unit development is suppose to be. Chairman Master concurred with the Commissioners. It looks like an awful lot being shoved into a small lot with very little amenities and he questioned the quality of life. Moved by Commissioner Bosch that the Commission concur with the Environmental Review Board with regard to Negative Declaration 1347-90 in finding that the project will not have an adverse impact upon the implementation of suggested mitigation measures. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to not accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board regarding Negative Declaration 1347-90. Objections included the lack of consideration of the grading operation, traffic, and the Commission questioned why San Diego standards were used to determine the traffic study, rather than Orange County standards. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: Commissioners Bosch MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 6 Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to deny Zone Change 1126-90, Tentative Tract Map 14329, and Conditional Use Permit 1843-90 for all the reasons discussed previously -- inadequate use of the property and incomplete, inaccurate tentative map submittal. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The Commission asked staff to look into the zoning conditions on this property and report back to them. They're looking for a more compatible zone for that piece of property. This item will automatically be heard by the City Council and there is no reason for an appeal. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the staff be instructed to review for possible General Plan amendment the circulation element of the commuter street, Flower, between the limits of LaVeta and Chapman, with the installation of the diversion at that location, as well as diversions of other streets in the southwest quadrant, (to see if a General Plan amendment is really needed). If any future diversions and/or restrictions are made, as far as parking or other actions taken by the Traffic Safety Committee, the Planning Commission should be noticed. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1847-90 - ELSIE A. PORTER: A proposal to operate a restaurant (sandwich shop) within the M-2 zone, and addressed 2408 North Glassell Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Thomas Porter, 230 West Fletcher, presented a petition signed by 53 persons who favored this C.U.P. to allow a sandwich shop be built in their complex. Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 7 Commissioner Greek of the conditions accessible). The will abide by them. wanted to know if the applicant was aware for public restrooms (i.e., handicap applicant was aware of the conditions and The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1847-90 adding Condition 7 requiring two restrooms be handicap accessible. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1852-90 - ST. NORBERT'S CHURCH: A proposal to add one classroom building, approximately 3,550 square feet in size, to an existing church school located in the R-1-7 zone on property addressed 300 East Taft Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1352 has been prepared for this project. Chairman Master excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. The staff report was presented by Ms. Wolff. The property consists of 9.2 acres, located on the south side of Taft, east of Glassell. Other adjacent properties to the west are also church properties. Single family residences in the R-1-7 zone are located to the east and to the south; apartments are located to the north across Taft. The existing church and school are operating under three previously approved conditional use permits. The current C.U.P. request is to add one classroom building, which is to contain a kindergarten classroom and extended care classroom, which is an indoor class play area for children who arrive before school starts and stay after the end of the school day, and also a faculty lounge. Approximately 300 students are now enrolled at the school and the proposed building is planned to hold 33 new students. The site has more than adequate parking to handle the minor weekday traffic increases. The classroom building proposed will not be used on weekends concurrently with church services. As with any school or church school, noise is a potential problem for the neighboring residents. The increase in enrollment is minor -- approximately 10$. Hours of outdoor play are limited and they are also staggered from the hours Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 8 the other children are outside. Additionally, an existing block wall is located on the property line between the play area and the building and the adjacent residences to the sou th. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Father John, 300 East Taft, requested the additional kindergarten, extended daycare and faculty lounge to be built. Those speaking in opposition Rosemary Boulden, 337 East Chestnut Avenue, has lived in her home for 28 years and she was there when the church and school buildings were built. She was not opposed to the children or noise, but was opposed to them taking away her last bit of vision because she is next to the convent, behind the school. She spoke with a planner and was told the building would be 10 feet from the fence. The existing buildings are now 17 feet. Will they cut down those trees by building the new addition 7 feet closer to the trees? Those trees are very important for privacy. She was informed there were no immediate plans for cutting down those trees, but she needed reassurance to make sure those trees stay. Another concern was the night lighting. It shines into her living room. The new building's lights will shine into her family room. Can something be done so the lights will not shine into her home? Rebuttal Father John said there were no plans to cut down the trees. Because of the age of some of the trees, they were removed but they will be replaced. The ten feet is lined up with the parish hall, which will leave room for the existing trees. They will do everything they can to make sure the lights are not a hinderance and will work with the neighbor. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1352-90. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 9 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Greek, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1852-90 with conditions 1-8, adding condition 9 requiring the shielding of all new exterior lights to prevent spillage into adjacent properties. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Chairman Master returned to the meeting. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1123-90 - WOODCREST (SERRANO HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN) A proposed reclassification of property from the A-1 Agriculture) and an existing unzoned area to the Planned Community designation. Subject property contains 727 acres located in East Orange just southerly of Anaheim Hills, and northerly of the Villa Park Dam in an area known as Peralta Hills. The development will connect Serrano Avenue from the City of Orange to the City of Anaheim. NOTE: Environmental Impact Report 1305 has been prepared for this project. Commissioner Bosch was excused from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Wolff briefly introduced the project and turned the presentation over to Jere Murphy and Mary Ann Chamberlain. Mr. Murphy gave some background on the General Plan amendment that was approved in 1987. It identified a dwelling count of 1800 units. The main features of that General Plan amendment were that the 1800 units would be clustered in the center of the property, as opposed to the previous General Plan for the property, which identified the 1149 dwelling units being spread throughout the entire property. Development basically occurs on approximately 250-300 acres of the 730 acres, with the balance of the General Plan amendment being established in open space. The General Plan also identified a dedication of approximately 150 acres to the County of Orange as an addition to the Santiago Oaks Regional Park. The Plan also deleted the road known as Via Escolla, between Loma Street and Nohl Ranch Road from the arterial highway system as a collector street. Part of the reason for that deletion was that the Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 10 ridgeline in that area, which was the western portion of the property, was found to be of such a narrow width that it required substantial change to the ridgeline in order to provide a road at that location. The General Plan also showed the retention of the ridgeline in that western portion of the property (in an attempt to retain as much of the ridgeline). The General Plan provides for four acres of neighborhood park within the site. The Plan also identified the completion of Serrano Avenue, between the cities of Orange and Anaheim, as part of the development of the property. Serrano Avenue has been on the General Plan for 15 to 20 years. A Development Agreement was also adopted by the City Council in 1988 ensuring a timely development of Serrano Avenue in that area, both in terms of a two lane interim road as well as the full four lane highway, as a secondary highway. There were several conditions attached to the General Plan amendment of 1987, including the maximum number of dwelling units at 1800; that a specific plan be approved for the entire 730 acres prior to any additional subdivisions being approved for the property; and that the specific plan include the actual number of dwelling units to be allowed on each of the sub areas, as well as identification of the number of units for the entire site based on more specific standards than were identified in the General Plan. The specific plan was to indicate the amount and extent of grading required to accommodate the development of the property, as well as the specific housing product types for each of the densities identified within the Plan of the low-medium and high-density nature. Housing types were not discussed as part of the General Plan, bu t were to be determined as part of the specific plan process. The specific plan was also to address the manner in which open space parks and trails would be maintained. The issue of trail maintenance has been one that has been discussed .by the Planning Commission and City Council over recent years. The specific plan is to also address a financing program for public facilities and include the discussion of the Development Agreement provisions. The specific plan was to also discuss treatment of interface between the project and it's surroundings (i.e., residential and park development in the surrounding area) . The specific plan was to identify development and architectural standards for the project. The final item that was to be included in the specific plan was that of a fiscal impact report of the development to ensure that a positive fiscal benefit to the City is achieved through the development of the property. Ms. Chamberlain addressed three different parts of the staff report: the draft environmental impact report, Zone Change 112II-90, and the specific plan. A draft E.I.R. has been Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 11 submitted and responses/comments were issued. It addresses the proposed environmental impacts the project might have. Due to the large scale of the project, a number of environmental issues have been identified. The Commission will need to determine whether the environmental impact report and comments/responses adequately address and provide the means to mitigate the potential impacts. If the Commission determines that the project implementation will create significant, unmitigated environmental impacts, project approval would then require a "Statement of Overriding Considerations". Staff is willing to provide this statement if so desired at a later time. The most significant of the impacts that. staff has identified are traffic and grading. Of interest, one of the areas, because of the grading, will be filled over and that could be important and maybe should be identified. The second consideration is the zone change. This is the first time there has been zoning. The northerly two planning areas (called #22 and #23) have never had any zoning in them since they have been annexed into the City in 1987. The lower portions of the project area have a prior zoning of A-1. A-1 in the City of Orange means one unit for each five acres. The A-1 designation that was there when in the County of Orange allowed for one unit for each four acres. When the City Council approved the General Plan amendment in 1987, they required a specific plan be prepared. Planned community zoning is a vehicle for adopting a specific plan; thus, the planned unit classification is intended for large acreage projects to maximize the potential for flexibility in the design. This was desirable on this project site because of the terrain, location and circulation needs within the area. Staff recommends the planned community designation be overlaid on the entire site. The planned community designation does allow the City to adopt a specific plan. State law requires that a specific plan address all in detail distribution, location and extent of land uses, the infrastructure, development standards and all implementation measures. These have been spelled out in the specific plan, which also consists of a phasing plan and infrastructure plan. Staff is still questioning two areas: the actual construction of the park site and how that will be laid out in detail. There are concerns about how the trail system will intermingle with the rest of the development in the phased areas of the development itself. Staff suggests a plan be forwarded in the future that would afford a trail system whereby they wouldn't have to wait five or ten years for a trail to be developed. Staff would like to see a trail plan after the grading is completed. The public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 12 Applicant Frank Elf end, Elf end & Associates, 4675 MacArthur Court, Newport Beach, spoke on behalf of the developer, Woodcrest. He presented their presentation of the historical past on this project, as well as their current proposal. The location of the site was explained to the audience. Ma bury Ranch was southwest of their project and he pointed ou t specific areas on the exhibit. The project was started in 1984, about six years ago. A Process Flow Chart was made showing their progress. He walked through that exhibit speaking about the ridgelines and development of the property. Their original request was to develop 3,000 units. Staff directed them to talk with the surrounding communities and neighbors. Several meetings were held to gain input in order to develop a plan which was sensitive to the residents' concerns. Negotiations between the City of Anaheim, City of Orange and the County were also underway. They were told 3,000 units were too dense so they reduced the density down to 1800 units. They agreed to certain recommendations and conditions in 1987. A Development Agreement was approved in October, 1988. It assured construction of Serrano Avenue and to pay accelerated fees for circulation improvements and community services. A specific plan process was initiated over a year and a half ago. They committed to preserve certain ridgelines. He spoke about the concern of lot sizes and addressed each area. They eliminated all 3,500 square foot lots, and have agreed to eliminate 4,200 square foot lots. Their lots will average 6,000 square feet or greater. He addressed the concern of how the rear houses would look on the slopes. The Orange Park Acres trail system was discussed. Also, a dust control management plan will be implemented after grading to help control dust. They submitted a letter to the Commission regarding some of the conditions of approval. He asks for those conditions to be modified. Public Input Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, spoke in general support of the plan. He has met with Mr. Elf end at least 200 times during the past six years with three sets of owners. Woodcrest is by far the easiest to work with and he feels they have come up with a half way decent plan. He gave a brief history of the project. The City wanted Serrano built and they approved a Development Agreement. Massive grading will replace Peralta Hills and the view of the open space. Land was traded with the County of Orange, about 150 acres, to protect the Santiago Oaks Regional Park. Density and h orse trails were discussed, as well as how the backs of homes would look. Mabury Ranch and Orange Park Acres are very rapidly becoming inside the City and will be the geographic center once East Orange is built out. Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 13 Lauren Ficaro, 11202 Meads, Orange Park Acres, spoke on the trails element of the specific plan. She has worked with Mr. Elf end on the development to ensure they have a system of recreational trails. A major concern is that the trail element of the specific plan should be adopted as a whole unit and not linked to the phases of the development so that the trails will remain in use during the construction of the entire project. They understand that when there is grading, there will be no trail use. A final answer to the question of trail maintenance is forthcoming; major steps have been made in coming to terms with the issue of maintenance. Mr. Elf end has been supportive of alternative ways to maintaining the trails. Those speaking in opposition Greg Lewis, 6216 East Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim Hills, had five concerns after reading the environmental impact report. He felt the grading could still use some work. They would like to preserve the ridgeline. A petition was circulated voicing their concern about the deterioration of the ridgeline. He had questions about the aesthetics -- will the houses look down on Anaheim Hills? Will the water towers be placed on top of the ridges where they can be seen? He was concerned about the traffic and felt it was under estimated in Anaheim Hills. Construction noise was an issue. Noise levels were not addressed at Gramercy Park, Amber Lane or Ridgeview. Will the construction noise impede the school? His fifth concern was dust and he was glad it was addressed. How much will spray on grass reduce dust? He asked that no grading be done on the ridgeline, and would like to see better measures for noise and traffic. He personally would like to see more involvement on the Anaheim Hills side of the development. Until a week ago, people in Gramercy Park were in the dark about this project. Greg Grubba, 845 Jacaranda, Anaheim Hills, was concerned about the ridgeline. Not once have the developers come to any of their meetings. Orange got a better deal than Anaheim. Lori Engelmann, 6218 East Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim Hills, spoke about the wild life around her home. She was concerned as to where the wild life would go once development was under way. Lisa Lewis, 6216 East Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim Hills, spoke on the issue of blasting. If it is going to occur in the area of the elementary school, that is unacceptable to the residents. Will blasting be needed to attain grading on the ridgeline that extends behind Gramercy Park, Amber Lane and Ridgeview? They have strong safety concerns. Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 14 Ken Swensson, association is their home in development. He was never process. Who hill was going cut down . 825 South Jacaranda, Anaheim Hills, said his completely against the project. They bought March, 1988 but were not advised about this He's going to lose over one-half of his hill. notified of any meetings or that this was in is going to indemnify them? He was told the to be there forever and now it is going to be Lucy Yaeger, 6260 East Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim Hills, concurs with all the comments that have been addressed. She has lived in this location for nearly 4 years, and until a week ago this was the first time she has heard anything about such a development. She also works for the City of Anaheim as a Senior Planner and heard some discussion, but it was never brought to her attention as to how it would affect her property. She's not against development but there were many questions that still needed to be asked and answered. She urged the Commission not to act on this item, but extend it so the developer could have an opportunity to address their Associations in Anaheim Hills that could be affected by this development. Joe Pelka, P.O. Box 4453, Orange, spoke as a representative of the Mabury Ranch Homeowner's Association. A letter was given to the Commission earlier this date in which their biggest concern is the density. It is inconsistent with the surrounding areas. Mabury Ranch has a minimum of 8,000 square foot lots. The proposed grading is massive. A lot of the areas are going to be devastated. Dust control was also a concern. The issue of using water during the drough t season needs to be addressed. Traffic was a concern -- speed of 50 m.p.h. was too fast. Other concerns included noise, lack of police services, Cerro Villa Park still undeveloped, a condition is needed to build a fire station and environmental issues. A study session is needed to work out all concerns before a decision is made. They only met with Mr. Elf end about one month ago; he has not spoken with the Board members previously. Commissioner Greek responded the design speed on Serrano is for the roadway -- not a traffic speed. The traffic speed will be set by the Traffic Division. Cerro Villa Park is part of the Capital Improvement Plan, which was approved a month ago. It's on the schedule. Christine Grubba,845 Jacaranda, Anaheim Hills, said her townhouse complex was built in a canyon effect. The hill above her will be altered. Who is going to be responsible for slope failure on the Anaheim side if it occurs? Planning Commission Minute s July 16, 1990 - Page 15 David Zimmerman, 6222 East Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim Hills, president of Gramercy Park, appreciates Mr. Elf end's trying to get input, but he's concerned because he's never heard of this development. He invited Mr. Elf end to contact his group. A project of this magnitude warrants a tremendous amount of study and input. Everyone is aware of what they have done in Weir Canyon and it's disastrous. They have leveled the entire place. They've ruined the integrity of the landscape. He wants to preserve the entire ridgeline; not just parts of it. Cheryl Walker, 6225 East Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim Hills, Gramercy Park development). She had two concerns as a homeowner and commuter to Los Angeles: traffic and the ridgeline. What kind of a traffic load will it put on other surface streets because the 91 Freeway is unusable during peak hours. She asked that the ridgeline be preserved not only for them, but for the new owners as well. Larry Larsen, 996 Ridgecrest Circle, Anaheim Hills, was a former owner in the city of Orange. He supports the project for the most part; however, his opposes the placement of homes on the ridgeline. Over the last 20 years, the city of Anaheim has developed and preserved the ridgeline with outstanding results. He provided photos showing the preserved ridgelines. This project would seriously change the preservation of those ridgelines forever. Everyone would lose a nature path and break off the natural trail for wildlife. Ridgeline development is an outdated form of development and is contrary to modern conservation kinds of development. Resident, 6436 Ridge Park Lane, spoke on behalf of the Ridgeview Association. Mr. Elf end did address their Association two years ago, but had little information for them. It was only last week that he met with them again. It will be their ridgeline that will be affected the most. Michelle Johnston, 6415 Oakview, Anaheim Hills, had two major concerns: the ridgeline and traffic. She would rather look at the hills, rather than someone else's back yard. Will there be traffic signals at the school intersections? Michael Berkett, 1796 North Mt. McKinley Blvd. (Mabury Ranch), voiced a deep concern of the citizens of Mabury Ranch regarding the development. He briefly commented on the problem of density. The inclusion of apartments and non-owner development in that area changes the basic nature and environment of the Santiago Canyon area. The rural atmosphere will be changed dramatically by this development. They were also concerned about the commuter traffic on Serrano. Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 16 Richard Craig, lives in Anaheim Hills, and was concerned about the traffic when Serrano cuts through. There will be a ton of traffic coming up the side of that hill; it will be a thoroughfare. Carl Kritcheger, 6455 Oakview Lane, Anaheim Hills, had two concerns: financial difficulties or displacement from a home. Earth movers moved several tons of dirt and replaced it, displaced it and moved it out. This caused a number of residents to have serious financial difficulties. His home settled unevenly and he could no longer live there. There has not been adequate consideration with respect to the soils and effects of surrounding areas that are relatively close to the removal of the ridgeline. An extensive study needs to be undertaken before approval is given. The other concern was commuter traffic. Mr. Bennyhoff asked the Commission to direct the Police Department to pay special attention to the low-level lighting needs on arterial roads in Orange Park Acres and Mabury Ranch. Rebuttal Mr. Elf end reviewed the basic items and felt he needed to meet with some of the people. He went over his project and gave the people more information. The project being considered is a specific plan. There are about 100 conditions of approval in the staff report that deal with subsequent actions that will be necessary in conjunction with the specific plan. People have asked detailed questions about grading, traffic and lots. That information will become available subsequent to the specific plan process. On the Anaheim Hills equation, they spent a considerable amount of time with people out in Anaheim Hills. During the G.P.A. process a lot of the people in attendance lived on ridges and hills and were not present during the process. They have made several presentations out in Anaheim Hills and have kept the Anaheim Hills Coalition up to date on their project. There has been an attempt at least to obtain input from the neighbors in Anaheim Hills and to do a plan that is sensitive to the ridgeline from all areas of Anaheim Hills. During construction there will be some effect on the trail systems, but they have an agreement with the County that there has to be some type of relocation of those trails during that process. This project ended up by providing over 100 acres of open space for Santiago Oaks Regional Park, which is to include a preserve for wildlife that would be impacted from the project. The basic comment from Anaheim Hills residents seems to be grading. They have eliminated a lot of ridgeline grading on the property from what was previously Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 17 proposed. In terms of blasting there's going to be a minimum amount required. Hours of grading operation can be dealt with when the grading plans are submitted. If construction were to begin next year, grading of that upper pad area next to Anaheim Hills would not occur for approximately two years after that. It is not anticipated that there would be any development in the Anaheim Hills portion of the property until 1994-1995. During the G.P.A. process they worked with people in Mabury Ranch. They tried to address some of the issues. The issue of 1,400 apartments is not the case. Woodcrest Development will provide a 24 hour number available for concerns about dust generated. They are responsive to the types of concerns people will have regarding the amount of grading and dust control measures. A considerable amount of geotechnical studies have been prepared on their project. Chairman Master said there has been a tremendous amount of data they've had to digest along with the additional input from the public. It's an impossible task to try to make a decision at this meeting. The Commission should consider a continuance of the hearing to a study session. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Greek to continue the public hearing on the Serrano Heights Specific Plan to August 20, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. AYES: Commissioners NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek, Master, Scott Bosch MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Greek, to meet in a study session July 23, 1990 at 5:30 p.m. in the Weimer Room; and July 30, 1990 at 5:30 p.m. to discuss the Serrano Heights Specific Plan. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch IN RE: NEW HEARINGS NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1355 - CITY OF ORANGE: MOTION CARRIED An environmental assessment of a proposed municipal water supply well at the northwest corner of Collins and Cambr idge . Commissioner Greek was concerned about the environmental impact the well would have on the residential area. Mr. Godlewski said the main pumping structure is located centrally to the project with the piping system at the Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 18 corner of the property furthest away from the residential properties. The structure closest to the properties is an electrical junction box to supply the power to the electric pumping station. The setbacks are as far as practical that could be achieved and still get a turn around for service vehicles to enter the property. The gates will be off the street, away from the residential properties. Chairman Master asked how often these things are serviced? Mr. Brotherton said they only service them after they are in operation -- maybe once a month or once every two months. This is similar to the one that is up on north Glassell Street near the park. It was also his understanding they would be sound proofing the drilling operation. Commissioner Greek was still concerned about the operation of the well and wanted more information. Mr. Godlewski said the Negative Declaration is in relation to the development of the well site -- not the actual short term effects, but the project itself is the operation of a well site at this location. The impacts referred to by Commissioner Greek are considered to be the short term effects in achieving the project level of a water well at that location. There will be short term effects, as discussed on Page 2. However, subsequent to the drilling operation and once the project is in place, the Environmental Review Board was of the opinion that there will be no substantial environmental impact. Staff could provide additional information in terms of splitting the difference of the short term effects and the long term effects to the project. The Commission wanted to know whether or not the Negative Declaration covers the drilling of the well or covers the site location. The drilling operation itself is of concern and that there will be short term adverse effects that are outweighed by the long term benefit of having a well to supply water to the City. Mr. Herrick interjected the one difficulty with that is making a statement of overriding considerations, which can only be done on an environmental impact report; not on a negative declaration. He hears the Commission asking for more information in the negative declaration to make a determination. It should be a negative declaration and perhaps staff can bring it back with additional information and that would preserve the negative declaration rather than sending it out for an environmental impact report. Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1990 - Page 19 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, to continue Negative Declaration 1355 to the next scheduled meeting on August 6, 1990. Also, the Commission would like the plans to be resubmitted with dimensions on them. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Greek, to adjourn the meeting. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. sl d