Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-1991 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange August 19, 1991 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Chris Carnes, Associate Planner; Luis Rodriguez, Sr. Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF AUGUST 5. 1991 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve the Minutes of August 5, 1991 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14359 - WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT: Chairman Bosch and Commissioner Cathcart excused themselves from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest as defined under the Brown Act. Vice-Chairman Scott chaired the meeting. A request for a tentative tract map to allow subdivision of 230 acres into 223 single family parcels, three multi-family parcels, and park site. The project will also include the extension of Serrano Avenue from Anaheim to Orange. The site is located north of Santiago Oaks Regional Park, east of the Southern California Edison Substation, southwest of Nohl Ranch Road, and south of Anaheim Hills. NOTE: The environmental impacts of this project have previously been analyzed by certified Environmental Impact Report #954 and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1305-90. A staff report was presented by Mr. Godlewski. As part of this application, the applicant is also requesting a transfer of dwelling units between the development areas within the Serrano Heights project area. This is consistent with the Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1991 - Page 2 established in the Serrano Heights Specific Plan, which was previously adopted for the property. Included with the packet was the Development Agreement between the City and the owner of the property, which was encouraged by the City to expedite and accelerate the construction of Serrano through to Anaheim as proposed with the application. This was a part of the original Development Agreement in exchange for the right to construct 1800 dwelling units, as long as they are developed consistent with a Specific Plan that was to be subsequently adopted. EIR #954 and EIR #1305 were also reviewed for this project. EIR 954 was certified in 1987 and was done in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment which re-designated a large portion beyond the limits of this project (some 1900 acres from agricultural land to more urban, residential and commercial uses) . EIR #1305 was certified in 1988/1989 in association with the Serrano Heights Specific Plan and it included 75 mitigation measures which were a consideration in reviewing this project. The Serrano Heights Specific Plan, which was recently adopted in September, 1990, was approved establishing development standards including density ratios for 10 planning areas which are outlined in the Serrano Heights Specific Plan Map. Subsequent to the approval of the Serrano Heights Specific Plan by the City Council, a lawsuit transpired brought by the Peralta Hills Alliance and a settlement was subsequently reached. The details of that settlement require certain things to happen prior to development on the property and staff tried to include those in their review of the proposed Tentative Tract to make sure those items are preserved in the development. The original staff report was prepared with the information available at the time of printing which was 10 days prior to the meeting. Subsequently, additional information and clarification discussions were held with the applicant resulting in an addendum staff memo which is dated August 16. A great amount of detail has been included in both the original staff report and in the addendum concerning compliance with this Tentative Tract Map with all the provisions of the documents previously mentioned. In the addendum staff report, staff re-listed all the conditions that would relate to the Tentative Tract Map application and staff feels comfortable that it adequately provides for the orderly development of the property. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Frank Elf end, Elf end & Associates, 4675 MacArthur Court, Newport Beach, discussed their project on a historical level and had some comments about the staff report. They feel all the issues have been addressed and they're almost comfortable with the conditions Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1991 - Page 3 of approval. He wanted to also focus on the lawsuit because he felt it was important relative to the history of the Serrano Heights project. The Planning Commission approved the Serrano Heights Specific Plan August 20, 1990. Subsequently, the project was then approved by the City Council September 18, 1990. The Specific Plan was a 16-month process with many discussions and compromises. After the project was approved, there was a lawsuit filed. There were a few contingents of the lawsuit, which they will live up to. Seven issues were addressed: Concern about by pass traffic on Serrano Avenue -- they are providing for a median on Serrano in a specified location as well as timing the opening of the road to four lanes. There was concern about ridgeline grading -- they agreed to back cut specified ridgelines as well as to enhance their landscaping system with the Specific Plan. There was concern about the number of apartments they were going to build -- they agreed to limit the amount of apartments and build condominiums if they could, but not reduce the number of units. There were concerns about wildlife impacts -- they agreed to a comprehensive restoration and enhancement plan for coastal sage shrub. There were concerns about noise mitigation and landscaping -- they agreed to close up the areas of some existing walls along Mabury Ranch and provide $110,000 for a mitigation fund to provide additional landscaping or noise mitigation as so deemed appropriate. The lawsuit was settled in June, 1991 (a nine month process). The current application includes all conditions in Phase One. Phase One includes the area west of the Edison Easement Development Areas 1, 2, 3 and 10). He outlined their proposal in each area. They have increased the lot sizes overall. The majority of the pad sizes are larger than the minimum lot size indicated in the Specific Plan. The other concern was to provide as many one story homes as possible. They have spent a lot of time creating the one story look alike unit. Special consideration for rear elevations were also made. Phase One consists of 807 proposed units. It also includes several public improvements, the most important being the improvement of Serrano. Serrano will be built prior to the occupancy of the first unit. There is a water reservoir that will be constructed. Storm drainage improvements and street signals will be provided. They also agreed to put stop signs on Serrano. He referred to the trail systems which they will be improving that are within the property. Ones outside the property will not be improved. The existing trail that runs through the Edison Easement will not be improved. The County currently has restrictions on the Easement; therefore, there is a recommended condition they will suggest be deleted. They spent quite a bit of time with the community. They met with the Mabury Ranch people and Orange Park Acres. He provided Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1991 - Page 4 letters from Ma bury Ranch and Orange Park Acres; they recommended approval of the project. They also met with the Anaheim Hills United Homeowners Association who responded favorably. He clarified why there were two different staff reports. The original report contained inaccuracies, errors and omissions. They met with staff to discuss those items and provided them with updated correspondence. As a result of their meeting, an addendum staff report was prepared. They accept the conditions as proposed with some minor modifications. Page 2, #23 - table: Lot 226 - the acreages shown as approximate. Those acreages may vary during the final tract map and site plan process, which would affect the density. Page 2, #23D: Elevations along M and K Streets. The last sentence refers to Streets K and L (the slope) and that will be resolved when the final map is submitted. Page 3, #24B: Existing plant material. They included in their Specific Plan methods and procedures for specific plant implementation. The intent of this was to communicate within an area they would be grading, if they would be preserving vegetation in those areas. Information for those areas they were not grading is provided in their environmental documentation. Page 3, #24D: Interface with the park. The statement was taken out of context by staff. He read the mitigation measure of EIR 1305. They have met the condition through their land exchange process. That comment is also part of their mitigation monitoring report. Page 3, #24E: Trails system. The trails shown on their tentative map will be approved as part of the tentative map process. They will tie into the County's trail, but will not have any other impact on it. Page 4, #27: Narrow lot frontage. They have discussed this issue with staff and have worked out a solution. It can be resolved when the final map comes in for recordation. Conditions of Approval 1) Fuel modification plan -- they believe this condition satisfies all concerns. 2) If the Commission decides to retain it, that's fine. In their mitigation monitoring report it is a condition. It's something that was taken out of context. They have already met the condition as it relates to #1. Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1991 - Page 5 3) He suggested changing "shall" to "may" in the last sentence, as it reads in their mitigation measure in the EIR (Page 72) . 8) Refers to a letter sent by the County. The County asked for them to dedicate an easement to the County for equestrian hiking purposes identified on the County master plan for riding and hiking trails to be located across proposed Lot T. They already have that easement. They're not going to do any improvement to that trail; it's an existing trail. They feel the condition is unnecessary and request it be deleted. 15) They request the approval of the equestrian undercrossing be by the Public Works Department, and that the Police Department and Community Services review it. The emergency vehicular access through the tunnel was questioned. This condition would make it more difficult for them. 16) He's not sure what "non-climbable" design means. He suggested adding "a non-climbable or alternative as approved by the Police Department." 19) He clarified that they will build Serrano, but not all of Serrano contains a median from the initiation of the project from Anaheim Hills to the City of Orange. That median will not be placed on Serrano in its entirety. 27) He suggested adding the wording to the end of the sentence, except where used for access or horse trail." They prefer not to have to landscape something that will be used for access or for the horse trail. 37) He wanted to make sure they were in agreement about downslopes. If it slopes away from the property, it would be maintained by the Homeowners' Association, but if it slopes down towards the property, then it would be maintained by the homeowner. 46) They would like regarding parking the end of the Engineer." Public Input to add some wording to the condition bays being a maximum of 600 feet. Add to sentence, "or as approved by the City Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, said their Association reviewed this plan and had questions. They wanted a fence along the property to separate the houses from Mabury Ranch and O.P.A. Is the intent to build a block wall fence? He's also concerned about the interface being heavily landscaped to create a buffer between the developments. He urged that the undercrossing be reviewed by Public Works. Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1991 - Page 6 Eric Jessen, County of Orange, Chief of H.B.P. Acquisition and Planning, 401 Civic Center Drive, 10th Floor, Santa Ana, commented on the Addendum to the staff report. Referring to item 24D, the applicant is of the opinion that the land exchange where the County received additional land adjacent to the park meets the landscaping condition. They needed to plead to continue to retain a strong landscaping condition. The land exchange does not plant trees to screen houses. The land exchange was accomplished in a much larger negotiation between successors to Anaheim Hills and the County whereby the County obtained 35 acres of new fee owned property, and obtained 113 acres of fee owned land which was formerly open space easement, which the County already had the development rights on. In return for that, the County conveyed that entire huge land above the Edison Easement for ownership. The County does not subordinate park land to enable development adjacent to it and they prefer landscaping on the property line, but inside the developer's property. On Page 5 it refers to off-site fuel modification. The intent of this is to prevent the City obligation or liability for acquisition of off-site rights. They don't object to anything that is stated in the paragraph, but he was asked to make it as clear as possible that the County's position regarding the condition is that fuel modification is not allowed on County fee owned land where the deed does not contain reservations for it. Also referred to in Condition l.) They feel Condition 2 is a good condition and request it be retained (addresses the issue of perimeter landscaping). They concur with the applicant's request to delete Condition 8. He advised the wording include pedestrian because it has been their experience people request equestrian/hiking trails be abandoned when horses are no longer evident. Regarding Condition 32, he indicated the County prefer this condition explicitly recognize that manufactured slopes on County owned fee park land is prohibited, except where reserved in deeds. Rebuttal Mr. Elf end responded to the concern of fencing, which is proposed. The park boundaries were pointed out. Landscape screening will be provided as it related to the then park boundary. They will not negotiate with the County because he feels it is not professional or appropriate at this meeting. Based upon historical documents, they feel they have the right to go to the County and have them consider some type of fuel Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1991 - Page 7 modification/landscaping on the property. He understands there are parks in the County where this situation exists. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Master thought it would be appropriate for Mr. Johnson to provide input regarding the emergency vehicle access, as well as the non-climbable fence. Mr. Johnson referred to Condition 27, Page 4, a landscaped bench, 30 feet wide to be constructed on all slopes greater than 100 feet. It provides a safety factor for those slopes greater than 100 feet. They have designed this into their grading concept at three locations. He doesn't see a problem with the horse trails. Referring to Condition 46, Page 6, rggarfl~r~gOparking bays -- he doesn't have a concern with the parking bays, but mentioned pursuant to Item 24F, it indicates that the issue has been resolved with the Traffic Engineer. The 600 foot parking bay is the City's standard. Mr. Godlewski responded to the non-climbable fences. Both Conditions 15 and 16 were provided by the Crime Prevention Bureau. Condition 15 relates to the tunnel allowing emergency vehicular access. Staff could reword the condition similar to Condition 16, giving the final authority to the Police Department. Condition 16 already requires review and approval by Design Review Board, Department of Community Development and the Crime Prevention Bureau. He concurs with the applicant to pick one of those people to be the final authority. The Police Department doesn't feel that the slump stone or block fence with wrought iron construction is non-climbable because people can step up on the block wall and then step over the wrought iron. However, in cases where there is a slope opposite the fence, this type of fence is approved. He pointed out the tract on Canyon View which was recently constructed. Mr. Godlewski suggested rewording the condition, "Prior to issuance of any building permits, Community Development Department, with the consulting of D.R.B. and Crime Prevention Bureau, shall review and approve fencing plans to assure conformance...." Commissioner Murphy wanted clarification on the revised Condition 1 and wanted the opinion of the City Attorney's office that the intentions of Condition 1 meet the requirements the City is asking for (i.e. , fuel modification) . Mr. Rodriguez was not involved in the development of this condition; however, he could make some comments based on a general reading and understanding. The City Attorney's office, the applicant and staff formulated this condition through a long Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1991 - Page 8 process. What is reflective of the condition is that there is an intent that the City's interest will be protected in terms of any future acquisition problems. The condition appears to assume that there will be further discussions on the issue of fuel modification or any alternatives therein and the language will be dependent on what the substance of those discussions would be. There's a proviso that the Commission would have an opportunity for input, as well as staff resulting from those discussions. As far as the testimony of the County, the Commission is entitled to give it any weight they feel is appropriate. Mr. Godlewski stated it was staff's concern that they not fall into a situation where they have imposed a condition upon the applicant, which the applicant cannot perform, at which point the City would be in a position of suing the County in order to get the required fuel modification zone provided. They don't want to be left in that position. This condition adequately indemnifies the City from that sort of action. In talking to the Building Official, there are a number of other things that could be done that would perform this condition short of fuel modification. They are more expensive; they may or may not require amendments to the tract boundary. Staff feels this is an adequate condition, open ended, enough to where the applicant has an opportunity to first seek the fuel modification with the County. If it can't be obtained, he can still retain his tentative tract map and provide more expensive means of mitigation. Or, if he finally decides the best way would be to pull back from the perimeter line and provide some kind of fuel modification, then it would require a modification to the tentative map. Staff provided for that in the condition, as well. Commissioner Murphy questioned Conditions 2 and 3. Would it not be prudent to include the entire section from the EIR in the condition to avoid misinterpretation. He's concerned when a subsection is noted as listed and not the whole piece. Mr. Godlewski responded anything they could bring from previous documents to show that it has been previously considered and is a part of what they're doing now, is helpful to the Commission when reviewing the list of conditions. They have indicated all those conditions in the list of conditions with an *. It's true that Condition 3 is perhaps different in its language by saying "Plans for this replanted area shall require review by the City's Design Review Board" as opposed to mom. At this time there is a Design Review Board; staff is suggesting it go to the Design Review Board. All conditions of the EIR are required as part of this development. Commissioner Murphy would hate to lose something in the transition. He would like to see the condition in its entirety so as not to change the interpretation in either direction. Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1991 - Page 9 Commissioner Scott spoke about the pad size. One of the previous Commissioners was very concerned about this. The lots could be 6,000 square f eet and you end up with 1,500 foot pad size s. He thought that was pointed out in the EIR. Mr. Godlewski responded the tract map, as submitted, does not show any substantial reduction in pad size from the lot sizes. Commissioner Scott by the Commission County. He also plant material. replanting. He s upon the conditions spoke about the trail systems being approved and City Council if they were approved by the noted there was no preservation of existing He believes the condition calls out for aid Condition 2 should be retained. He touched and the recommended changes. In response to the wording of Condition 27, Mr. Johnson suggested, A 30 foot multi-purpose bench be established and be landscaped, if possible." This is a requirement and felt it was necessary to call it out. You could also eliminate the word landscaped". The purpose of the bench is an engineering reason. Staff was in agreement to eliminate the word landscaped; there would not be a problem. Commissioner Scott stated the report brings out the proponent would have to negotiate with the County in regards to fuel modification. The City does not want to take away the possibility that the applicant can at least approach the County. In reference to the grading and County property, again, the proponent can approach the County. They may have an innovative plan that might enhance the property. Written permission must be obtain before grading permits are issued. Commissioner Murphy said on a previous application a condition was added to address the cul de sac/driveway concerns. Does this application need to have a specific condition? Noise abatement is a concern in regards to height of the barrier. Commissioner Master thought they should tie it to the noise study showing a design that reflects the input of the analysis. He asked if this development would undergo mitigating monitoring? Mr. Godlewski responded mitigation monitoring is a requirement of this project. The applicant has already shown staff a preliminary plan that meets with staff's approval. The Commissioners and staff discussed the mitigation monitoring and all required conditions. It will all come together; this is one of the first projects to go through the process. Revisions/alterations to the conditions were addressed: Condition 1, as reworded by staff, is acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1991 - Page 10 Condition 2 is to include the entire subsection of the EIR for correct interpretation. Condition 3 - the only question is the use of the word may vs. shall. The Commission prefers using the word "shall" and the condition is changed from the mitigation measure. Condition 5 - include reference to the performance standard tied to the noise study. (Tie Conditions 4 and 5 together.) Condition 8 - delete. Add to statement on Page 2, "Unless otherwise specified, Conditions 9 - 16 shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the City of Orange's Crime Prevention Bureau:" Condition 13 - amend first sentence: "Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Design Review Board, Fire Department, and Crime Prevention Bureau shall review, and be approved by Community Development, all public trail entrances,..." Condition 15 - amend first sentence: "Prior to issuance of grading permits, the design of the equestrian undercrossing shall be reviewed by the Departments of Community Services, Public Works and the Police Department, and approved by Community Development." Condition 16 - amend first sentence: "Prior to issuance of any building permits, fencing plans shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board, Department of Community Development and Crime Prevention Bureau, and approved by Community Development to assure conformance with the following:" Condition 19 - add a note to the condition that the median does not run the full length of Serrano. Condition 27 - delete the word "landscaped". Condition 37 - retain condition as written. Page 6, statement regarding Conditions 44 through 48 - change the word Division to Engineer. Condition 46 - retain condition as written. Page 6, statement regarding Conditions 49 through 57 - add the following wording to the beginning of the sentence: "Unless otherwise specified, completion of Conditions 49 through 57 shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Department of Community Services:" Condition 53 - retain condition as written. Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1991 - Page 11 Add Condition 72 - to work with the applicant to eliminate driveways and redesign cul de sacs. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to recommend to the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 14359 with the 72 conditions of approval as discussed and revised. AYES: Commissioners Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Commissioners Bosch and Cathcart returned to the meeting. IN RE: OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Murphy inquired about the development of a short, instructional pamphlet to be made available to the audience. When can the Commission see a first draft of this? Commissioner Scott was going to give staff a copy of one he had and he will do so quickly. It is on staff's list of things to do. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED sld