Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-1990 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange August 20, 1990 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, 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; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 1990 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Minutes of August 6, 1990 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING ZONE CHANGE 1128-90 - 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. This item has been continued from the July 16, 1990 public hearing.) Commissioner Bosch announced he must abstain from voting due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Godlewski presented the new material received during the last week in order to make the documents current with all the considerations that have discussed. For the record, Chairman Master stated they have received three letters from Mr. Yeager (8/14/90); Maybury Ranch group (8/16/90); and another from the Maybury Ranch group (8/17/90) . Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 2 Specific Plan Dated August 10, 1990 - insert pages Page 17, discussion on the park. In the Development Agreement it discusses the applicant providing a park site or $1,500 per dwelling unit (contribution towards the park site) . The applicant is now proposing that he will provide a f our acre park site. The park is also discussed on Pages 40, 41, and 65. It requires that the developer will provide a four acre park site and it will be graded. He will provide $450,000 towards the improvement of the park. There is a question as to the wording and intent of the developer Page 65) to provide $450,000 and the graded park site because it was not clear. Staff's opinion was that the 450,000 was reasonable and a park could be developed for that amount. This would be an annual adjustment. The dollar amount is being established at the time of the Planning Commission hearing. If not developed for two years, then the fees and dollar amount would increase as an escalating cost. Exhibit 13, (after Page 27) is enlarged from that which is in the Specific Plan. There is note that states a large scale copy of the exhibit is on file with the Department. Exhibit 21, (after Page 37) same additional note -- large scale copy on file. Exhibit 22, (after Page 43) -- large scale copy on file. Exhibit 23, (immediately follows) with the same note added. Exhibit 28, revised copy was handed out this evening. Commissioner Scott thought the wording on Page 54 should be changed to read "the developer will pay" instead of owner-developer (for the traffic signal) . Page 60 (listed as Page 59 on the insert) -- an additional sentence was added to #1 at the request of the Public Works Department. Page 65 -- language about the parks (previously discussed) . Exhibit 32, which is a larger scale plan with the same note. Exhibit 33, same note. Exhibit 34, is a larger scale map and there are also some note changes, which includes clarification on the trail system. Page 67 (insert Page 66) discusses the provisions of the park . Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 3 Page 68 (insert Page 67) paragraph above Section 4.7.2 proposed to be added to expand what is currently in the Specific Plan. It discusses the trail system. Some statements in the conditions also tie back to this. Commissioner Scott commented he had a note on Page 68 insert) regarding the trails being 16 feet wide. Staff thought 16 feet was the County's standard for trails (or the underpass) . A notation was made for staff to research this item. On the same responsibility Plan document) responsibility determined pri the project. page, under Section 4.7.3 -- maintenance which appears on Page 69 of the Specific a line has been inserted: The maintenance for the on-site trail system shall be r to approval of the first final tract map on Chairman Master referred to Page 71 (insert) -- fees. Dollar amounts should be deleted. In the conditions, staff deleted all dollar amounts. The dollar amounts are specified in the Development Agreement and what's in the Specific Plan today is actually affected by the E&R. Upon adoption, if two years f rom now they decide to bu ild, the fees would be two years different from adoption. Exhibit 37 shows the conceptual landscape plan. It also represents comments made by the Police Department in terms of Neigh t of the walls. The walls have been changed to 6 feet and are non-climbable. Page 78 (insert) -- landscape buffer along Serrano Avenue. Page 92 (insert) -- deletion of provision for no pink or blue homes in the development. Page 93 (insert) -- individual residential lots shall be located at the top of the slope. Page 94 (insert) -- last statement #24 has been changed and is listed as #23. New wording added: "If the Director determines that the request is not consistent with the Specific Plan, then he shall refer the request to the Planning Commission." At the bottom of the page, the last paragraph, a change is suggested that a typical site plan showing the more difficult lots would be presented. The difference being at the tentative tract stage the applicant does not feel i~ is necessary to provide the actual location of every house on every pad throughout the entire tract, but rather pick a few areas where it may be difficult and detail those areas. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 4 Page 96 -- above letter b. a sentence was added. It changes the sense of processing. It's more specific in saying that locations shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits, and shall be subject to appeal or review by the Planning Commission as set forth in the Orange Municipal Code. The statement ties the development to building permits. An appeal could be made by the developer if he didn't like the decision of the Community Development Director. Exhibit 39 -- in addition to the note that a larger scale drawing is on file, a change was made about the discussion of downslopes. There is a condition that there be no downslopes on any individual parcel; that the lot lines occur at the top of the slope. Exhibit 40 -- the new plan shows there are no lot lines cutting through the middle of a slope. Exhibit 40A -- same as Exhibit 40. Page 105 (insert) refers to the one story homes and the length of the driveways. This is also referenced in some of the conditions. It's the applicant's proposal that approximately 20~ of the homes within the area shall be one story. Their concern is that they cannot build a one story home without a short driveway. They would like a C.U.P. process so that in order to get a short driveway, they have to have a C.U.P. approved by the Planning Commission at the time the tract map is submitted. The surrounding communities want to see one story homes. There is another condition from the Traffic Division that states there shall be no short driveways; the minimum driveway will be 20 feet. Conditions An added condition is proposed in the general conditions section. Staff is proposing that a condition similar to what was placed on the Tracy Development be included in relation to the electromagnetic fields that could be present with the Edison easements and Edison right-of-way. The condition was marginally discussed in the study sessions and was never specifically discussed, but staff felt it appropriate to add this condition. The Commissioners concurred. Condition 29 - private streets. The developer requested additional language be included that says unless mutually agreed upon by the developer and the Director of Public Works. It's anticipated there may be areas where the street standards would need to be modified. It would include both structural and width modifications. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 5 Commissioner Scott felt more comfortable limiting the modifications to street width. Conditions 42 and 97 - the Traffic Division felt these two conditions should be tied together in some manner. They can be combined; street lights and type of standards. Condition 44b - changes Exhibit B to Exhibit A - construction of the entire length of Serrano. Condition 50 - "The developer shall design and construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Loma Street and Serrano to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer..." conflicts with mitigation measure 4.7.3 #4 and is in conflict with Page 54 in the Specific Plan. The wording in question is "proportionate share". It needs to be discussed further. Page 10 of the conditions, after Condition 59, staff is proposing to add another condition that was discussed in the study sessions concerning dust control. "Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall establish a 24-hour emergency hot line to facilitate immediate response to problems that may occur at any time, including night time, weekends and holidays" (in relation to the grading conditions). Condition 64 - the developer was concerned with this condition. It required an edge treatment plan to be submitted to the County and approved by the County prior to the City's review and approval by the D.R.B. It is the developer's concern that the County will review and make comments on it, but whether or not they approve it (or if they should deny it) , the developer feels they should still be able to go forward through the City and have the City be the final determiner in the plan. This is an identical condition that was placed on Tracy. Condition 72 (under trails) - the County standard has been written. The developer suggests that wording be added: "or as mutually agreed upon by the developer and the Director of Community Development." Condition 98 - conflicts with the statement of short driveways. The Commission needs to discuss this further. The condition conflicts with the developer's ability to request a C.U.P. for short driveways. The condition needs to be amended to say "unless approved by C.U.P.", or the short driveway issue would have to be resolved in the Specific Plan. A letter was received from the City of Anaheim, dated July 10, 1990, where they have requested certain modifications and conditions. Staff has not responded to Anaheim's request. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 6 Mitigation Measures Page 4 - traffic and circulation - 4.7.3 -- there was a hand out that included six additional conditions (#8-#13): Condition 8 - widen Santiago Canyon Road, west of Santiago Creek. It's shown to be a F.A.U. project. Condition 9 - restripe Katella Avenue easterly of the Newport Freeway to a modified major with six thru lanes. Condition 10 - widen Loma Street, south of Taft Avenue to arterial highway standards. Condition 11 - add a third eastbound lane on Katella Avenue at the Newport Freeway northbound ramp. Condition 12 - add a third eastbound thru lane and a second westbound left turn lane on Katella Avenue at the Newport Freeway southbound ramps. Condition 13 - add a second eastbound left turn lane on Santiago Canyon Road at Loma Street in addition to the arterial improvements. Chairman Master asked if the applicant has received a copy of the suggested conditions and mitigation measures? The applicant has received everything but the conditions. Staff stated they were recommended in the Environmental Impact Report as mitigation measures. The conditions are included as transportation improvement projects. They are funded ou t of a separate source. They are covered by the TSIP program, of which the developer will participate. Conditions #8-#13 should not be included in this proposal. Item 4 under traffic talks about the proportionate share or whatever is determined in relation to the signal at Serrano and Loma. Mr. Godlewski said the procedure to be used has been outlined in the memorandum to the Commission dated August 17, 1990. The public hearing has not been officially closed. Commissioner Scott wanted staff to explain what a Specific Plan is meant to be. Mr. Godlewski responded a Specific Plan is a method that cities can use that is authorized by state code to address unique development areas. This can include developments that are as large as Serrano Heights and the Irvine Company, or as small as five or six lots that abut a special problem Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 7 i.e., a railroad track). The statutory requirements were cited from the state law, of which certain mandates that a Specific Plan include. What is necessary to be included in the Plan is a text and a diagram(s) which specify a list of criteria in detail. In terms of requiring specific grading of individual tracts, that is not required by a Specific P1 an. Chairman Master stated the purpose of the Specific Plan explanation was that in their study sessions there was concern about the lack of specific lot layouts, slopes, length of driveways, etc. At this level, they are not looking at that level of detail. "Specific° does not relate to detailed plans. Numerous communication has been received from the public, the developer has supplied them with a lot of data. It was suggested they not re-hash material already presented. New comments/input were welcomed. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Frank Elf end, Elf end & Associates, 4675 MacArthur Court, Newport Beach, had very few comments to make. There has been three study sessions and they tried to provide the Commission with the information requested. Two comments relate to the conditions of approval. Condition 50 - signal at Loma and Serrano. They indicated to staff that they attended a public hearing on the Parkridge project, which took place before the City Council. They obtained a copy of those Minutes which indicated that there was a discussion of this issue, bu t not in the detail that would necessarily indicate that the project has a requirement to participate in a signal at that location. A fair share responsibility for the Loma/Serrano signal is related to that particular discussion at that City Council meeting. The second comment is about the shortened driveways. When they began the project, some of the input received from the community was the concern about having one story units. There is no requirement per existing code, which stipulates there has to be one story units. In Development Area 7, in order to provide that one story unit, they would like to consider smaller driveways. It's approximately 20~ of driveways. The width of the lots in the area are 60 feet wide, which they thought would permit a shortened driveway. They are asking that Condition 98 to be slightly amended to provide that ability to come back through a C.U.P. process. Public Input Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, reiterated this project is six years old. He does not object to apartments and condos on the side of the hill. A Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 8 traffic study was conducted two years ago as part of the General Plan Update. By the year 2010 the Eastern Corridor should be in place. There has been no basic change in the circulation pattern in the East Orange area with a couple of minor exceptions. Santiago Canyon Road needs to be widened and needs realignment. It will probably take another five years before the County can make those improvements. They don't like development, but they're realistic enough to know there's going to be a development there and they've done what they could to make it the least offensive. They are discussing the lighting issue on Santiago Road. This proposal is not a secret; they don't like it, but they can live with it. Gerard Fane, 6607 East Yosemite, May bury Ranch, has attended the study sessions and they were a repetition of what has happened tonight -- a great deal of paper shuffling. The underlying issues were not discussed. Because of the nature of the study sessions, public input was restricted. He feels the Commission has not heard from the public. He pointed out mitigation measure 4.4.3 (2) and (5) states that there are yet to be done the 1603 process with the State of California. It seems to him if the State of California is going to look at this and may insist on greater mitigation than the City of Orange is going to ask for, he feels things are being rushed. This body would be remiss if it said they were going to approve the draft E.I.R. and Specific Plan; then another agency, which has authority, would require greater mitigation measures. He did not find where the draft E.I.R. satisfied C.E.Q.A.'s requirements. The endangered habitat and species have been ignored. Is this going to be ignored or dismissed? Greg Grubba, 845 Jacaranda, Anaheim Hills, asked for letters from Mr. Elf end of people he rented to. He was provided with letters from 1984 and 1985. Carl Kritcheger, 6455 Oakview Lane, Anaheim Hills, commented on the electromagnetic fields. He is a registered electrical engineer and had been involved in the transmission distribution area for the last 20 years. He shared the August, 1990 edition of their monthly magazine regarding a special report on 60 Cycle and the Human Body. In the July 30 edition of Time Magazine there was in the technology section an article on the hidden hazards of the air waves and transmission lines. He encouraged the Commission to read this article. There are detrimental effects from living in the area of the Edison corridor. The public needs to have a broader range of understanding of the health hazards. He thought it was incumbent of the Commission to protect the people currently living in the area and to make sure there are specific words with respect Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 9 to the monitoring of the grading that will occur in the area of the Anaheim Hills area. A geological study was needed on the effects of the homes that are closest to the grading. Chairman Master made a couple of comments regarding the electromagnetic issues. It's a real concern to the Commission. There's yet to be an absolute correlation. The jury is still out. Paul Singer, City of Anaheim, Traffic & Transportation Engineer, 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, addressed the issue of the traffic signal that should be required of the developer. This is part of the Anaheim Hills Development Plan. The accumulative traffic should be considered as part of the requirement for the traffic signal at Serrano Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road. The traffic will need to be mitigated through the use of a pedestrian crossing at the school. The City of Anaheim urges the condition be amended to require that a traffic signal be installed at the cost of the developer at the intersection of Serrano Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road; and that the signal be actuated for pedestrians so that the children can cross the street safely, and be interconnected to the TMC at the City of Anaheim. The other traffic signal he addressed is the 25$ participation for ambient traffic at the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and Meats Avenue. He urged the Commission to include that as part of the condition of development. Commissioner Scott asked if Anaheim had a TSIP fee program for development? (Yes they do. ) Has any money been collected for the participation of the signal at this location? (No.) Joe Pelka, P.O. Box 4453, Orange, represented Maybury Ranch Homeowners' Association. Orange ribbons were being worn by people in the audience opposing the project. A letter was submitted from him dated August 17, 1990 and was made a part of the record. His concerns covered some aspects of CEQA and brings out numerous problems where the present E.I.R. is not adequate. The City of Irvine is also dealing with the issue of power lines; however, they seem to be taking a more proactive stance in the area. He suggested staff contact Irvine to deal with this issue in a cooperative manner. He requested a 30 day continuation on this matter to iron things out. Lisa Lewis, 6216 East Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim Hills, submitted a letter earlier which also contained 386 signatures on a petition to modify the development to preserve the ridgeline bordering the City of Anaheim overlooking Twin Peak Circle, Coral Circle, Amber Lane, Lookout Lane and Camino Grande. She submitted an addendum to the petition of an additional 190 plus 105 signatures. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 10 People object to the destruction of the ridgeline. Their concerns are: grading - the entire ridgeline should be preserved; blasting of the ridgeline - unacceptable to blast in the area of the school or any portion of the ridgeline; water towers - does not preserve the ridgeline. They should be moved off the ridgeline into the development area. Aesthetics - houses will be visible from both cities, which will destroy the natural topography. They request the top level of houses be moved down 100 feet on the opposite side of the Anaheim Hills ridgeline. Traffic - the report is under estimated. Noise - construction noise a concern. Family life will be disrupted with the hours of construction. Construction hours should be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. All construction within the area of Anaheim Hills elementary school be performed outside of school hours. Dust - what will the dust level be after measures are taken to control it by the developer? They request no grading take place during Santa Ana wind conditions. Wind flow - the report is under estimated. Wind damage is experienced by many neighbors. By removing the ridgeline, the wind barrier will be removed that protects Anaheim Hills homeowners. Wildlife - inadequate reports which are open for debate. She urged the Commission to take a close look at the new ecological study and give it careful consideration. Trail systems - loss of the trail system, even for a short time, will be widely felt by all area residents. The proposed system is inadequate and will be much less than what they have now. They request a new traffic study be completed to adequately assess traffic generated by Serrano Heights, fully taking into account commuter traffic that will use Serrano as a short cut over the hills. They would also like the study to assess the impacts that would be created if the Eastern Transportation Corridor does not go through and Weir Canyon Road does not go through as slated at this point. No variances or conditional use permits should be granted from the City of Orange . Commissioner Scott stated City Council's policy regarding all future water towers will be suppressed down; they will not be sitting on top of the ridgeline. He asked if the trail systems currently being used were on public or private property? (Answer was not known.) Jim Wells, 6236 East Coral Circle, Anaheim Hills, thought by coming over the ridgeline, everyone would be neighbors. He felt it was more like, "Ready or not, here we come!" He realizes the Commission has a difficult task of balancing the developers to make a fair profit, which is their business, with the public's interest. The people on the other s ide of the r idgeline are woefully uninformed abou t the process of this development. People do not have enough information to give the kind of public response that is Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 11 needed. The project represents a drastic, permanent defiguration of the hills. He urged the Commission to defer action on this matter until such time the true consensus of the community is known. Art Utsler, Director of Planning Services, O.U.S.D., 370 North Glassell, was pleased to serve both communities. He has had many calls from parents in the City of Anaheim regarding this development. In the past, the District has supported the extension of Serrano. There have been a number of concerns stated to them primarily revolving around traffic issues and the standard nuisances relating to construction. They tend to support the City of Anaheim when they request assistance because of increased traffic. They believe increased traffic will occur because of the route through the hills. The District requests that the traffic studies be looked at closely, that care be taken to make sure the school remains safe, that students walking are in a safe position. They expect that there will be an adequate address to the questions of dust and noise. They ask that the developer, when he gets into something like dynamiting, actively coordinate with the school district as to time frames. Commissioner Scott asked if the school district had an opportunity to respond to the Draft E.I.R. during the reporting period? (He was not sure.) Juan Pablo Serrano Niemblas objects to this plan and the development of the ridgeline. The people have not been informed of the development's impacts. Santiago Canyon contains an active earthquake fault. Mara Brandman, 7319 Equitation Way, Orange Park Acres, felt she had to almost apologize for Orange Park Acres' active participation in the development of the community and County. She has been involved since the very beginning. They have paid particular attention to all points of this development and have not singled out the ones in Orange or the ones they can see (or are affected by) in Orange Park Acres. With the request they have asked of the developer and consultant (as noted in her letter to the Commission), they have been agreed to. Larry Larsen, 996 Ridgecrest Circle, Anaheim Hills, hopes everyone understands that they are dealing with the last major unspoiled ridgeline in the cities of Orange and Anaheim. He believes they are dealing with a major landmark. In his opinion, people do not try to destroy landmarks, but try to retain them. He opposes the project as submitted because the developer has not expressed a desire to protect the existing ridgeline. The type of buildings and the size of lots do not adapt to the top of the hills. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 12 Greg Lewis, 6216 East Twin Peak Circle, became aware of this project a couple of months ago before the last public hearing. There are 13 separate issues that need to be addressed. Before the Commission makes a decision, they must weigh the benefits of the project against the concerns of the people. He has not read mitigation measures for any of the issues until tonight. He requested Commission to defer their vote in order to find mitigation measures to as many of the issues as possible. The benefits also need to be spelled out. Chairman Master asked if he were aware of the open space element of this plan? (Yes.) Don't you think that is a benefit? Mr. Lewis thinks the open space issue is seen in the Southern California easement. Chairman Master feels there is a lot of misinformation coming from the residents of Anaheim. Commissioner Scott reiterated City Council has already made a decision that Serrano will go through. It's stipulated in the Development Agreement. Lori Engelmann, 6218 East Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim Hills, did not understand how it was ok for the Commission to throw out puns to the audience and yet shut the audience up, not allowing them to applaud or stand up for what they believe. Chairman Master has heard so many comments that are one sided. What respect does the audience have in clapping to delay the hearing until 1:00 a.m.? Puns are not meant to shut the audience up. Mr. Pelka commented about preserving the old buildings downtown and the Plaza. The hills are a part of the natural heritage which were made by God. The natural history should also be preserved. Rebuttal Mr. Elf end briefly went over the audience's comments. Some of the issues raised have already been addressed. Mr. Fain and Mr. Pelka both spoke of the biological concerns. He didn't respond because the City has on file a letter from the Pacific Southwest Biological Services. He responded to the 1603 permit process of the Department of Fish and Game. It is a ..ministerial action. In their dealings with them, it is unusual to submit their proposal until after they have received approval of the Specific Plan. The City of Orange consistent with the State C.E.Q.A. guidelines, solicited comments from the Department of Fish and Game and they were Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 13 very heavily involved during the General Plan Amendment. Changes were made at their request and this time around, comments were not made and that's a matter of public record. The endangered species and habitat, according to the State and Federal designations, there are none located on the property. Mr. Elf end responded to Mr. Grubba's request with said letters. The project has taken six years in dealing with people in both cities. The rest of the correspondence that came through to the City of Anaheim was put through by the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition. The next comment abou t electromagnetic fields was discussed. He met with David Zimmerman from Gramercy Park this last week. The approval of a Specific Plan document is a zoning document; the next level of detail will come through the tentative maps. Then there will be a grading plan. Grading on the Anaheim Hills side of the project will not be initiated until 1992/93 and not completed until 1995. Extensive geological studies are on file with the City of Orange. They would be happy to provide anyone with a copy to read. He responded to Mr. Singer by commenting a letter was sent to Ms. Chamberlain at the City of Orange, dated July 10, 1990, regarding the 25~ participation for the signal at Nohl Ranch Road and Serrano. This is a condition that was created by this letter. He believes they have spent a lot of time on this project and within the last 60 days, they have provided the Commission with additional information. A 30 day continuance is unwarranted. There are 476 acres of open space. Of that, 246 acres are in the easement for Southern California Edison. One hundred forty-eight acres will be part of Santiago Oaks Regional Park. He does not agree that they have exploited the resources. Significant preservation measures have been taken (i.e., Robbers Roost). They have spent more time with the City of Orange and the O.P.A. Trails Committee in terms of keeping those trails open. They have worked with a gentleman by the name of John Perry from O.U.S.D. who was supportive of this project. The developer has assured the District they will work closely with them in the control of dust and mitigating the noise. He understands there will be no blasting on this side of the hill anyway. They have done their best to work with community people to the extent that is reasonable through a variety of different notification procedures. They think this project represents something that is significantly better than was considered previously. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott commented on the lengthy presentation of both pro and con comments. It's a very sensitive issue for the citizens of both Orange and Anaheim. He felt they have gone over all the issues that can be addressed. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 14 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that they recommend to City Council that E.I.R. 1305 be certified in that it has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Commission has reviewed and considered the E.I.R. prior to taking action on the project. The Commission understands there will be specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible total mitigation of all environmental impacts. But they do find that the total project, including the assets, overrides the liabilities. The benefits derived from the project far exceed what they believe are the adverse impacts. The Commission also recommends adoption of the statement of overriding considerations and recommend the Council to adopt findings of facts as presented in the E.I.R. AYES: Commissioners Master, Scott NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Chairman Master though t the concern of the potential geological problems warrant some additional condition. There are conditions that require the applicant, during all phases of grading, geological work, has a licensed geotechnical consultant who's reviewing and making recommendations to them and advising any blast or grading work. He wanted to extend that analysis to the potential impact of the surrounding community because of the problems relating to the topography. Notifications shall be made to the school district or any other agency which could be impacted. Mr. Johnson stated special conditions pertaining to adjacent homes were included with the Crawford Canyon Road project because the location of the blasting had been established as to where it was going to be. The City Attorney's office is in the process of preparing a blasting ordinance, which will be in effect by the time this project is ready to begin. Mr. Elf end agrees to the City adding this condition; it is acceptable to them. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend the City Council approve Zone Change 1128 to reclassify property from the A-1 district and unzoned areas to the PC zone. AYES: Commissioners Master, Scott NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 15 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend the City Council approve the Serrano Heights Specific Plan subject to the list of conditions dated August 16, 1990 as modified by this motion. Condition 29 be amended to include street width only. Condition 42 and 97 be merged. Condition 44b be changed from Exhibit B to Exhibit A. Add a Condition 59a pertaining to dust control. Condition 64 - remove the word "approval" for the County E.M.A.. Condition 72 be amended to read "as approved by the Director of Development Services". Condition 98 - add that it will require a conditional use permit. AYES: Commissioners Master, Scott NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1130-90 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposal to pre-zone the unincorporated multiple-family and commercial properties located on Pearl Street, First Street, and 17751 to 17901 Chapman Avenue from the Orange County R-4 (Suburban-Residential) and C-1 Retail-Commercial) to the City of Orange R-2-6 (Residential Duplex District) and C-1 (Limited Business) . The proposal also includes the Pinewood Condominiums, located at 17901 East Chapman Avenue, which are presently zoned R-4 (Suburban Residential) and are proposed for rezone to the City of Orange R-3 (Residential Multiple Family District). This 14 acre unincorporated area was formerly known as the town of McPherson, and will be known as Annexation No. 383 for incorporation purposes. NOTE: This projected annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15319. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Those speaking in favor Rathyrn Shapiro, 3324 Casselle Avenue, Secretary and Co-Chairman, Citizens in Support of East Orange, said this has been a recommendation of two task forces that this property be annexed. Everyone is delighted. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott understood the City is making a pre-zone change. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 16 Mary Ann Chamberlain, Sr. Planner, Advanced Planning, said the protest hearing would be held by the City of Orange City Council. This proposal has already been to LAFCO. If less than 25~ of the homeowners do not protest, it will become part of the City. Approximately 95~ of the homeowners in the area have signed petitions to come into the City. They would also like to have our police services out there for the day workers. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that they recommend the City Council approve Pre-Zone Change 1130-90. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 4-90 - CITY OF ORANGE: An amendment to Chapters 17.80, 17.88 and 17.94 of the Orange Municipal Code, regarding the sale of beer and wine at locations which also offer the sale of motor fuels. The amendment also proposes criteria for use in evaluating future conditional use permit requests for such sales. 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. The public hearing was opened and closed. Chairman Master questioned the wording on Page 3 of the staff report, last paragraph -- underlined sentence Provided, however, that an approval by either the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission..." -- would the Planning Commission actually participate? Ms. Wolff responded generally no; however, if an application for a conditional use permit for concurrent sale of beer and wine would come in with another associated permit that the Planning Commission would review, then the Commission would also hear the associated C.U.P. request. Commissioner Bosch said this seems to be addressing several different types of potential sales of alcoholic beverages. One with regard to co-sales with motor vehicle fuel and another with regard to other commercial zones, particularly where there may be an impact on residential, churches, schools, hospitals, playgrounds, etc. It appears we are amending part of this to allow alcoholic beverage sales as a permitted use. But on the other hand, we've addressed in Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 17 the analysis requiring a C.U.P. to identify potential impacts on the uses previously mentioned. He wanted to be sure there is not a conflict in that there's a mechanism for assuring that there's no automatic requirement; that there's some minimal distance set aside to assure that we are protecting those uses. Ms. Wolff responded that the amendment does address several different sections of the alcoholic beverage regulations. One is to modify the regulations regarding off-sale of beer and wine in conjunction with motor fuel. Separate from that adding criteria based on distances and concentration for any type of C.U.P. requests for alcohol sales. Starting from the basis of City Council direction that they wanted to see all of the requests for alcoholic beverage sales with motor fuels, staff looked at the ordinances finding small inconsistencies and house-keeping errors that needed to be taken care of. They expanded it to do all of these kind of things. Also, in the course of their research they found some regulations from other cities that seem to lend some support to the kind of decisions that are being made here. Staff is suggesting criteria that the decision-making body consider the distance of the proposed sales from residential buildings, churches, schools and hospitals; however, they are not recommending in the text shown any specific distance. There are so many different variables that could be involved, they chose not to put that in. Commissioner Bosch appreciated that, but it appears though there are permitted districts whereby right, subject to approval of an alcohol license, sales would be allowed. Then, the C.U.P. appears to apply only with regard to sales in conjunction with motor fuel and only in that regard then the use controls relate to making the findings for C.U.P.'s. He would like to be sure they are applying this equally. In his personal opinion, they ought to have the C.U.P. review for potential impacts on these other critical community uses required for all potential sale of alcoholic beverages. Ms. Wolff said the way the code is written now, there is a C.U.P. requirement for the concurrent sale with motor fuels and also for any on-sale requirements. However, convenience marts or off-sale where there is no motor fuel sold on the premises, there is no requirement for a conditional use permit. Commissioner Bosch understands this and is objecting to it. He would like to amend this to include that. He's not against the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages, bu t it appears to him that the potential impacts of sales at a convenience market on an adjacent school is as easily accessible and we're not equally applying control in this regard. He would like to see the ordinance rewritten to include all beer and wine establishments to make it equally applicable. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 18 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to direct staff to rewrite Ordinance Amendment 4-90 and bring it back to the Commission for review on September 17, 1990. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEM DIRT HAULING REQUEST - ORANGE HOMES, INC.: A proposal to import approximately 225,000 cubic yards of fill to the Orange Homes site, located north of Walnut Avenue, west of Prospect Street, south of Collins and southwest of Santiago Creek. This item is to be heard by the Commission in accordance with a condition of approval of the original tentative tract map. There was no opposition and a staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Tom Grable, Orange Homes, 100 Pacific Coast, Suite 360, Irvine, requested this haul permit because in review of their site under present day conditions, they found they are 225,000 yards deficient in the 70 acres north of Walnut. They have moved 1.5 million yards of dirt. But due to factors beyond their control, they have arrived at a shortage. They have come across some buried concrete that their soils tests did not indicate the magnitude of to the figure of about 50,000 yards. Santiago Creek improvements - deficient abou t 60,000 yards as a result of building a smaller channel than originally proposed due to some new hydraulic reports that were generated by the Corps. of Engineers. They've also had an additional amount of shrinkage over and above anticipated of 100,000 yards. Their original calculation was between 5 and 10$ shrinkage; they arrived at between 10 and 15~ shrinkage due to the higher levels of clay and silty type materials. The fourth item is trash and debris that has surfaced to the amount of 10,000 cubic yards. They are proposing to haul the dirt from the 55 Freeway to the site. This would be during the hours of 9-4 so that they will avoid the peak hours on Chapman Avenue. They realize this is a haul route currently. They have filled the largest pit, streets are cut and pads are certified on the single family portion. The pit has settled and they have achieved over 90~ compaction. They gladly accept more removal of substandard material and greater shrinkage, which necessitates the need to import f ill material all for the sake of safe levels of compaction on this difficult site. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 19 Commissioner Scott asked where they were getting their dirt? Mr. Grable said Yaeger Construction has approached them with the possibility of getting the dirt from the freeway extension. Commissioner Scott asked if the State puts an hour of operation restriction on them? As Mr. Grable recalls, the State does not restrict their hours. Chairman Master asked if this volume is their best estimate now for the entire site? Mr. Grable responded for the approved portion of the site, but not for the entire 105 acres. That has yet to be determined and they will be addressing that issue specifically when they submit a planning proposal for the southern 30 acres. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, would like the assurance of the Traffic Engineer because at 4 p.m. at Yorba and the Costa Mesa Freeway interchange, it's a mess. There's a lot of cars. The on-ramp signal, going towards Riverside, has several large trucks lined up to get on the Freeway; everyone will be fighting for that lane to get on the Freeway. Is there any way we can keep the trucks from platooning? Commissioner Scott asked if Mr. Bennyhoff saw Condition 2 in the staff report? (Yes.) He will talk to Bernie Dennis. Mr. Johnson thought the time frame would have to be fine tuned. The freeway interchange is one of the biggest factors and the trucks will be competing with other vehicles on the freeway. The applicant needs to understand that the hours could be adjusted on the basis of problems that are created. The hauler is concerned about a six hour day being difficult to adhere to as opposed to a seven hour day. The permit will be written as being subject to review. Chairman Master asked if there was a problem with the previous action on this item regarding the E.I.R.? Can it be amended without requiring a new E.I.R.? Ms. Wolff said there were a couple of mechanisms for expanding E.I.R.'s. One is an addendum to an E.I.R. for relatively minor changes. That does not require an additional notification or circulation period. Another method of amending an E.I.R. is through the supplemental E.I.R. process. That is for changes that are relatively minor -- more significant than through an addendum -- and it Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 1990 - Page 20 would require recirculation of the new parts of the E.I.R. The Commission needs to determine how significant this impact is. Mr. Grable said in their previous E.I.R. in addressing the traffic impacts, traffic studies tend to focus in on the peak hours. By avoiding those periods, they will minimize the impacts to those periods. Hopefully, they won't have to go through another process. Mr. Johnson did not think the City has been mandated to, by State statutes, require an E.I.R. for hauling. Other cities do not have that type of procedure. The Commission's recommendation would be heard by the City Council. Mr. Bennyhoff hopes the City will enforce the requirement of the hauling ordinance for the loads to be wet down or be covered. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to recommend the City Council approve the dirt hauling request of Orange Hills, Inc. per the listed conditions in the memorandum from Gary Johnson, City Engineer dated August 7, 1990. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Even though Chairman Master voted favorably, he had some concerns. He thinks it's a great development and is in favor of getting the development over with. He's just concerned about what they're doing. Traffic on Chapman is not getting lighter -- how do they handle it? It's going to be tough to do hauling under the hours of restriction. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to adjourn at 11:00 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED sld