Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-05-1990 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange September 5, 1990 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, 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; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Master welcomed newest Planning Commissioner Bill Cathcart. IN RE: MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 1990 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Minutes of August 20, 1990 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1860-90 - PETER BURTRAM: A proposal to allow a two story addition to a single family residence in the R-2-6, RCD zone on property located on the west side of Grand Street between Culver Avenue and LaVeta Avenue, addressed 414 South Grand Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303. This item was continued from the August 6, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting.) Part of the request is an Administrative Adjustment to permit a 10~ reduction in the building separation between the existing garage and the proposed addition. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. The applicant did not wish to make a presentation. The public hearing was Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 2 Chairman Master was concerned about doubling the size of the existing residence when construction is completed. He hopes at some later date it's not meant to become a second residence unit. He wanted the applicant to make a public commitment as to his intentions. Peter Burtram, 414 South Grand Street, said the purpose for the addition of his house is because he recently married and his family now consists of 6 children, he and his wife. The addition is bedrooms and baths to accommodate the family. There is no intention to have multiple residences. Commissioner Scott said the new addition does not exceed the existing height of the present building. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1860-90 subject to the conditions as listed. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1863-90 - CHIEN 5UN: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a dance floor with live entertainment within 500 feet of residential uses on property located on the south side of Katella Avenue between Cambridge Street and Shaffer Street, addressed 720 East Katella Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. The proposal is located on a site of approximately 34,000 square feet which has 50 parking spaces. The commercial building is approximately 9,450 square feet. The existing restaurant occupies nearly half of that building. This site is part of an integrated commercial center which consists of several parcels served by common access drives and parking areas. The proposal is to convert approximately 700 square feet of the existing restaurant to a dance floor. Both live and D.J. entertainment are proposed. Entertainment hours are proposed from 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., seven days per week. Currently the restaurant closes at 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 10:30 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Staff is recommending one condition of approval that the entertainment cease at 1:00 a.m. instead of 2:00 a.m. Several issues are related to this proposal. Parking, noise and security are all primary issues. In regard to parking, the restaurant Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 3 requires 48 parking stalls. The center is currently non-conforming with respect to parking in that only 50 are provided there. What is seen as somewhat of a mitigating function of this proposal is that with the intensification of use in the evening hours, there is less of a demand on the parking at that time of day. The use of a dance floor will not worsen the parking situation. Staff has considered several factors relating to the noise issue. The dance floor is located at the northeast corner of the building. There are no outdoor exits which open from the dance floor directly toward the residential areas. That should help to keep some of the noise impacts down. There is also an existing block wall on the southerly property line between the property and the residential district. The proposal is that the entertainment would end at 1:00 a.m. allowing time for people to filter out between 1 and 2, rather than having everyone spill out into the parking lot at one time. Staff has proposed the Crime Prevention Bureau to monitor this use, if approved, over a one year period looking specifically for increases in noise and complaints that are generated from the neighborhood by this use. If they notice a significant increase, then they would refer this back to the Commission. Commissioner Scott asked what the distance was from the south limit of the building to the residential area? Ms. Wolff responded the dance floor is 130 feet from the property line. Commissioner Bosch noted from the site plan, it was about 84 feet from the property line to the building. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Chien Sun, 720 East Katella, is providing a dance floor to entertain their customers and to increase their business. For the neighbors' peace and quiet at night, the access to the dance area will be facing towards Katella. They are catering their style of music to the 40-60 year age group and the type of music presented is the 40's through 60's era. Those speaking in favor Tom Newsome, 3814 Sycamore, Santa Ana, is the owner of the building, Chien Sun's landlord. The applicant has been renting this premise since 1984. There's a large room inside the restaurant that has not been utilized except for an occasional banquet; it's not part of the dining area. This would enable them to utilize that particular area much more efficiently. Adjacent to this shopping center is also a restaurant that has a dance floor. This permit does not Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 4 create an unique situation in this area. He has known Mr. Sun for the past six years and sees him on a daily basis. He's impressed with his sense of responsibility and knows he will operate this use to everyone's satisfaction. Those speaking in opposition Richard Fox, 643 East Hoover, (immediately behind the subject property) was bothered by the statement that the Crime Prevention Bureau will monitor this use. That puts a negative point on it to start with. They do not want a night club immediately adjacent to their properties. He was concerned about the parking area as cars will be coming and going, with car doors slamming and noisy people. He spends a lot of time in his backyard and does not want to have to go into his home and close the patio doors. He felt there would be an adverse effect on property values. Chairman Master asked if there has been a problem with Juana Maria or Ozzie's which has impacted property values? Mr. Fox is aware of the noise created by these establishments; it's not enjoyable. Mr. and Mrs. Anthony Mihalick, 515 East Hoover Avenue, behind Ozzie's) said the noise of the kids coming and going at Ozzie's keeps them up at night. They have called the police, but were told nothing could be done. They were able to quiet it down somewhat by calling the City Attorney, but it took over two months. The noise is still there but they have to accept it because they have been issued a permit. It's really bad living behind a place with a live band playing until 12 or 1 in the morning. Vic Iversen, 719 East Hoover, (behind Chien Sun) did not have a complaint against the people who run the restaurant; they're very nice. He eats dinner there many times. The block wall is only 6 feet high and it will not stop any noise coming in his house. Next to the restaurant there is a laundry mat. People drink beer while doing their laundry and listen to their car radios. There is crime and violence behind their house now; he objects to a live band. The shopping center is not made for it. Bill Miles, 623 East Hoover, (lives directly behind the health spa) happens to have a gazebo and spa in his backyard. There are very few evenings he can enjoy his spa in peace and quiet. He feels there is overkill now; there's too much traffic and noise. People throw all kinds of trash in their back yard. Doris and Jim Davis, 729 East Hoover, (directly behind the laundromat) gets the noise and traffic from the commercial Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 5 strip. Their grandson cannot play in the backyard because of the foul music. Her daughter's window cannot be kept open in the evenings because of the noise. It's an overcrowded shopping center. Judy Miles, 623 East Hoover, does not believe the band will cater to the 40-60 year olds. She's right in the middle and she's not about to party until 1 a.m. , seven nights a week. The younger crowds will listen to music until late at nigh t; the people who stay late are not the older ones. She does not think the applicants are being honest when they say they are catering to the 40-60 year old people. Rebuttal Mr. Sun's daughter translated that the dance floor is towards Katella and there is about 120 feet from all the residences. Their customers are high class and the music will be soft music. They will have people cleaning the parking lot every night and a security guard on the premises. Ozzie's does not have a security guard and they questioned why Ozzie's could have a dance floor and they couldn't. Chairman Master asked if they had read the conditions of approval? Mr. Sun read the conditions and agrees to them. They will stop entertainment at 1:00 a.m. Chairman Master could not respond to Ozzie's not being required to having a security guard or being allowed to have a dance floor. It's a situation where a problem has developed in the interim. They have a use of the facility which was granted to them. It's something to look at in terms of increased security surveillance. He would like staff to look into a more frequent review by the Police Department patrolling the area. Hopefully such presence will be a deterrent for the existing conditions. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott asked if the C.U.P. were granted to this location, would it be transferred to the next operator of the establishment? Ms. Wolff responded in the affirmative. A C.U.P. runs with the land and if the next business were operated substantially the same way, that permit would transfer. Commissioner Bosch noted the staff report indicates that there is a potential for adequate parking if this use were granted due to the early closing hours of adjacent Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 6 businesses. Yet, the Commission has heard that several businesses are open late into the evening hours. That seems to indicate problems with parking, which the neighbors have experienced. He appreciates the applicant's good business sense and the excellent reputation of his facility and desire to increase profitability through utilization of the banquet room. But he does not feel it is appropriate because of the lack of parking. He's concerned about the proximity to residences. In his opinion, the findings necessary for approval of a conditional use permit are not present. Impacts upon the neighbors cannot be mitigated and it's not an essential use for the neighborhood given there are other commercial zones in the City where the use could be accommodated without negative impacts. It appears to violate sound principles of land use and it would be an additional detriment to the neighborhood it is in. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to deny Conditional Use Permit 1863-90 based upon the facts that the services requested are not adequately serving the community, sound principles of land use would dictate a separation of the requested use from single family residential, there would be an added detriment to the neighbors, and the parking is inadequate given the mixed use and operational hours of the development. Staff was requested to coordinate with the Police Department for more frequent review and mitigation of existing negative conditions in the shopping center area. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Scott commented he has heard favorable responses as far as the restaurant is concerned. This is not a detriment to the way the restaurant is operated; it's just the proximity of the single family residences. Commissioner Bosch stated Chien Sun has a great reputation and a great product and hopes they will continue and succeed with it; it's just an unfortunate location for the requested use. Ms. Wolff pointed out the Commission's decision is final unless appealed. There is a 15 day appeal period during which anyone could appeal the decision to the City Council. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-90, ZONE CHANGE 1129-90 - JAMES SCHULZE: A request for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the project site from low density Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 7 residential (2-6 units per acre) to medium density residential (15-24 units per acre), and a Zone Change application to allow a change in zoning classification from R-1-6 (Single Family Residential, Minimum Lot Size 6,000 square feet) to R-3 (Residential Multiple Family). Subject property is located on the north side of Walnut Avenue between Tustin Street and Lincoln Street, addressed 1515, 1527, and 1541 East Walnut Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1357-90 has been prepared for this project. Commissioner Scott was excused from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. The project site consists of three adjacent lots, each with frontage on Walnut Street. The project is located in a somewhat transitional area. R-1 single family zoning is located to the north and shares a common property line with these parcels. A R-1 P.U.D. is located to the south across Walnut. To the immediate west are two duplexes in the R-2-6A zone (single story overlay) and commercial zoning is adjacent to the east. The gross acreage of the project site is approximately 64,000 square feet. Each of the individual lots are just under 1/2 acre. Located on the property now at 1515 East Walnut is a single family residence. At 1527 and 1541 East Walnut, each contain a 9-unit single story apartment building. The existing 9-unit apartment complexes do not conform with the current General Plan or zoning standards with respect to parking. They are, however, legally permitted structures because they obtained building permits in 1962. No development is proposed with this application. The Commission would be looking at the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Change, which would be the appropriateness of the density and intensity of use on the site. However, if the application were to be approved, up to 11 units per lot could be developed. This would amount to a potential 11 unit project at 1515 and up to two additional units per lot on each of the lots, 1527 and 1541. A site plan has been provided to the Commission for illustrative purposes only. It shows a potential site plan for a 9-unit project on the 1515 site and this project, as drawn, complies with all the requirements of the R-3 zone. If the proposed Zone Change and General Plan Amendment were to be approved, such a site plan and development proposal could be considered as an administerial project, which means it could be developed without requiring Planning Commission review or a public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 8 Tom Williams, c/o 1247 North Glassell Street #1, is the co-owner and co-applicant of this application. He is a resident of Orange and has taken several things into consideration before purchasing this land. He's very aware of Orange's community and desires to have a nice project. To the north of the project, there are two 9-unit buildings that are existing. To-the west, there is also multi-f amily units. Walnut is to the south of the project. His property does abut to residential properties. All three lots are being submitted for consideration. He tried to develop a nice, upscaled project with tiled roofs, attached and enclosed 2-car garages, fireplaces. The only entrance and exit is from Walnut. He has talked to his neighbors about this proposal. The final design is a result of his conversations with them. In addition, the multi-f amily units that are to the west of the project was occupied by an owner. He was concerned with his living so he moved a trash enclosure from the rear to the front, with a fence and bermed up landscaped area. He created a greenbelt back in that area where there are no buildings and created a single story unit which partially goes along the back. Single family residences could be built with a rear yard setback of 20 feet and 2 story without any problem. That would definitely take away the privacy of the neighbors, which was a big consideration when designing this project. He has designed a project in the R-3 zone, the setback is now pushed for a 2-story building to be 70 feet to the nearest single family residences. On one building it is pushed forward to 84 feet and 76 feet on the other side.. He has talked to the neighbors and had positive feedback from them, with the exception of one. He was surprised by the negative feedback (he only found out about it before the meeting) . Chairman Master asked if the applicant was aware of a petition that has been submitted? Mr. Williams had just been told prior to the meeting about it. He was disappointed no one contacted him to mitigate the people's concerns. Those speaking in opposition Ernie Glasco, 363 North Lincoln, (lives in between Walnut and Palm) was concerned about people using Lincoln as an access as a short cut between Collins and Chapman. With additional units, traffic will increase. He use to live behind a multi-family area. It started out as a nice neighborhood, but it wound up deteriorating causing the entire neighborhood to deteriorate. It is a nice area with single f amily residences. You would just be adding more traffic and more congestion to a street that can't handle it right now. He feels it's not the place to put a 2-story unit. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 9 Don Kempf, 435 North Lincoln, sees the problem as a zone change; a change in commitment. The City establishes certain zoning. People who buy into the area expect it to be about the same density from year to year. It's increasing the density about a factor of four. Does this zone change benefit the City in any way? He hopes the people have bought the property for a residence rather than as an additional profit-making operation. Chairman Master responded there were pluses and minuses. It provides additional housing, which there is a need for. The City tries to provide a range of h ousing for a full spectrum of income levels. In addition, there is some tax generated from it. Thelma Darrow, 445 North Lincoln, said between Palm and Walnut it has become a race track because people want to get off of Tustin. Thirty-two years ago there were 32,000 people in Orange. How many do we have now? (105,000+ population.) She felt it was getting worse and wondered why all the heavy density. There isn't any more green space or lawns. Can't Orange keep some low density? Michael Green, 1517 East Orange Grove, said his property will not touch the development, but he's across the street. Being across the street, he's concerned about looking out and seeing a 2-story unit in what is now all 1-story units. They moved from a condo development in the southern part of Orange County and specifically looked for a single family neighborhood. They wanted to get away from the density, parking and noise associated with the higher density units. He's concerned about a few years from now if it were zoned R-3, that higher density units would be built in the existing units. The plans could be revised to higher density units. Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, said Walnut is packed at 4:00 p.m. because of the students from the local schools. Walnut cannot handle the traffic now. Eddie Albright, 642 North Glenrose, said on the Master Plan Walnut is going to be connected to Spring Street on the other side of the creek, which is going to make Walnut possibly a 4-lane road. He wanted the Commission to take that into consideration. Terry B r edehof t, anything about a taking the time to had a couple of heavily impacted. buildings and he development behind 1512 East Orange Grove, didn't know petition. He appreciated Mr. Williams talk to him about the proposed plans. He concerns since their property is the most The surrounding area is all single story would be concerned about any second story them. They have a swimming pool in their Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 10 back yard which is about four feet from the fence. Anything back there would be looking at them. He was also concerned about the zone change for the adjacent lots. If they decide to rebuild them and if 2-story buildings were put up, all lots would have 2-story buildings. It would not be appropriate. The parking situation is also a concern. There is not enough parking there as it is. He wondered if enough consideration had been given to the parking situation. Venola Redwine, 581 North Lincoln, (corner of Orange Grove and Lincoln), has been a resident of Orange for 55 years. When they built their home 35 years ago, it was a quiet, beautiful neighborhood in the middle of an orange grove. She feels it would be a detriment for them, the children and college people. She urged the Commission to reconsider having all this traffic in their area. Rebuttal Mr. Williams addressed the two major concerns of traffic and density. Traffic is horrendous no matter where you go. He's not sure his project would create any more problems than already exists. He understands the concerns of the people. All he can do is relate to the staff report on the traffic condition. In the Negative Declaration it says that there would be no significant increase in traffic or problems because of that. Everyone is frustrated with the traffic situation. There are some problems, but those are issues that will be taken up with the proper people. He went on record to say that he proposes 9 units. He has no inclination to build 11. He will put a deed restriction, if approved, on his property for 9 units. He would also put a deed restriction on the other two properties for 9 units, if allowed. They want the other two parcels to be brought in line to what is already there and his parcel to be placed in the highest and best use for himself and the community. He feels he has mitigated the concerns of Mr. Bredehoft by moving his buildings 86 feet away from the property line in order to maintain some privacy. He also told them he would plant mature trees across that area. The parking concerns have been taken care of with the proposed project. He has to have more than ample parking on the property to take care of that situation. There will not be any off-site parking. There is overflow parking on Walnut, but it is not from the other two 9-unit buildings. It's from the commercial strip, which Lincoln directly backs up to. One lady was concerned about the transition from Walnut and lives down by Shaffer, which is at least 1/2 mile. The traffic on Walnut is going to be there no matter what he does. He does not take this project lightly; he will be around and will try to meet the community's needs the best he can. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 11 Mrs. Braden, 1515 East Walnut, property. She didn't know her and hated to see her go. Sl It's hard to give it up, but her. She can't take care of it is giving it up. The public hearing was closed. is the current owner of the neighbors loved her so much ze has lived there 43 years. it's becoming a hardship to any more and that's why she Commissioner Bosch was concerned with a number of things with regard to the proposal. There is a jump not just from R-1-6 single family to the lowest form of multiple family, but to medium density rather than low-medium density. The problem he has is the exact opposite interpretation of the impacts the applicant has presented. The illustrative site plan was very well done to meet the development standards of the City and get the nine units on the site. It demonstrates the difficulty of even reaching 11, which illustrates to him that allowing that height of density given the configuration of the lots, the depth, the relationship to single family and the narrow frontage, demonstrates that the requested density is too high. It's very dense. There is no usable open space. The green belt represented on the illustrative plan is about as much land as can be accumulated on the side. It boils down to a 30x35 foot area and the green belt is essentially a raceway along the single family residential property lines to the back. The tenants may be good neighbors and it may fulfill some housing need, which may be filled elsewhere in the community, but it isn't a single family put up against it. He personally would rather have a second story window in a single family home five feet from his property line than having 9-11 f amilies utilizing that narrow space because it's the only outdoor living space on the land. Again, in meeting the standards because of the shape of the lot, there is a parking problem built in because of the narrow frontage. Meeting the parking on site means there is no available guest parking, no turn arounds, all pedestrian access to the units has to be via the driveway to get to the first and second floor units. Even though the code requirement is met, it's located so that it's not immediately easy for guests. Trash and transformers are out at the street. In his estimation it would have negative impacts on the neighbors. A low density, which would get it down to about 7 per lot maximum, would be worthwhile. Commissioner Cathcart into conformance when density really bothers ability to hold the change. He would like or lower. would hate they are him. He's density d to see the to see bringing properties in non-conformance. The concerned about the City's own and offering a R-3 zone density of 7 units per lot Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 12 Chairman Master shares the concern about the overall density. It's a high intense use, but with very little usable green space and/or parking space. Commissioner Bosch asked staff about the impacts of considering the low-medium density General Plan Amendment. Should the R-3 zoning be applicable there and retain the 7 units per acre maximum or should an alternative zoning be considered (i.e., R-2-6 type of zone)? Ms. Wolff said the low-medium density would be 6-15 units per acre. There are properties that are zoned R-3 with the low-medium density General Plan classification. They are consistent and would yield a less dense development with more open space. Another alternative might be a R-2 zoning Residential Duplex Zoning), which also allows one unit per 3,000 square feet. One additional control factor in the R-2 zoning is that a R-2 zone property which abuts single story development on three sides would require a conditional use permit for any 2-story development on that site. That would provide additional public review of any plans that come in to develop that property should they be proposed at two stories. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, that Negative Declaration 1357 has been appropriately prepared and the Commission recommends the City Council accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1357. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scott MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch thought there was a problem with the depth of the lots allowing reasonable and adequate development of R-1 on these parcels unless they were combined into a larger parcel of land. He thought the R-2, given the C.U.P. restriction of the development standards, would be something that could provide a supportable environment and give better protection to the surrounding neighbors and allow better site development for a livable environment on site. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment 3-90, reclassifying the properties in the application of the General Plan to low-medium density residential (6-15 dwelling units per acre) be approved, and recommend a Zone Change from R-1-6 to R-2 with the understanding that a conditional use permit would be required under current conditions for 2-story development on the site due to single family residences on three or more sides. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 13 AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scott MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Scott returned to the meeting. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS MODIFICATIONS TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 13841 AND 13842, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1738-88, VARIANCE 1855-88, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 88-19, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 861 - ORANGE HOMES, INC.: A request for modifications to the conditions of approval for the submittals noted above, to allow the single family portion of the project to be developed separately from the multi-family development. Subject property is a 70.8 acre parcel zoned R-3 (Residential, Multi-family), R-1-6 Residential, Single Family Minimum lot size 6,000 square feet), and R-0 (Recreational, Open Space) Districts, located west of Prospect Street, south of Collins Avenue, east of Santiago Creek, and north of Walnut Avenue. NOTE: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 861 was previously certified for this project. Commissioner Cathcart was excused from the meeting due to a conflict of interest as his firm is under contract with Watt Homes, the applicant. Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The proposal was approved last Fall by the Planning Commission and City Council. It involved two tentative tract maps, a zone change, a conditional use permit, a variance, and an administrative adjustment. Also, a supplemental E.I.R. was certified for the original approval that was done in 1980. The request is for 485 townhomes west side of Prospect) and 73 single family homes (east side of Prospect). The major site improvements included with the project is the new alignment for Prospect that will connect directly from Collins to Chapman. Walnut will be extended west of the new alignment and there will be improvements to the existing intersections with the existing Prospect Street. Bond will be extended from its present location to connect to the new alignment of Prospect. There will be a new bridge over the Santiago Creek. The creek bed will be realigned and widened as part of this project. There is a small, one acre park approved at the end of Walnut and a bike trail will go on the east side of the creek bed adjacent to the multi-family development. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 14 The applicant is requesting to separate the conditions of approval that were approved as one project so that the single family tract can start development as soon as possible. One of the reasons he is proposing this is that the rough grading has been completed for the single family tract. It has been found that additional dirt is needed to complete the multi-family tract. At the Planning Commission's last meeting they did approve a hauling permit to allow additional soils to be dumped on the multi-family site. That has been forwarded to the City Council for a final decision. The original project had 76 conditions of approval. If the proposal is approved, there would be 51 conditions of approval applied to the single family tract and 72 conditions applied to the multi-family tract. The major changes that would apply to the project, if approved, would be that Prospect Street would only be improved up to Walnut as part of the single family tract. Prospect, north of Walnut to the Collins curve, is not recommended to be completed as part of the single family tract and would be bonded. The single family tract would not include any of the creek improvements. It would only include improvements to Walnut and the existing Prospect Street. Planning Commission action does not include the zone change nor the supplemental E.I.R. that were approved and certified as part of the original project because zone changes are not conditioned. The project still includes all the mitigating measures included in the supplemental E.I.R. The variance and administrative adjustment apply to aspects of the single family tract and the conditional use permit would apply to the multi-family tract. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Tom Grable, Orange Homes, 100 Pacifica, Suite 360, Irvine, said Orange Homes is totally committed to the development of the entire project - both the townhomes and single family homes. Included with that is the alignment of Prospect and the creek improvements, along with the park. They concur with staff in their recommendation to go forward with the separation of the tracts with the improvements as proposed. Those improvements are attaching the alignment of Prospect between Spring and Walnut after construction to the single family tract and bonding for the remaining portion of the realignment from Walnut, over the Collins curve. They are proceeding with the processing of not only the single family tract, but the townhome tract as well. The reason to split the tracts is due to the processing involved with Santiago Creek. Santiago Creek only affects the townhome development due to the location of the flood plain. The single family tract is not affected by the flood plain. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 15 The process they are involved with now is working with the County of Orange and the Army Corps of Engineers. As part of that, they are processing a permit through California Department of Fish and Game. That can be a lengthier process than a final map process. For that reason, they ask that they be allowed to go ahead with the single family tract since they are to grade. Their pads have been certified and the single family plans have been approved by the City. They are ready to start building. They understand, with their proposal, the improvements to Prospect are fully guaranteed with the bond. The reason they are .not able to construct the portion around the curve is due to the creek. With the extension of the culverts beneath the curve in the creek, that is part of the permit process through the County. In working with the City of Orange staff, they've had many discussions on possibilities for addressing the alignment of Prospect and staff feels (and they concur) that this is the best proposal at this time. They are looking at about a three month lag time between the start of the single family tract and the townhome tract. They're not talking about a very lengthy period where they would be getting started on the remaining improvements to Prospect. Commissioner Scott understood the developer to say there would be a 3-month lag time between the single family and multiple-f amily, at which time he would go ahead and start with the extension of Prospect up to Collins. (That was their intentions.) Chairman Master assumed there was a time chart at the initiation of the project. Has that changed substantially and why (regarding the permit process)? Mr. Gable said it has. Their original time frame they were shooting to have a final map about the end of July or early August. They are a month behind schedule. The reason for the significant change is due to the effort involved in coordinating the permit process between the different agencies. They have gained concurrence from the Corps. and the County that their creek plans are substantially in conformance with the plans they have for the creek and now it's a matter of putting together a mitigation program for the vegetation in the creek and displacing it to another location. Those speaking in opposition Joseph DeCroix, 3724 East Carmen, said his greatest argument is with the City of Orange. Everyone has been rehashing this project for many years. There is one major factor -- too much traffic on old streets that change directions many Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 16 times following the existing borders of the Conrock properties. Everyone agreed on the existing plan and see no real reason for the City to change this development. How many times do we have to go over this? It was settled the last time. Watt Properties has told him they want to continue Prospect as agreed upon, but now it's the City that is holding this up. It's an excellent project and will be a great asset to their neighborhood and the City of Orange, but without the new Prospect continued as planned, the traffic situation will be unbearable. If the City does not like the change from four lanes to two at Bond, he suggested the signal be installed at Prospect and Bond to be set to a flashing stop until the creek portion is completed. If they could get better law enforcement on the Collins/Prospect corridor, there would be fewer problems. Enforcement has deteriorated to the point that it has become a 50 m.p.h. speed way. A three month leeway really isn't much and if they could be assured that something would happen, then the neighbors would not complain about separating the tracts. But they have little faith in what is promised down the line. Watt has been excellent to work with. It's a good project. They, however, need the Prospect alignment to alleviate the traffic problems in the neighborhood and to serve the people who are going to go in there. He has heard the Traffic Division will not agree with the developer to any connection without the creek bridge being in. Who will guarantee that it will only be three months? He doesn't understand the bonding process. How long would that commitment be? Chairman Master wondered if Mr. DeCroix has had a recent conversation with City staff regarding the traffic problems? Mr. DeCroix talked with Chris Carnes the other day, but has not discussed this with the Traffic Division. Mr. Grable told him Watt proposed doing two lanes all the way through. Instead of going from four lanes to two lanes at Bond, they would do half of the street and do the two lanes through so there wouldn't be any four to two-lane transition up there and the Traffic Division doesn't want to buy it. Eddie Albright, 642 North Glenrose, said it seems like every two years they are standing in front of the Commission until late at night. Everyone agrees on things, but then it is nipped away to divide everything up so the residents are not getting the whole picture of the density. A lot of things were promised to them, like the connection before the buildings were occupied. No one can guarantee three months. He would like to see the connection into Bond first before it gets done. Rebuttal Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 17 Mr. Grable talked to staff about numerous possibilities to alleviate the situation. Staff's main concern is the safety as it relates to that curve. Until there is the ability to widen the curve, staff is hesitant to create a situation where there is a thoroughfare coming into that curve until those safety measures are made. That is the reason the City came up with the bonding concept. By Orange Homes bonding for the improvements, they are absolutely guaranteed. If, for some reason, any developer did not do the certain improvements bonded for, the City could call in those bonds and the improvements would be done by the City. The barricading on Old Prospect just occurred to them at the meeting to possibly alleviate traffic impacting existing Prospect Street to the side of their project. It would steer traffic down to the ingress/egress point at Walnut. Therefore, traffic would naturally gravitate over to the improved section of Prospect and on down to Chapman. By their improving Prospect, between Spring and Walnut, traffic is shifted away from the existing Prospect Elementary School. He understands how the residents would have the feeling that agreements have not been upheld in the past because there have been so many proposals on the project. But fortunately they have an approved project by the City and they are going forward with the total project, including the townhome development. It's just a matter of them getting started. As far as the three month guarantee, with any permit process it is impossible for them to guarantee an exact number of months. It may be sooner than three months if they are able to get their clearances and the application process beginning in the next couple of weeks. Chairman Master asked if he could wait three months to proceed with the R-1 development, being the three months gives them a sufficient pad of time. Mr. Grable responded a project like this has substantial financial carry and he realizes it is not a City concern. Their intention is by acquiring a final map on the single family development, it would give them greater ability to obtain the financing necessary to do all of the infrastructure improvements. That three-month period is a significant amount of time when talking about financing. Mr. Johnson said the City is concerned about the curve of Collins/Prospect which is existing at the present time. That is the weak link in the circulation system. It was a four lane facility, striped that way for some years. The accident history became intolerable so in an effort to try to solve the problem, staff came up with a proposal that has reduced the safety hazard at that location. They're concerned that if there's a direct connection, which would make it easier to travel and give rise to higher speeds, that there would be the same problem instigating itself Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 18 unless those safety f acilities were put in as part of the overall connection of the road. He felt confident that if a time frame were given to the developer that would give him some time to accomplish the coordination with the Corps. and Fish and Game people, who seem to be the key players in the timing, that maybe something tied to the release of homes for occupancy might be acceptable to all concerned. Chairman Master said there was a liability issue as well that the City would incur if it were unsafe. Commissioner Bosch wanted some more information on the bridge construction or the new creek crossing construction that is in the permit process. What will occur with regard to the existing right-of-way with detours, schedules, and safety measures during that period? What time frame are they looking at for the real exposures during the whole construction phase? Mr. Johnson said the permit process is viewed as being a three month scenario. He thought the construction time of extending the culverts would not be time consuming; it's a matter of getting the permits. It's a matter of extending the facilities and keeping the road open as it exists and then adding to it in the method of barricades, signing, striping, and lighting. City staff will be working with the Water District to acquire some right-of-way that is needed for the additional safety improvements. Commissioner Bosch asked if the property acquisition would likely delay the completion of the improvement? What is the City's experience with bond carrier performance when default occurs? Mr. Johnson said if the developer defaulted, the bonding company would be asked to make the improvements -- the City's experience has been that probably you would be going to court. Fortunately, money builds roads. As long as there is value in the property to be developed, then some body picks up the pieces and completes the construction. The balance of the higher density property has value and someone would pick up the pieces to complete the improvements. From past experience work has been done, but not instantaneously. Commissioner Scott asked if the extension of Prospect has already been graded? Mr. Johnson replied yes, the road bed is in place. Chairman Master asked about the "Jones Ranch syndrome"? It had to do with a plan regarding much of the development ou t there with compromises that were made predicated that Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 19 Crawford Canyon would go through. Eventually the parcels were sold off leaving a small parcel called the Jones Ranch, which had the greatest, costliest infrastructure requirement. He was concerned about the linkage if the City proceeded with the R-1-6 development with the rest of the remaining project. He sees nothing that ties the successor to Orange Homes to being committed. He's not sure whether bonding is the way to do it either. A vehicle is needed to give them the linkage for the improvements. Commissioner Scott suggested before occupancy of the single family homes be issued, that Prospect will be completed. Chairman Master wanted to insist that the creek be finished in six months. The major issue of concern is the extension of Prospect as far as traffic circulation is concerned. The bonding of the Santiago Creek improvements, as well as the extension of Walnut and the park/bike trail could be bonded and tied into the multiple-family condo development. Mr. Johnson thought the creek as far as the length of improvements that are being proposed by the developer are being done to protect the new development that would be in Phase 2. Chairman Master asked if the creek improvement were necessary for the completion of Prospect in that area? Mr. Johnson responded only in the area of the inlet and outlet works of those culverts, which is part of the bonding. Commissioner Bosch felt more comfortable of tying occupancy permits in addition to the bonding. There's no absolu to guarantee that it helps a lot. He prefers to have the street in place, but understands the safety problems involved. Mr. Grable said with the placement of a condition tied into the occupancy of single family homes in relation to the creek permits would create undue hardship on their part. It's something they would not be in favor of. They would strongly encourage the Commission not to adopt that condition. Commissioner Bosch asked about other alternatives. They could go back as far as permit in hand to an occupancy permit. It would be a permit in hand rather than an occupancy permit. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 20 Mr. Grable explained the difficulty in doing that. It would not make sense on their part to begin any units that they suspected there was a chance they could not be occupied once completed. The City would be conditioning their tract to not begin construction until they had those permits in hand. That, also, would be a hardship for them. Their intention is to separate the tracts and go forward with building. They wouldn't be able to do that if that were the condition. Their lender would not allow them to do that. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott shared the concern of creating another Jones Ranch". It's a good project, but the main concern is getting the circulation. The representative of the developer h as indicated it would take approximately four months to get permits in hand. He didn't understand the hesitation to say it's an unjust requirement. Commissioner Bosch stated they have been asked to accept a catch 22". Anything they may do, other than the specific proposal, is a hardship on the developer. There's no solution that is amenable to everybody involved. The City needs some guarantees that the street improvement will go in, particularly only if the single family tract is all that happens for some period of time. The City needs something that guarantees that problems caused by the construction will be offset to allow the benefits to be shared by everyone. Mr. Grable asked for a continuance to work this out with staff to come up with a solution. Everyone concurred to a continuance as long as a workable solution could be addressed relating to the creek and the Prospect Street completion. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to continue the modifications to Tentative Tract Maps 13841 and 13842, Conditional Use Permit 1738-88, Variance 1855-88, Administrative Adjustment 88-19 and Environmental Impact Report 861 to the meeting of September 17, 1990. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Cathcart returned to the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 21 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4-90 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to delete LaVeta Avenue as a "Special Study Area", between Tustin Street and Cambridge Street. NOTE: A report and background material will be provided by the Department of Public Works, Traffic Division. Frank Page, Director of Public Works, reported in April and May, 1989 the Planning Commission and City Council were engaged in a series of public meetings and hearings on the General Plan Update which included the last amendment that occurred to the Circulation Element. This concluded about 18 months of study. The project team consisted of Cotton-Beland, Austin-Foust and others along with key members of staff. At that time Laura Stetson, project manager for Cotton-Beland indicated that the Land Use Element did not contain any broad sweeping changes in land use policy, bu t represented a reflection of land use trends that were presently happening and anticipated to continue to occur in the City of Orange. While the General Plan was meant to guide development in the City, it also established the circulation system that would support this development. The circulation system is closely tied to the Land Use Element. When a system is developed, which includes various linkages of arterial roads, and in the last Circulation Element update, a new concept was introduced of critical intersections that were enhanced and other methods to attempt to provide the capacity that would be needed to support the General Plan. David Kuan, who was the former City Transportation Engineer, pointed out back in November, 1988 there was a ballot measure called the "Citizens Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative" which contained a growth management plan. The County of Orange subsequently adopted a growth management plan that set a standard of Level of Service D for the circulation which would require developments that came in to mitigate to that level of service. When the City's Circulation Element was amended, under such a restriction, the Circulation Element was designed to provide for Level of Service D for build-out of both of the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element. The traffic consultant, Terry Austin, had indicated at the time the Traffic Circulation Element was in synchronization with all the pieces that were contained therein. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 22 In June staff was directed by the City Council to develop a short study in regard to the LaVeta Extension study street. In order to do this, the Traffic Division windowed out a small portion of the City traffic model, which represents the Circulation Element and a report was provided dated August 7, 1990, which is the data being provided to the Commission upon which to deliberate a decision on the General Plan Amendment. The report contains some ten street system alternative and five recommendations that were meant to be alternatives that would need to be considered if LaVeta was not extended between Tustin and Cambridge as a four lane road. One of the missing links in that report was the fact that while various alternative networks were called out, in the given time frame, they didn't have an opportunity to complete even the order of magnitude types of estimates of the costs, which have been subsequently completed. Public Works staff has used an estimate of a four lane arterial on LaVeta in that reach at two million dollars, and a two lane road at 1.2 million dollars. This does not represent the street that was probably considered in the development. This is a linkage in the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Staff is not talking about a companion development proposal and containment of the creek and any flood control facility, but simply the extension of a street and any culverts that might be required to cross the creek. Staff has attempted to develop these order of magnitude estimates which were included in their report. They tried to use very simple per linear foot engineer estimates for the improvement costs, utilizing strip maps and use of generic land use designation right-of-way costs for the purpose of showing some relationship. Bernie Dennis, Traffic Engineer, continued with the recommendations and alternatives presented in the report dated August 7, 1990. The report contains four elements. The first element is a resume of events leading to the consideration of the extension of LaVeta dealing primarily with the traffic models and traffic analysis that was done by Austin-Foust. The second element of the report deals with the validation of that information. The City Council directed that a validation study be conducted by an entirely independent traffic consultant to verify primarily Austin-Foust's assumptions, methodology and general conducting of the traffic analysis and study. The third element gives the Commission a very broad outline of what was involved in conducting the transportation model. The elements involved in running the computer model and in essence it is a tool. The tool is to simulate motorist behavior. In conjunction with that element, staff evaluated ten street system alternatives -- several involving improvements to the adjacent street system without the Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 23 extension of LaVeta Avenue as a four lane facility, but with the two lane facility as a two lane facility, or just straight improvements to the system. The fourth element dealt with certain findings that the Traffic Division felt that would be incumbent upon the City Council to make. One of the conclusions in the report was the Burnett-Ehline Development was not the principal factor necessitating the extension of LaVeta Avenue. But it, as a project site, afforded the last opportunity for an arterial connector between Chapman and Fairhaven. It's long been felt by the Traffic Division that without a connector within this reach, future conditions would dictate a large intrusion of through traffic in the residential neighborhoods. Their recommenda- tions stand regardless of whether this is a residential subdivision or in any type of development. The first recommendation was to require the extension of the roadway as a four lane facility along the alignment proposal of the developer and meet the Level of Service indicated by the General Plan and other agency requirements. The General Plan was developed to meet a specific level of service predicated on certain density assumptions, locations and levels. A four-lane LaVeta contributed to that balance occurring. Recommendation #2 was to require the extension of the road- way as a four lane facility along an alignment that would meet the appropriate level of service (LOS), but be less impacting to the adjacent residential development. what that recommendation involved is moving the street or the extension of LaVeta away from the alignment that was pro- posed by Burnett-Ehline to a more central Tocation within the Santiago Creek area, bringing the street at more of an angle to the rather narrow gap separating the Fairway Development and the Rosewood Development on each side. What this would do is remove the traffic away from the residential area, maximize the area in the narrow section of the site, and allow additional buffering to occur. The third finding was to select and refine one of the alternatives and conduct those public hearings necessary to accordingly amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan. This action would be enormously expensive and at least as controversial as that currently being considered. The fourth recommendation was to reduce the general or specific area development densities to a level that can be supported by the existing and proposed street system without the LaVeta Extension and amend the General Plan accordingly. In the context of the report, this is referred to as the long study. This study has a tendency to adjust both the primary densities. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 24 The fifth alternative was to approve a development plan for the site without a LaVeta Extension and attempt to address and mitigate street system problems as they occur or accept the consequences if mitigation is not achievable. The consequences are possible litigation from adjacent cities or denial of State funds by not meeting the Level of Service requirement (as it would be out of balance with the General Plan) . Mr. Page's belief is that the road needs to be retained on the Circulation Element perhaps as a study street. The public hearing was opened. Public Input Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, said Orange has fallen into a peculiar habit of fixing something when the time comes. He suggested the Commission recommend to the Council that they don't duck it; that they do one of several things. Some hard choices need to be made. The City will have to spend anywhere from five million to 30 million dollars on the streets or development in certain parts of the City will have to be curtailed. The City needs to lower their sights. on development and the General Plan. will have to be revised downward. Another problem that will be encountered is "congestion management". A series of meetings have been going on where the cities and County are trying to figure out how they're going to make it work. Ralph Masek, 2645 North Santiago, Santa Ana, President of Santiago Creek Homeowners Association, which represents approximately 350 homes directly adjacent to and surrounding the former Santiago Golf Course. They are strongly opposed to the LaVeta Extension. Over the past 10 years he has addressed the Commission many times in regard to development in the area. Last year the Commission voted for a negative Declaration because they were not convinced that the LaVeta Extension was warranted. Why can't we follow the recommendation from the Traffic Engineer #4 - reduce general and specific area development densities to a level that can be supported by the existing and proposed street system without the LaVeta Extension, and amend the General Plan accordingly. He strongly urged a negative vote on the LaVeta Extension and remove it from the General Plan as a study street. Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, President of C.A.R.E., said if you go down LaVeta and cross on Cambridge, it's another LaVeta Street. Why didn't the City of Orange plan for that street to hit Tustin? It was poor planning. No one on the Commission could live with a street in front and back of their residences. People have the right to live in their homes without a lot of noise. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 25 David Clements, 1521 East Fairway Drive, hopes the Commission will not support the extension of LaVeta. William Kuehl, 1429 East Fairway Drive, urged the Commission not to support the extension of LaVeta for three reasons. A lot of them have a vision of a greenbelt going all the way from the Irvine Dam to the Santa Ana River, which eventually leads to the beach. It can be used by bikers, joggers and pedestrians and would put Orange in the category of forward-thinking cities like Denver, Colorado and Seattle, Washington. Also, moving the traffic down to Cambridge will not solve the problem. Putting the traffic on LaVeta from Cambridge to Glassell - it's crowded there now during rush hour. So moving one problem to another area would not solve the problem on Tustin. Having a street in his front yard and back yard would lower the value of the houses along Fairway Drive. Michael Hennessey, 155 North Singingwood #32, spoke in opposition to the extension of LaVeta through the Santiago Creek area. He opposes the concept. The L.A. Times, August 27, 1990, printed an article regarding the park lands in Orange County. It said that Orange County was grossly deficient in park land; in fact, the article even cited the City of Orange as being deficient in park land. He's a member of the Santiago Creek Greenway Committee and they're working towards the goal of adding the old Santiago Creek golf course as park land for the City of Orange. The General Plan, when you read it, is full of references regarding the need to be environmentally sensitive to the Santiago Creek water way. It also mentions the need to be responsible in the amount of park land needed for the City of Orange. The City has taken great care, he believes, in making sure that adequate green space will be existent in the eastern portion of the City that is being developed right now. But still we're land locked in the developed part of the City. It's time to bite the bullet on this project in order to save one of the City's great natural resources. He asked the Commission to deny putting LaVeta through Santiago Creek. Howard DeCruyenaere, 1825 East Albion Avenue, Santa Ana, lives off of Cambridge on the other side of the Garden Grove Freeway). Hundreds of local residents and members of the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance have been working hard to save Santiago Creek and preserve this last large undeveloped open space in central Orange. They are working to have this area and the whole creek designated as a green way. That is a traffic free, linear corridor of open space following the natural course of Santiago Creek. There's a proposal before the Commission that a road, a highway, will be built over and through this beautiful area that they are working hard to preserve. He assured the Commission that Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 26 the 600 people who walked three miles through the creek and through the neighborhoods nearby on August 4 were protesting the Burnett-Ehline development plan and the extension of LaVeta. The community does not need a road going through the sensitive and narrow corridor. Santiago Creek provides many environmental, aesthetic, recreational and even financial benefits to the City of Orange. These values and benefits are going to be negatively impacted if a noisy and busy street goes through this property. Long-time residents near the creek and golf course have seen almost all of the open spaces disappear. They don't need (or want) another shopping center, crowded housing project and a four-lane street on this last remaining island of green. He urged to keep the Santiago Creek as a green way and as a natural and scenic open space to get away from the noise and fast pace of the City. The City needs traffic-free, me andering green belts and green ways where families can go to walk and ride bicycles without having to worry about being hit by a car. The Santiago Creek green way will benefit every resident in Orange. Ann Lawnsdale, 1124 Rosewood, (one house from the 22 condemned home s -- another problem). Orange has a great deal of charm and one of the reasons is we don't attract a lot of traffic to the City. She thinks LaVeta would attract that traffic and be totally against the City's best interests. She is in favor of enlarging Fairhaven for additional traffic in the future. It's a nearby road and it is already laid out for enlargement. It has less residential area. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Master thought they had an obligation to point out, if not a specific recommendation for or against the alternatives, at least to point out the problem areas that are already well presented in the report. They are hard choices. So much has been predicated on the circulation plan, which he has never felt comfortable with LaVeta. It wasn't on there as a firm through fare, but as a study street. There have been other developments that have been predicated on some circulation traffic route. It has not been addressed and has been put off until tomorrow to take care of the problem. He thinks tomorrow is today. Commissioner Cathcart has not been on the Commission long enough to listen to the public discussion regarding the developments that have been proposed for the Santiago Creek greenbelt so he doesn't feel comfortable in discussing any of that. However, he also thinks in his position as a landscape architect and environmentalist, he is concerned about the environment. He has served in the advisory capacity on a volunteer basis with the City for a number of Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 27 years along with Bernie Dennis discussing transportation issues. If you look at the County, one of the biggest problems the County has is transportation. As much as he would love to say, °Let's sweep this under the mat," he doesn't feel comfortable, personally, taking LaVeta off the General Plan as a study street. He would like to see the City Council do that. Commissioner Bosch said there have been a variety of options presented. All are based upon what, again is the good work of the staff. Staff, he believes, is an advocate of a particular position, but has the responsibility of putting forth to the Commission the technical details, that support a variety of land use alternatives and technical solutions that are currently available and the cost of those. They have done that. Now it's up to the decision-makers then to make decisions and he strongly encouraged the Commission make a recommendation to Council rather than leave their voice silent in this. He thought they had to recognize at some place the cost of providing transportation improvements for new and future development of other parts of the City shouldn't be borne on the backs of people in the existing neighborhoods. It's a tough one. The City has to provide for the circulation if they were to allow an enhancement of property rights to allow greater density of development. He believes that development should mitigate the transportation improvements; not only in cost, but in terms of location. Sooner or later, the City must find a better way to get people around. There must be mitigation tied to the projects that are involved, break the cycle some time, let the good engineers off the hook -- they're not the bad guys. He thought they were saying, "If you're going to have a street solution to this, here are the street solutions. They're viable and possible, and the cost of them." They've done a great job. Sooner or later the City has to say that there are community values in particular areas of the community that apply not only to that area, but to the overall community that exceed the granting of additional development privileges to other areas of the community without requiring those other areas to mitigate their impacts. He doesn't believe the LaVeta Extension should remain on the Master Plan for a variety of reasons; not just with regard to the creek. He has a great regard for property values and the right of the people to develop their property, and the rights of the people to have an equitable return on their property. What the City is looking at here isn't related to development rights on this parcel. Hopefully, a way will be found to fund it as permanent open space. But, rather it relates to development rights on parcels in other parts of the City. Let those parcels bear the load/cost, whether it be advanced transportation systems currently on the drawing board or dreams for the future. Let's work together with the adjacent cities who are Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 28 imposing the problems on Orange. The threat of suit, countersuit is very real in cities; it's time we all work together to solve. mutual problems. We pay with natural barriers, man made barriers of great cultural or economic importance. In this case, not only the barrier of the creek, but the existing Old Towne where LaVeta Street, without the extension, is going to see increased traffic and widening. It shouldn't be burdened by total infusion into Old Towne of traffic borne by the Town & Country area development. He supports densification in the west side of town if the residential problems could be protected. That's an if that may not be fulfilled. He supports it if there are ways to mitigate that impact because there is a need to get more jobs closer in to the center of town, close to where people live. The way to do that is not to build another street to encourage the spread of traffic. The approval of projects within the General Plan Amendment that is in place relates to the ability of that development to find physical and economic ways to mitigate their impacts on the remainder of the City; not to impose those impacts upon the citizens at large to pay for them. He proposes alternative #4; the alternative that removes the Extension. But look also to methods of either solving the vehicular transportation problem in other ways in cooperation with adjacent cities, no matter how long it takes, and relating it to necessary mitigation by the projects that cause that traffic flow. If that isn't possible, then the City has to bite the bullet in regard to the land use intensities on the General Plan. He recommends the removal of the LaVeta Extension from the special study category and General Plan and look to other alternatives that do not impact Old Towne. If there are none that are feasible, then the City needs to look to reducing the density in other areas. Commissioner Scott echoed Commissioner Bosch's statements. He complemented staff for the excellent job. They presented the alternatives, benefits and detriments of not taking LaVeta through. He had to agree not to support the extension of LaVeta. There's talk about Town & Country, Main Place and the new development on the Hurowitz's property. It boils him that Santa Ana turns around and closes Parker Street -- let Orange handle the traffic. Yet, Orange is the adjoining city. That would aid the development of Main Place and Town & Country a great deal. But they don't want traffic in their city. He supports the discussion of Commissioner Bosch. Chairman Master was looking for a middle ground. His feelings are that it should remain as a special study street and have it identified as a special study street. Part of that study designation is looking at many of the elements, without repeating them, that has been heard. How does a development mitigate problems of impacts on the rest of the Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 29 Circulation Element? What alternative transportation methods are there? The work by where you live philosophy, so that you minimize any major cross traffic from where you live to where you drive. He doesn't think by eliminating it is the answer. It should stay there while the City is looking for alternate methods and implementing, perhaps, even the consideration of General Plan Amendments. That would lessen the density. Commissioner Scott added the concept of retaining it on as a study street still has the cloud for the people that live within the area. Do they realize that it's still possible there might be a street in their back yard? Chairman Master would think that message ought to be loud and clear. Yes it is until there is an alternate approach found that is amenable to the community. He feels the same way about Santa Ana; they're not very cooperative. The responsibility needs to be shared regarding traffic impacts. Orange can't do it all. He doesn't think putting LaVeta through is an optimum solution at all. It's just shifting the problem from one area to the other, but unless the City addresses the whole thing as a total problem, they can't pick one piece here, one piece there and say it will take care of this area. It's just imposing some other area. He doesn't have the ultimate answer how to not survive the uncertainty that people who live in the adjacent area are going to be impacted some day. He would like to see the Commission's recommendations passed on to the City Council; that they be taken to heart. It may end up in another committee being appointed by the Council with representation by the Commission. Commissioner Cathcart doesn't want anyone to misunderstand why he said he didn't want to see it removed. It's not that he, at this time, favors the extension of LaVeta, but he would hate to lose that alternative on the General Plan until there is an alternative that makes sense to not only himself, but to staff and everyone else. He's not necessarily saying that LaVeta is the answer, but he doesn't really want it removed from the General Plan. Commissioner Bosch appreciates the sentiments and the need to find some other linkage to this thing, but he really firmly believes that after all of the study and what has been heard, and the staff's work to show what the impacts are, that this isn't an alternative that is acceptable. An alternative that is acceptable is one that solves more problems than it creates. Unfortunately, this one doesn't. Wouldn't it be wonderful if it did -- if LaVeta had been planned to go through originally. But who could have foreseen with the best vision what has happened with the City's growth and the patterns it has, particularly with Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 30 regard to adjacent cities, as well as Orange. Who could have foreseen what growth management plans would turn into? But we can foresee that if it's left on as an alternative and because of the events beyond the City's control as it is being studied, to end up being a fate accompli required. He doesn't care, as a taxpayer, to put his taxes to help funding that directly when it benefits particular properties and development elsewhere. He agrees with the concern that they would imbalance the Circulation and Land Use Elements, and they can't legally allow that to occur so there has to be some balance in place. But the very least, the City has to have a strong intent to remove this thing. It's absolute; it's got to go and it will not be carried forward, but another linkage must be found for the development. He believes that linkage ought to be simply that new develop- ments that would have had their traffic impacts mitigated by the extension of LaVeta and should logically have borne their fair share of the extension to mitigate it, as required with many developments up to several miles away from the development. Advanced Planning should be used and required to look beyond this type of solution to those that benefit their development in the City as a whole. Leaving this on as an alternative doesn't free up any of those things. Chairman Master could accept that approach if he could feel comfortable with the fact that it could be implemented. It seems like the City is putting off a problem that is just going to get worse in the meantime. Commissioner Bosch couldn't put his recommendation behind the concept of destroying the neighborhood. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend to the City Council with regard to General Plan Amendment 4-90 that either recommendation #4 regarding the extension of LaVeta Avenue; to wit, reduce general or specific area development densities to a level that could be supported by the existing proposed street system without the LaVeta Extension, and amend the General Plan accordingly be implemented unless alternative transportation system improvements can be found that meet the Growth Management Plan intent, including working in concert with adjacent cities that are mitigatable by the proposed future developments which appear to be necessitating the proposed extension of LaVeta. In summary: 1. Remove the LaVeta Extension from the General Plan. 2. Find that acceptable alternatives which would provide negative traffic impact to the Old Towne area not be approved. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 31 3. Work to identify alternative traffic solutions to fulfill the demand to be generated by General Plan land use intensities elsewhere in the City and that the cost and timing of those improvements be linked to future development at those locations (essentially the Town & Country, Main/LaVeta and State College areas). 4. Or, if none of those work, reduce the general or specific area development densities to a level that can be supported by the existing and proposed street system without the LaVeta Extension and amend the General Plan accordingly. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Scott NOES: Commissioners Cathcart, Master MOTION NOT APPROVED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend to the City Council regarding General Plan Amendment 4-90 that LaVeta Avenue be retained as a special study street while other alternatives are being explored by the City, looking at the General Plan Amendment reducing the density, looking at those developments that they account for their share of impact on the overall circulation system, as well as working with the adjacent cities in a cooperative mode to address their impact on City of Orange, as well as Orange's impact and influence on those cities.:. He wanted to convey the message that you can't just take one thing off and leave it off without proceeding to do something else to compensate for it. Staff has pointed out the impacts that would result from deletion, the alter- natives to it, the regulatory/funding source....it's time the City make a decision on how they're going to handle the flow of traffic -- it's either retention of LaVeta and/or retention of LaVeta and other methods. In summary: 1. Retain LaVeta as a special study street while addressing the issue of alternate approaches to handling the circulation problems and the impact of them to the point of also getting the General Plan Amendment reviewed for possible revision. As well as attaching requirements and conditions on developments that pay their fair share or impacts beyond their immediate location that they have on the overall Circulation Plan. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Master NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Scott MOTION NOT APPROVED Commissioner Scott asked if this was removed as a special study street, what would require it to be replaced back in the General Plan as a special study area (after the other areas have been studied)? Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 32 Mr. Herrick responded another General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Bosch asked what the incentive is to find alternative solutions? He felt the incentive is placed on the neighbors in the area, rather than the incentive being placed on the larger scale (citywide) and with future developers who have an economic incentive to find solutions that will help them get through and help the rest of the City as well. Chairman Master was also concerned about that as he put the motion together; however, he thought the gun was really to the City Council's head, as well as the residents. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, that the Planning Commission submit their motions to the City Council as a tie vote and no deciiion was made by the Commission. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch asked the Commission other than having LaVeta stay on as a study street or not, whether they have consensus on other alternatives that need to be studied immediately. That part, he thought, they had a consensus regardless of the two motions. The Commission would be wise to identify that as such. (The commission was in agreement. The motion was not one of major substance; it's rather LaVeta either stays on or doesn't stay on during some effort to resolve other issues.) That was why it was suggested to transfer the Commission's decision up to the City Council; that they look at the alternatives. Even though there was a tie vote, there was a consensus of the Commission that alternate approaches to mitigating circulation problems should be addressed by the City Council. The Commission unanimously agreed that it is necessary to: 1. Find acceptable alternatives to LaVeta that would provide a circulation system that does not impact existing neighborhoods. 2. Work to identify alternative traffic solutions to fulfill the demand generated by the General Plan identified intensities elsewhere in the City and that the costs and timing of those improvements be limited to future development at those locations. 3. Consider the possibility that General Plan densities may need to be reduced to a level that can be supported by the existing General Plan Street System without a LaVeta extension. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 - Page 33 Mr. Bennyhoff stated every alternative adversely impacts somebody else in other parts of the City, who will probably fill just as strongly about their street or section of the City. Some of them impact a very large number of people. Commissioner Bosch said there was extensive study of these particular areas. They all agree there is horrendous impact on these. There are two areas of the creek and one of the few we have. It doesn't say there wouldn't be other significant areas elsewhere. It says other alternatives have to be found that don't do any damage anywhere. Mr. Masek wanted to go on record letting the Commission know he strongly urged the Council to notify everyone that would be affected by any one of these alternatives proposed by the Traffic Division. The Council .chose not to do that and only notified people within 300 feet of this particular space. He wanted everyone else in the City to be aware of what could happen if LaVeta was removed. Commissioner Scott saw a large block advertisement in both the Santa Ana Register and the L.A. Times advertising this public hearing. To try and notify everyone in the City other than the methods of communication, either. .the .extent they went to or by law, which they posted in a public place, would be financially very heavy. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, to adjourn to a study session September 24, 1990 at 5:30 p.m. in the Weimer Room to review the submitted landscape ordinance and grading ordinance. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED sld