Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-1993 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Manager of Current Planning; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney; Bob VonSchimmelman, Assistant City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8. 1993 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of September 8, 1993 as corrected: To clarify Mrs. Schreck's statement on Page 8, 3rd paragraph, last sentence, add three words to the sentence - "She feels that based on past statements, Commissioner Smith shows evidence of partiality." AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Pruett, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2023-93, VARIANCE 1953-93 -MICHAEL RICIGLIANO A request to allow the conversion of a single family residential structure to an office use, and to allow a reduction of the off-street parking requirement for an office use and a reduction in required side yard landscape setback. Subject property is located at the northwest corner of Olive Street and Maple Avenue, addressed 204 North Olive Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1439-93 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. The full reading of the staff report was waived as there was no opposition and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, represented Mr. Ricigliano who was out of town. The plans are straight forward with the intent to preserve the Victorian home. Mr. Ricigliano does not plan to make any changes to the exterior except for the required handicap ramp. The reason for the variance is so that he doesn't have to reduce the lawn area. There is the possibility of squeezing another parking space (one standard; one compact) in facing the other way, but they thought it would be better to preserve the look of the historical home and keep it intact. They prefer not to tear down the older building to build a new office because the Old Towne atmosphere will be destroyed. The placement of the building on the site, which is beyond the owner's control, does not allow him to create the full parking lot without tearing down part of the building or destroying part of the house, which was why they requested the variance. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart had a few concerns regarding the landscaping. He asked if the Design Review Board reviewed the project again or if they had reviewed planting and irrigation plans? Mr. Carnes of the Planning Staff responded the D.R.B. has reviewed and approved the landscaping plans. The only thing that goes back to the D.R.B. is review Commissioner Cathcart would like the D.R.B. to consider the proximity of the 36" box; it's too close to the building as a multi. They may want to look at it as a standard, single trunk; it is a native and does grow in a strange way. He would also like to look at root control barriers on all the large specimen trees proposed to be added. Commissioner Smith asked if there were conditions from the D.R.B. regarding the handicap ramp matching some of the architecture of the house? Mr. Carnes referred to the site plan. There was a notation in the corner that the railing for the porch and the ramp will match the existing railing on the porch of the house. Commissioner Bosch in reviewing the project looked at the potential for more realizing the parking requirement. He believed Mr. Mickelson correctly represented that you could squeeze one or perhaps two more parking spaces onto the site in the side yard setback, but it would be damaging not only to the landscape and ambiance that has to surround a historic property to assure that it is properly considered. It would also damage the porch and roof line as well. He preferred to see going ahead with fewer parking spaces unless it proves to be a nuisance over time, in which case it wouldn't then cause the use to go away, but might revisit the need to provide for at least one additional parking space within the landscaped area. Commissioner Smith asked if the concrete parking lot were solid concrete or was there any brick ribbon proposed? Commissioner Bosch said the plans show brick bands both at the back of the public walk and across the footed parking spaces. Commissioner Walters asked if a condition needed to be added about additional parking spaces if needed? Commissioner Bosch suggested that it be included with the motion relative to conditions for the variance. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to accept Negative Declaration 1439-93 and find that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2023-93 and Variance 1953-93 with the condition that at the end of six months occupancy if the City staff makes an analysis and finds that the off-site parking becomes an issue, then it will be reviewed by the Planning Commission to consider an additional mandatory parking space. A report will be forwarded to the Commission by City staff at the end of six months regardless of the findings. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES:' None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2027-93 -ROBERT BRESKIN A request to add onto and covert a portion of an existing commercial office building to create seven (7) residential dwelling units. The request is to allow a density bonus and concessions in development standards as incentives for the development of affordable housing: The requested concessions include: 1) waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces required on site; 2) waiver of the maximum number of stories allowed within the Old Towne district; 3) allow for mixed use in conjunction with the housing development upon property owned for commercial use; and 4) allow for a density bonus greater than 25% over the maximum residential density permitted by the General Plan. Subject property is addressed 200 East Chapman Avenue and 111 South Orange Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1436-93 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. There was no opposition to the project; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. Mr. Godlewski said this was a request that involves the density bonus ordinance that was adopted by the City recently. The City Council authorized staff to proceed with the conditional use permit request so that it would come to the Commission at such a time the ordinance had been adopted and approved. During the time it was going through the review process staff was writing the staff report; they have included for the Commission's reference a copy of the ordinance as it was finally adopted and for their review of the project in relation to that ordinance. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Robert Breskin, 200 East Chapman Avenue, is the owner of the building. The project is a result of many things. They want to improve the propert)r and part of the project involves the Redevelopment Agency in their cooperation to have affordable housing. The restrooms that are attached to the rear of the building will become part of the project and will be the entrance way for the upstairs. The line of the building is not changing and they propose to build one bedroom apartments with lofts looking down on the apartment below. The engineering work has been done and is approved. The Design Review Board has reviewed the project as well. The project will mitigate the parking problem that exists now with the commercial business. Evening parking will not be a problem and it will help the area downtown by having people living there, which will enhance the downtown area. He's currently working with Redevelopment who propose to buy down three of the units (30%) fora 20 year period. Those three units would rent at approximately $450/month to provide housing for low-income residents. The other four units would be rented at full market value. Commissioner Smith noticed an enclosed garage. She asked who gets the garage? Mr. Breskin said the driveway is leased by the ground tenant, which was Breskin & Mullins, CPA's (his firm). They're the major tenant and would have the use of the enclosed garage. The garage space is not for the tenants' use. Commissioner Bosch explained one of the findings the Commission must make in order to approve the proposed relaxations of development standards is that the density bonus and additional incentives are necessary in order to achieve affordability. The Commission has not seen any financial proforma to indicate the are necessary to achieve affordability. Was he able to present something to the Commission . They needed something in writing (i.e., a financial analysis proforma) rather than a verbal explanation. Mr. Breskin said the only way that would work was to have seven units. Redevelopment could only assist with 30% or three units. If there were less units, the rents would be too high. He would have to eliminate the rental housing and go back to commercial use. He will provide a written financial analysis proforma. Commissioner Cathcart heard Mr. Breskin say Redevelopment was going to participate in the project for 20 years, but in the code and State Law, it says affordable units shall be reserved for a minimum of 30 years when a density bonus and additional incentives are granted. What will happen with those other 10 years? Mr. Breskin responded the units would go back to full market value at the end of 20 years unless Redevelopment wished to participate 30 years. He will talk with Redevelopment about this requirement. Those speaking in favor Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, offered his support to the concept; it's a great idea and he hopes the details can be worked out. He made reference to The Flats and thought small affordable residences up over the stores created an idea of the old town feeling. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, thought the plans were great and was in favor of the project. Commissioner Cathcart noted the staff report makes mention of an access easement to and from the trash enclosure. He wasn't clear as to how that was going to be handled. The staff report points out there was a City liability because the City owns the parking area. The trash trucks would have to come in to pick up private trash. He wondered how that would be handled. 3 Mr. Breskin stated it was his intent to include the 6 or 8 feet to the east of the building to cover the trash, not only for his building, but the building next door (Bob's Shade and Blind) to get that out of the alley way and away from the back of the building. It would be more accessible and an improvement over the existing area. Mr. Soo-Hoo was not familiar with the site plan, but in reading the staff report he surmised that access to trash facilities are completely within the private property. In this case portions of publicly owned property would be used and staff was trying to draw the Commission's attention to the fact this was unusual. That means there will be additional liability, but liability comes whenever there is public access. Commissioner Bosch said that would require additional study presuming the project moves ahead and perhaps some type of access easement might be necessary to resolve the issue. Mr. Soo-Hoo thought a decision would need to be made by the City Council to allow that sort of access to take place. Mr. Arends, the applicant's architect, said they were looking to improve the current condition that presently exists. Commissioner Cathcart said his office was in Old Towne and it backs up to The Flats. He too thought this was a good project and would like to see it go forward; however, maintenance of trash enclosures for the residences is very important. His concern was not only from the standpoint of strict liability, but maintenance and liability. He wanted to ensure it doesn't become an eyesore at the back of the building. Commissioner Bosch said one of the questions the Commission had was relative to the application of the California code with regard to length of time on the affordable units and also the financial feasibility for that finding. He asked the representative from Redevelopment to address those issues. Mary Ellen Laster, Housing Manager for the Redevelopment Agency, said they were negotiating with Mr. Breskin and were in the preliminary stages. They briefly discussed the project with him and asked him to go through the planning process to see if he could get the necessary approvals. The Agency would not want to have any restrictions that would be in conflict with what State Law requires; they would also want to have the 30 year restriction. Regarding the purchase of the restroom property, the Agency would negotiate with Mr. Breskin (provided they got at feast 3 affordable units} to have the Agency purchase the restrooms from the City. That funding would then go into the City's general fund and they would transfer ownership of that portion of the parcel to Mr. Breskin for development of the project. That would only be done if the Agency could come to terms on the agreement. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, was confused about the parking. Currently the code says they need 12 spaces, which one is available. Is there enough parking for 11 cars? Commissioner Cathcart said the units are presently commercial-office. The people park behind the building now in the City parking lot, as well as behind Army-Navy, where there is suppose to be a parking structure some day. If it is residential units, there will be less parking demand during the day. He didn't see a conflict or problem. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith thought the concept of the project was wonderful. She hoped they could work out the details. She had concern about the parking because this was directly across the street from Watson's, which has a huge Saturday and Sunday business and a lot of parking is used in the lots. Also, it is adjacent to a church, which has no parking lot. Sunday use of parking is full. There needs to be some sort of mitigation for parking. She thought if the enclosed parking were omitted, the entrance way could be where the enclosed garage is and the restroom could be demolished to add four or five parking spaces. She was concerned about renting units without parking. Commissioner Bosch thought that was a good point, but he wasn't sure if it would make a radical difference in the project as a whole. The public parking lots were developed with taxpayer funds to assist in that and thus they have alternative parking to providing parking on site. How does this fit in with other uses and times? He's less concerned. It's apre-existing use and the City wants to encourage it. If the basic use concept is correct, he thought it would be wonderful to have additional residents down town for 24 hour use. He thought the parking has been provided and to a great extent paid for by property owners already. 4 Commissioner Smith asked if it were appropriate to have an enclosed garage in the Old Towne area? Will it set a precedent for future Redevelopment projects that want to switch over to residential use? Will the City have to provide enclosed parking for them? The trash enclosure question could be mitigated with the demolition of the restrooms as well. Commissioner Cathcart referred to his part of the Plaza and the building he occupies. That private alley is used by the owner because he owns the easement. While it is unenclosed, the owner uses that alley as a private parking space. It is no different than what is being requested other than the enclosure. He agrees the citizens need to be concerned about the parking in Old Towne for the viability of businesses. Alternatives are needed to be found; not just flat space and pressure needs to be put on the City to build the parking structure. Commissioner Bosch still had a concern relative to the findings required by law for density bonuses and additional incentives. He felt confident they could address impacts on public health, safety and welfare of financial properties. Undue financial hardship on the City relates to some extent on that and the remainder on the arrangements that are made with regard to any Redevelopment assistance. But the key problem is still the lack of adequate information other than trusted verbal assurances. Typically, the City requires written confirmation relative to the incentives being necessary in order to achieve affordability. Commissioner Walters supports the project and didn't have a problem with it as presented. Parking does not present an obstacle to him either, not if they're trying to reach the goal of encouraging affordable housing and bring residents into the central core of the City on a 24 hour basis. He thought the request should be continued until the applicant could come back with a proforma to verify the financial numbers behind the density being requested. He thought there should also be a specific commitment addressed as to the 30 year affordability requirement. Commissioner Pruett agreed with Commissioner Walters. There's going to have to be some kind of agreement to address the number of affordable units and the period in which they're to remain affordable. He commended the applicant on a fine project. He didn't know if parking were going to be a problem given the parking that is available. Some people may choose, because of the location in terms of public transportation, to use other means of transportation rather than a vehicle. The Commission agreed official action could not be taken at this hearing, which was explained to the applicant and Ms. Laster. Both parties must get together to come up with an arrangement that is satisfactory in order to present it to the Commission for approval. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2027-93 to October 18, 1993, with the concurrence of the applicant. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING PRE-ZONE CHANGE 1165-93 -JOHN AND LINDA GRAVES A request for apre-zone change for an unincorporated single family parcel, from existing County of Orange R-4 (Suburban Residential) to R-2-6 (Duplex Residential). The request is for city annexation purposes. Subject property is addressed 8582 Palm Avenue. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental G~uality Act (CEQA) per CE(~A Guidelines Section 15319. There was no opposition and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Linda Graves, 8582 Palm Avenue, wants to annex into the City. The zoning will be compatible with the way it is zoned in the County. The public hearing was closed. 5 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to approve Pre-Zone Change 1165-93. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1440-93 - CITY OF ORANGE WATER DEPARTMENT An environmental assessment, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a project that involves the drilling of a water well, and the construction of piping and pumps. The project is part of a city program to improve the city water supply and delivery system. Subject property is located on the south side of Collins Avenue at Wanda Road (City Fire Station #2) addressed 2900 East Collins Avenue. There was no opposition. The public hearing was opened and closed -- no one spoke. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to accept Negative Declaration 1440-93 in that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment or wildlife. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1438-93 -CITY OF ORANGE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS An environmental impact report addressing the environmental impacts of widening Glassell Street between Walnut Avenue and Collins Avenue. The project includes widening the street right-of-way to accommodate four (4) travel lanes, a central turning lane, and on-street parking. Mr. VonSchimmelman presented the environmental impact report for the widening of Glassell Street. The existing conditions area 44 foot curb -to -curb street within a 66 foot right-of-way. The proposed is a 70 foot curb-to-curb street in a 86 foot right-of-way. The proposed would include four lanes and a continuous left turn painted median. It includes on-street parking. The project is needed because it is shown as an augmented secondary, which is proposed on the General Plan. The existing traffic condition is such that the street is currently at capacity (12,000 vehicles per day). From 1989 to 1992 there have been 46 traffic accidents in this stretch of roadway, of which 28 could have been avoided under the proposed configuration. There was a scoping meeting held for this E.I.R. in March, 1992. Right-of-way costs and construction costs are estimated to be at 1.9 million dollars. It should be noted this project is proposed to be submitted to O.C.T.A. for Measure M funding in about 1 1/2 years. Staff is trying to certify the E.I.R. to be eligible to submit the project for funding at that time. Keeton Kreitzer, Environmental Perspectives, 1633 East Fourth Street, Suite 102, Santa Ana, is the consultant and his firm prepared the E.I.R. They did the initial study and determined through a cursory analysis there were a number of issues that needed to be analyzed in the E.I.R. including the socio- economic impacts, relocation, noise, traffic circulation, air quality, some land use compatibility, relative planning issues and aesthetics. During the course of their analysis they had three technical studies prepared and an acoustical analysis, as well as an air quality analysis prepared. They concluded in terms of the areas of impact they could be mitigated. In terms of the noise, the analysis determined that significant numbers -- alt the homes and structures along Glassell currently are impacted with exterior noise that exceeds 65 CNEL. The change, as a result of the project, will be expanding those contours about 11 feet on either side of the road. Approximately 2 units, in addition to all the units that are currently impacted, will experience exterior levels of 65. There are some construction related impacts regarding the air quality; no hot spot impacts that would be created by the project. The project will serve to reduce some of the current impacts due to congestion. In terms of the land use impacts, a number of the properties and structures that exist along the half mile segment between Collins and Walnut currently have been affected by previous acquisitions and currently exist with some setbacks and other development standards that are not consistent with the existing zoning. What will occur as a result of the project after acquisition of the properties on either side of Glassell will be that approximately 10 to 12 units will be affected with reduced minimum lot sizes and/or reduced building setbacks that don't meet the zoning code requirements. Some existing trees (13 Palms and other trees) will be affected by the acquisition which will necessitate replacement along that arterial roadway. In terms of traffic and circulation, the project is anticipated to actually have a beneficial impact by providing four lanes of traffic and a left turn lane. There currently is an accident potential with rear enders and other left turn movements that this project, through its implementation, may actually correct and it will increase the capacity of that roadway to 37,500 and will ultimately carry approximately 28,000 vehicles. The improvement will be consistent with the Circulation Element and will provide adequate circulation in the area. In terms of the some of the relocation impacts, three structures will be affected by the project which will necessitate demolition and potential relocation of those structures and uses. The City would be required to provide whatever mitigation might be necessary to ensure relocation occurs in accordance with State Law. They have found that although there are some impacts, they can be mitigated. Commissioner Smith wanted an explanation on the residential sound impacts. If it is currently at 65 and bring it 11 feet closer to the residence, how does it not exceed 65? It seemed to her it would be noisier. When does mitigation for noise kick in? Mr. Kreitzer explained the contour itself is the line that is generated from that traffic and it is expanded out so the area that is affected by noise levels of 65 CNEL or greater is expanded out beyond the center line of the roadway. He referred to Exhibit 13 as he explained the calculations of the noise levels. On Page 37, Table 6 shows what the increases in that actual sound level is going to be. There's a maximum increase that has been estimated based on the methodology used by the consultant of 1 dBA greater along that 11 foot area than what currently exists. The area is currently impacted by the 65 noise contour. Generally, noise increases of 3 dBA or less are marginally perceptible. They propose to conduct acoustical analysis in those units that will be affected to determine if in fact those levels will be exceeded. Another study will need to be done prior to construction of the project to confirm what those future volumes are and to determine the level of reduction that will be required to bring the interior levels to no greater than 45. Commissioner Bosch had questions about the traffic exhibits, Figures 12 and 13 vs. Figures 14 and 15 of the Technical Analysis. It would have been helpful to have had the scale of the project impacts currently and then in later years the same. It appears the project is causing some tributary impacts that aren't fully addressed. What mitigation is proposed m the protect for that? Doug Keyes, Traffic Engineer, spoke to the scale which was used. The reason they did the 95 exhibit reflects the existing exhibit (same streets). They do not do a City traffic model based on 1995. The numbers for the 1995 forecast are factored up from existing counts. The number is a 2% annual growth and that is what is considered acceptable in analysis near term impacts. Relative to the build-out which is a requirement in the environmental document, staff ran the City's traffic model which as was mentioned, is proposed 2010. The traffic model is not at the level where they have streets such as Cypress and Center included. They had to go to the larger scale. One of the reasons there appears to be more traffic is because staff had to take into account that Walnut is also on the Master Ptan as a secondary arterial. That is four lanes of traffic vs. two lanes which would have been shown in the 1995 or existing exhibits. The network used for build out is in coordination with the Master Plan, as is the land use that projects the numbers. In referring to Figures 14 and 15 what you will see is with the project and without the project. He took the General Plan, including all the build out streets, and pulled back taking Glassell which was four lanes and make it a two lane street. He ran that based on the build out land use. The only thing seen in the numbers that represent without project is that Glassell is retained as a two lane facility. With the project incorporates Glassell as part of the rest of the Master Plan. There's about a 10% difference and that more closely reflects Walnut as an origination rather than a destination. Commissioner Smith wondered about the removal of the 47 trees. She didn't know where they were going to be removed to, especially the 13 Palms and the Oak tree. Stu Stark, Associate Civil Engineer, responded most of the trees will be disposed of. The Palm trees can be relocated once they find a buyer or alternate locations for them. They have been told that due to the shallow roots of the Oak tree it cannot be relocated once it is dug up. Alternate sites for the Palm trees will be found. The specified tree for Glassell is the Ficus Benjaminia. They will be planted along the project if approved. Commissioner Cathcart added in this economic down turn the market for plant material is at an all time low. In fact, it's lower than it was in 1970. He doubted if buyers could be found for the Palm trees. However, there might be an up turn before the project is implemented and buyers might be found. 7 The public hearing was opened. Public Comments Nancy Reese, 5288 Via Andalusia, Yorba Linda, manages 32 units on Glassell with 16 on the actual street that will be affected by noise and widening of the street. The tenants have known about it for about two weeks and she has received many complaints from them. They prefer to move than to live with more noise. She was trying to understand what staff was saying about the noise levels. She didn't know if anyone was aware that parrots nest in the Palm trees on Glassell. Margaret Sainde, 577 North Glassell, represented several people in her area. She has been in the neighborhood for about 3 years and is concerned about its appearance. Those 47 trees represent over 33% of the entire tree mass and she thought it would be a real tragedy if they were cut down. Trees provide oxygen, protection from dust, pollution and noise. The increase of traffic volume will exceed 300% rather than 100%. It will be from a total volume of 12,000 cars a day and go up to over 37,000. Many of the Spanish speaking residents of the street were not present because they didn't receive the notice in Spanish. There is a cultural issue involved because these people prefer to be outside and this would severely impact them. She felt they were a residential area and the City should perhaps consider making Walnut into an access street and turn Glassell into a residential area by narrowing the entrance to the area. She did not care for the Ficus Benjaminia street tree; were the removal of trees taken into account when projecting the noise levels? Greg Taver, 621 North Glassell, also owns a tri-plex at 603-611 North Glassell. He is a 6-year resident and bought the income property three years ago. On Page 7 it says the acoustical study will be done at the completion of the project. That scares him and he would like to know what the noise levels are going to be before approving the project. Dan Slater, 278 North Pine, brought up some questions and problems he had with the E.I.R. and would like to propose a solution or compromise. On Page 49, under Conclusions and Benefits, it stated the project would result in a shifting of traffic from parallel side streets such as Lemon, Cypress, Grand and Shaffer and this would lower the traffic volumes on those streets, enhancing the quality of life to residents of the Old Towne District. How will this help Old Towne when the proposed project is entirely north of Old Towne? On the contrary, on Pages 48 and 49 it states that a project related traffic impact that won't require mitigation is an increase in traffic volumes on Glassell, south of Walnut. This concerned him since there is a growing University and a Plaza that isn't getting any bigger. It seems more traffic is being funneled into Old Towne. Parking is the next big concern. Page 67 describes an augmented secondary roadway as having limited access with parking discouraged or prohibited. He drove the street and observed that a majority of the residents would have no choice but to back out onto the street. What will be the speed limits under the various alternatives? Will this really improve safety? How much of a safety issue are all the blind spots caused by the parked cars and why hasn't this been addressed? On Page 10 under mitigation measures, it states the prohibition of on-street parking along Glassell would be determined by the City Council at a public hearing. Has a study been done to determine what the exact situation is regarding on-street parking? For aesthetics and planning purposes, he thought the Commission should know that now before a decision was made. On Page 79 it states that Alternative A will create 12 additional parcels that won't meet setback requirements and 10 lots will become inconsistent with minimum lot size standards. Page 84 states that the loss of the specimen trees will not be a significant impact. The mitigation measures state that every effort would be made to relocate the trees within or adjacent to right-of-way. He would like to see the trees saved, but has a determination been made that this is actually feasible? There are several comparisons of the roadway cross sections under each alternative and he wondered why the lane and center turn pocket widths are different under each alternative. His proposal is a phasing plan. Since the street isn't at capacity now, why is a project being proposed that will accommodate 37,500 cars when projections call for needing to accommodate 28,000 cars in 2010? Why not widen just enough on the west side to allow for an eventual Alternative C - two lanes in each direction with a center turn pocket, create the center turn pocket now; then as needed. On-street parking could be removed at a later date to provide two additional travel lanes if needed. This would cost much less money, cause fewer impacts and would also save the trees on the east side. If the lane widths for the proposed project are used, which are the narrowest, less property would be adversely affected. Gerald Vokman, 701 North Glassell, purchased his property five year ago. He was concerned with the measurement of noise from the center of the street. He didn't understand how they could overlook that change of the traffic lane. The point of generation of sound is transferred some 11 feet. He would think the basic measuring of the sound would be from the center of each lane. He went to the preliminary 8 meeting last spring and there was talk about widening Glassell and turning onto one way streets. He didn't hear any discussion about that at this hearing. The Commission received a letter dated September 17 from Mr. Steven Craig relative to rental properties and traffic impacts along Glassell Street. Dorothy Cox, 561 North Glassell, was opposed to the project since she has lived there since 1970. How much of their property will be taken? Mr. VonSchimmelman responded it would be 10 feet on each side. Mike Espinoza, 659 North Glassell, has lived there since 1984. He asked what the speed limit was going to be? Will there be stop signs added to the street, or lights, or crosswalks? Will it be evenly taken on both sides of the street? Why does the street stop at Walnut? Why not take the street all the way through? Commissioner Bosch responded it appears to be an even take. There are some properties that are already owned by the City for the right-of-way increase. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, owns a lot on Walnut. She didn't know anything about the scope or engineering of the pro1'ect, but she does know that all progress and change brings pain and worry. She serves on one of the Street Tree Committees and she has Fcus Benjaminia and Palm trees in her yard. She thinks anyone would be more pleased with the Fcus trees as screens for dust and noise than Palm trees. That might be some mitigation in itself. The owner of the Lucky Elephant at 505 North Glassell, was a co-business owner at the corner of Glassell and Walnut . Will there be any monies given to relocation of businesses? She has been at this location 10 years and felt the flow of traffic was just fine the way it is. The only thing that is needed is a turn signal. Dave Cook, 811 North Glassell, has lived there since 1984 and he also owns two other properties at 813 and 815 North Glassell. In looking at the plans he recalled the curb on the east side of the street was going to be two feet from the back of the existing sidewalk. Was that correct? And the sidewalk was going to be an additional 8 feet in from that curb. Which properties will not conform to the rules and regulations with regard to the front setback? Commissioner Bosch noted from Exhibit 14 he was correct on the street. It goes 33 feet to the current back of sidewalk to 35 feet to the proposed face of the curb and 43 feet to the proposed back of sidewalk. It appears the City already owns the right-of-way at those addresses. (They do.) Mr. Cook owns 3 condo units out of the 7 in the complex and was very concerned about the smaller front yards, noise and traffic. There will be financial impacts because of the widening. Backing out onto the street will also be a problem. Mike Konopa, 1345 Cabrillo Park Drive #A-9, Santa Ana, use to live at 704 North Glassell. He represented Christian Temporary Housing, which is a temporary shelter for homeless families. If this project does through, there will be no shelter because they won't have a kitchen. He has been aware of the traffic patterns and they don't seem to be any worse or better than anywhere else. He was concerned about the traffic patterns on the south side of Glassell. What is the plan? Is it to funnel into two lanes between Walnut and Palm, and Palm to Maple? It gets tighter and tighter. If you expand Glassell, there will be more traffic problems. AI Ricci, 531 and 533 North Glassell, bought his units in 1989. Parking won't be possible given the lots and how they're built on at this time. A lot of the residences on Glassell do not have driveways and there's no way to get back to the property. In order to use the buildings commercially, they will have to be demolished. His house was built in 1926 and he would hate to see it destroyed. He doesn't believe there will be a lot of residences on Glassell once they widen the road. Children will not have a place to play if the yards are cut down. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Stark addressed engineering type questions relating to the project. There was a question in regards to looking at the various alternatives that were provided m the impact report. One of them being Alternate B, one being Alternate C and the question was why are there different lane widths. In Alternate B staff 9 wanted to come up with an alternate that would be a half-way solution providing a two way left turn lane down the street. In order to do that cost effectively only one side of the street would be widened to ultimate at this time. Alternate B also included parking. Staff wanted to also look at an alternate where they didn't have quite the impact cost wise and that was to remove parking on the street and save some of that width for utilization of lanes. There again, staff opted to show the widening of one side of the street only because it is cost effective. If you try to widen the street a little bit on each side and then have to come back 10 or 15 years later and rip everything back up to widen the street again, then it no longer is cost effective. By choosing the west side of the street to widen to optimum and ultimate widths, staff will not have to come back later and put in new curbs, sidewalks, gutters and trees; it's already there in place. The setback at 561 North Glassell will be 15 feet between the back of the sidewalk and the front of the structure. At the address of 811 North Glassell, engineering data indicates there is 14 feet of setback in that area and he believed the City already has the right-of-way. Regarding Christian Temporary Housing and the loss of the kitchen, as in the past, it is the intent of the City to go in and reconstruct the facility to make it as good, if not better, than it is now. They will not lose that building. Mr. Kreitzer addressed the environmental questions. In trying to explain the issue of noise, the calculations were based on distance from the center line out and looking at future volumes. The average daily traffic of 37,582 is not the volume upon which that was calculated; that's the ultimate capacity. Once that roadway is improved to those right-of-way specifications it would be accommodated by that arterial. The future volumes are 28,000 and were the basis for the noise calculations. He was not an acoustical engineer, but could get the methodology explained before the final E.I.R. is put together. He did not know how much higher the noise level would be with the additional traffic as that was not calculated. The only contour that was calculated was the criteria upon which the impacts are based, which was 65. The noticeable difference a person would have based on the analysis that was done was approximately 1 d6 in that CNEL. As a rule, increases in noise of 3 d6 or less are difficult to perceive by the human ear. The 3 dB threshold is a general rule of thumb that is used to determine when increases become in that significant category. The 47 trees will be affected by the project. People spending time out doors will be exposed to noise levels that currently exceed 65 CNEL and that will be the case in the future. There is no mitigation for that. The acoustical study will be done prior to acquisition of any property and the document will be revised to reflect that. Alternative A is the protect that was analyzed. Twelve existing lots don't meet the zoning requirement's minimum lot size. More technical input can be obtained from the consultant if needed. There has been property on both sides of the street that has been acquired; the intent is to finish that acquisition on both sides where the necessary right-of-way is required. It will be an even take eventually. If it is determined that relocation assistance is required, the City will provide that assistance in accordance with State Law. He didn't believe the noise study took the trees into account. It wasn't specifically stated because Palm trees are not noise attenuating. Mr. Keyes heard a couple of questions relative to the new classification of an augmented secondary roadway and what would be the speed limit? There is a need, too, for school crossings in the area. The arterial will be posted at 25 M.P.H. and that would be consistent because of the residential nature of the area and students crossing the street. Every five years staff must do radar surveys to allow the Police Department to enforce the speed limit there. It was important to note 46 accidents were registered during a three-year period, between 1989 and 1992. Of those accidents, 28 were correctable accidents. Correctable accidents were considered to be that which a left turn pocket could possibly have prevented that accident. Staff believes the additional lanes as well as the center left turn lane will provide a safety factor. The accidents that occur coming out of a driveway would not be considered correctable by the project. Regarding the one way streets, staff refers to that as the inner loop concept. It uses Walnut at the northerly border, Almond as the southerly border, on the east side is Grand and on the west side is Lemon. A loop in a counter clockwise fashion would be used. It was not addressed in the document because staff would have to go by what the approved General Plan is. The inner loop concept is just an idea at this time; it was not incorporated into the General Plan. You would definitely see a change in travel patterns if the inner loop concept were coordinated with any sort of widening. There are a couple of issues to deal with: safety and capacity for the future. Staff proposes to add the left turn pocket, give the four through lanes and continue to allow for parking -- that is the protect alternative. If there is another alternative that is chosen or recommended, there is an alternative that has no parking on it. The problem faced with that alternative is some residents will end up with no parking. Signalization at Walnut and Glassell would be the sole enhancement for the area. They would not look at doing any stop signs or signalization between Walnut and Collins as it is not part of the project. To address Mr. Slater's alternative, he pointed out some of the draw backs. One of the problems is the City would not be in conformance with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. To qualify for Measure M monies, the City must be in conformance with the County's General Plan. If the City chooses not to go forward with this project, they would not be in conformance with the Master Plan. When staff analyzed for the build out they were taking into account the build out Circulation Element and Walnut is indeed listed as a four lane arterial in that Element. In addressing the parallel facilities, Glassell is on the Master Plan as an augmented 10 secondary arterial. It does have a capacity of 37,500 vehicles. The build out projection is for 28,000 vehicles. When compared to the build out to the no project alternative, what is seen on the parallel streets and in the 1995 projections is a reduction off of the residential streets and an increase on the arterials. Glassell has been designated in the Master Plan as one of those divided four lane arterial streets. The project boundaries was from Collins to Walnut. There is a volume increase on Glassell, south of Walnut from a project vs. a no project alternative. There are other facilities as well that are contributing to this -- Walnut, Palm etc. You will see an increased volume of traffic south of Walnut on Glassell irregardless of whether this project was done. Glassell, south of the four lanes, is on the Master Plan, but is called out as a secondary. There have not been any plans to pursue a feasibility study or anything relative to apre-cursor to environmental documentation for augmentation. Mr. Godlewski explained the land use issues. The question that isn't asked is what happens to these properties. Properties that become non-conforming can still develop to whatever the base zone of the property allows, as long as they meet the current requirements for that property. He believed most of the properties were either commeraal or multi-family residential (R3). Lot size would not be penalized if it were non-conforming. Mr. VonSchimmelman said as far as future development on the properties, it would be based on current market value . The appraisals would not take into consideration future development. Mr. Kreitzer spoke to the issue of the trees being relocated. They don't know at this time what the market will be for the Palm trees. The intent of the mitigation is to relocate the trees in close proximity to the right-of-way. Commissioner Cathcart would like to see a broad leaf shade tree, like a Ficus Benjaminia. Fifty to eighty foot Palm trees do not provide any significant shade or noise attenuation for cars or pedestrians and even an immature Ficus Benjaminia has more leaf surface which provides for sound attenuation and shade. A Ficus planted in a 15 to 24 inch box will take approximately 10 to 15 years to reach 30 - 35 feet. But it will provide more shade than a Palm tree. Commissioner Smith needed clarification on Page 69 -- historic preservation elements. According to the element no structures with historic significance are located within the project area. She didn't believe the Historic Preservation Element lists the historic structures; rather it sets down a plan for historic preservation. It quotes the Orange historic survey which was done specifically in the Old Towne area. All of that information does not preclude there are historic structures along that street. Mr. Kreitzer believed Commissioner Smith was correct. The information they had was that none had been identified and that's basically why they put that statement in there. If there are any designated structures, they certainly need to reflect it in the report. His understanding is that there are no structures that have been designated by the City as historic structures. They will correct the text in the final document to reflect Commissioner Smith's concerns. Commissioner Cathcart made it clear they had options on this project. He's not sure what the other alternatives are, but they could ask for additional information to be supplied with regard to the noise because there have been many questions about noise and the acoustical study. And, he's not sure if the questions have been answered adequately. He was not comfortable with that aspect of the report, nor was he comfortable with funneling the traffic at Walnut down to two lanes. He understands that Walnut does turn into Orangewood and that is a problem given all the development in that area, but they must deal with it. He does know something has to be done with the traffic on Glassell to mitigate the congestion. Having lived on Collins for some time, it is much easier to back out or pull out onto a two lane road than a one lane road. He was involved with the Chamber of Commerce when Tustin was going to remove traffic and go to three lanes. Several business owners now say traffic circulation has improved on Tustin with the addition of another lane. He didn't feel comfortable though dealing with the E.I.R. unless there is a better explanation of the noise, how the study was carried out, how it will affect the people and mitigation of traffic circulation in and around Walnut and the side streets. Commissioner Pruett had a question about the timing of this project. What is the timing for application? When does the E.I.R. have to be adopted by the City? Mr. VonSchimmelman replied the next available time they could submit the application is in about a year and a half (1995). Approval by the City needs to be done prior to their submittal to OCTA. Commissioner Bosch had difficulty with recommending a specific project alternative based upon "let's wait until later to find out whether the City needs to do something different with the noise mitigation prior to 11 acquisition." Prior to acquisition it's still going to be a matter of application of science with some art involved other than actual field testing to conditions after construction. He thought they needed to better quantify the noise impacts now. He appreciated the different thresholds of hearing, but they're people's homes. It's more than structures to be mitigated. What's the quality of life that comes from it, what will the actual noise be as measured and projected today? He agreed with the energy conservation measures; they should be pushed forward in any case. There is a concern to provide adequate usable open space for recreation in multiple family housing. So front yards with major traffic and safety/pollution concerns aren't the sole source of recreation for many children. What else is being done in terms of mitigation measures to reduce the number of driveways or combine them to take care of those problems? If it is not feasible to totally solve those problems, then they need to think about the potential need for a statement of overriding considerations if the project is essential to the health, safety and welfare of the larger population. Parking is the same thing. We build a wide street now and come back later to identify that there are still problems to be solved and take the parking off. Why isn't the parking survey done now from the point of view of what the needs are caused by existing land uses and the General Plan allowed growth and development along the street to identify whether it is ever feasible to take the parking off. We know parking and noise are problems now. What are they doing to avoid being held hostage to the lure of Measure M dollars for a Master Plan of Arterial Highways that is in place? They've proposed that the City undertake a study of the overall Old Towne circulation. They need to know where that is and how does it dove tail into the street widening to provide the mitigation measures? He needs better answers before making a decision. Commissioner Cathcart added the City is short of funds and doesn't have the funds to do all the technical studies. Personally, if the City doesn't have the money to do the technical reports to find out the answers, they don't have enough money to do the project. Commissioner Smith also had a lot of unanswered questions. She would like to see a more specific plan for the preservation of wildlife. She thought 47 trees was significant. Many of the parks could be enhanced if it were possible to relocate the trees to the parks. The way the document is written is general, it's arbitrary and it' s loose. She wondered if there wasn't another alternative to the designated street tree besides a tree that needs to be trimmed down to look like a large house plant. She was more concerned about the public safety. There was no mention in the document about safety to pedestrian traffic. Se would like to see it addressed better about cars backing out and the safety factors involved there. And the aspect of children playing in front yards. She was concerned that the widening to the maximum width will disrupt a neighborhood. The neighborhood is not spelled out in any particular named district, but clearly there is a residential neighborhood. There is an established residential neighborhood and the new multi-family residential neighborhood, which Glassell Street runs right through the middle of. She's concerned about property devaluation, quality of life and the deterioration of the properties with street widening. She can't tell them how concerned she is to note some people will have four foot front yards. She wondered about why they built housing in the first place on a mayor arterial if the City knew someday it would be reduced to four foot yards. There's some great restoration being done on North Glassell and it seems that money is just down the drain if the street is going to be widened with the lure of Measure M dollars and forget this is a residential neighborhood. Where does the traffic go beyond Walnut? If the inner loop concept is not mentioned, why can't it be mentioned? Will it ever be mentioned? Do the sidewalks go up to the curb or is there a proposed grassy strip or some mitigating factor for pedestrian safety with the sidewalk? Commissioner Walters frankly found the project in fairly food shape. He did not share the voiced concerns of the other Commissioners. The report clearly points out there is parking along the street; that is the intended goal. It shows a 25 M.P.H. traffic speed limit. He had a hard time hearing how horrible this proposed project was when compared to the Orange Park Acres area and Santiago Canyon Road. The Commission and City need to try to get the funds from Measure M. There's plenty of time to work out further details and mitigations required. The people who bought homes or moved into dwellings or businesses along Glassell that was designated as a secondary arterial and had no idea except to be shocked and amazed when it was time to widen the street, including those who already sold their properties for such a street widening -- he found it shocking and amusing. He thought a mitigation might take place regarding the trees; it does say the trees should be located near the adjacent project. Any resident who wants to keep or maintain one or more of the trees that are being moved from their lots should have the option at the City's expense to have the trees planted on site, inside their own property. To put this project off for major additional studies at costs the City does not have money for will cause the City to lose the ability to get Measure M funds and that is a mistake. If anyone had read the County's report, it is clearly portrayed that Glassell is to be widened; it always has been (for almost 40 years). Commissioner Bosch had no doubt there is a need for the project. He's not shocked by anything he reads, but he sees the public hearing process partly to help inform the citizens as to the facts of life that 12 have been approved by the City and others. It's important to him that all the information be put forward in a public forum for those who do care enough to attend and get information back. The project is essentially pre-approved except in order to meet the letter of the law, it has to adequately address the mitigation measures in a clear, concise way as possible. It's an extremely well written report, but there are problems because of some missing pieces. They need to understand what the limitations are. Most people cannot comprehend the technical reports. He s asking for more specifics before moving ahead. Commissioner Cathcart didn't want to give anyone the impression he didn't think the project was meaningful and necessary; it's been on the plan for arterial highways for some time. But, he thought part of the process and public hearing was the E.I.R. which includes all public testimony and issues have not been completely addressed . If the Commission were to recommend the project, it would go to the City Council and become political. It is their task to get it down to where it is as clean and clear as it can be in order to give staff the best opportunity to make the project successful in both getting Measure M funds and getting it through the political process. Commissioner Pruett shared Commissioner Walters' view that this was a good report. He thought if Putting more money and time into the report would help change the public's views, it's not going to happen. People don't want to see change. Even those people who have dedicated property to the City for that expansion will say no to change. He doesn't support the concept of investing more City staff time in gaining additional information. One of the issues that needs to be studied by staff is the question of does it make sense to have Glassell as a four lane arterial beyond Collins? The Commission discussed the biggest impact on noise and taking of land; narrowing the street and get rid of the parking. The issues of on-street vs. off-street parking were discussed. What is the adequacy of existing parking on the uses bordering the street? They would like off-street parking addressed as well as on-street parking because it was the whole equation. They were asking for clarification on what staff already had --not additional studies. More elaboration was needed on the acoustical and parking studies for explanation purposes. It was suggested staff provide diagrams or tables that illustrates what mitigation has to take place for an uninsulated wood frame clapboard siding building -- generic or typical examples -- costs do not need to be included. They would like people to understand the project in layman's terms. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to continue Environmental Impact Report 1438-93 regarding the Glassell Street Widening project to November 1, 1993. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS REQUEST TO ALLOW APPLICATION FOR AUXILIARY BILLIARD USE IN THE C-1 ZONE - CRESTMARK REAL ESTATE AND INVESTMENTS A petition for Planning Commission determination as to whether an auxiliary billiard room is similar in character and no more detrimental than other uses allowed by conditional use permit in the C-1 zone. Commissioner Walters asked how many conditional use permits have been issued in the past year for billiard parlors? Mr. Godlewski said they have reviewed three applications and two out of the three have been approved. Commissioner Bosch thought there were two issues and the appropriateness within a zone for any use doesn't necessarily mean appropriateness for a specific piece of property. The question is for the zone in general. There are many properties in the C-1 zone with proximity to single family residences where there would be a great concern over a variety of uses for a C.U.P. The reason for that is the potential public welfare problems for adjoining neighbors in terms of noise and gatherings of people. It depends a lot on the size and intensity of the use that is proposed as well for the zone. A small billiard room needs more definition also relative to the size of the lot it is on. The C-1 zone has a great variety of sizes. The C-2 zone is intended to have a more intense use, particularly with regard to the limited commercial in the Tustin Redevelopment area where two proposals were reviewed before. One was found to be appropriate based upon location on the property and distance from residential and single family homes, adequacy of parking and the like. Another was disapproved because it was too close of proximity in an area that was peripheral to the higher zoning. The concept is not a problem, but he could have a problem if it's the wrong piece of property relative to impacts on the residential adjacent properties. 13 Commissioner Cathcart didn't have any particular problem with billiard use in the C-1 zone if it's in a proper location; however, he finds it doesn't fit that a small billiard room is made up of 7 pool tables. That is a significant number of tables. He would have a problem with the definition of a small billiard room and 7 tables. It would need to be more clearly defined. Commissioner Walters sugggested continuing the matter to the next meeting to have a chance to read the documentation, review the C-1 regulations and perhaps visit the site. Mr. Godlewski explained the request before the Commission was included in the original packet that was distributed to them; the date merely represents the date of the meeting that it is being heard -- not the date it was delivered to them. The request is whether or not the applicants could be allowed to even proceed with a conditional use permit. The applicants are asking permission to ask for a conditional use permit. The actual details of the project are not before the Commission; the only question is whether or not the Commission feels it is a use similar enough to other uses that they would have the opportunity to present their case to the Commission at some future meeting date. Commissioner Pruett suggested the applicant apply for a conditional use permit in order to be heard. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve and grant permission for the applicant to submit for an auxiliary billiard use in the C-1 zone. Staff was asked to convey the findings necessary for approval of a conditional use permit to the applicant. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: OTHER ITEMS Commissioner Pruett would like staff to consider and look into the control of graffiti by condition when issuing conditional use permits. The permit could be revoked if they are not in conformance with the condition. IN RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS Dan Slater said several of his questions were not answered adequately during the public hearing process and his proposal was misunderstood. He proposed five traffic lanes and parking be removed down the road. Bob Bennyhoff heard some things that bothered him. He served on the Committee that wrote Measure M and the Growth Management Plan. The City is growing and it is no longer a small city. The City doesn't have 1 1/2 years to decide what needs to be done with Glassell. Negotiations with property owners and plans need to be completed as well. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. sld 14