Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-02-1995 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart Monday - 7:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney, Bob VonSchimmelman, Assistant City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, _1995 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve the Minutes of September 18, 1995 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart ~` MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-95, ZONE CHANGE 1177-95, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 4-95 REGARDING KATELLA AVENUE REZONE -CITY OF ORANGE The City of Orange is proposing creation of a Commercial Recreation designation along the Katella Avenue Corridor. The area includes approximately 150.25 acres of land north and south of Katella Avenue from Glassell Street west to the City's limit (Santa Ana River). NOTE: Negative Declaration 1478-95 has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of this project. Mr. Jones explained this item is the culmination of a two to three year work effort, but began as a study of the 1500 acre Northwest Industrial area and has been focused down to approximately 150 acres along Katella Avenue. The focus study area, which is called the Katella Avenue Corridor represents the greatest immediate economic development opportunity within the Northwest area; therefore, it is the focus of staff's efforts. Besides the economic development opportunity, staff thought the proposed land use is an important project for many other reasons. It will promote greater compatibility between the businesses along Katella Avenue; it will give the area some organization and identity; it's apro-active approach to attracting and retaining businesses; and it's reflective of what is already happening in the market place. The area is already transitioning to commercial uses. In order to generate some ideas of what the new commercial recreation corridor could be some day, aone-day workshop was held with a group of local architects and planners. The goal of the special workshop was to create and document a vision of what the future could be like for this portion of Katella Avenue. Staff wants to share that Vision Plan with the Commission and talk about how the proposed plan and rezone are linked, and the specific actions the Commission will need to take as recommendations to the City Council to make the rezoning a reality. The staff team, who have worked on the project since its inception was present, either Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 to respond to questions that may come up and he introduced the team to the Commission. He also stressed the images and graphics created and displayed are not intended to limit or focus upon one single vision for the corridor; rather, the objective is to create a visual image that can be related to which represents one reasonable possibility for the area. Jim Reichert of the Economic Development Department, presented the Vision Plan and used the exhibits to explain the Katella Avenue Corridor. Focus has been placed upon the Katella Avenue Corridor because it represents the greatest economic development opportunity in the Northwest Area due to its status as a regional "smart street" and its proximity and access to the 57 Freeway. Katella Avenue has been transitioning on its own over the last few years to commercial development and he outlined staff's vision for the different uses within the area. Barbara Gander, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and reviewed the technical information that will actually implement the Vision Statement. The Katella Rezone project will affect approximately 80 properties along Katella Avenue, from Glassell Street west to the. City's edge (the Santa Ana River). The corridor is approximately 1.5 miles long and contains approximately 150 acres. Katella Avenue currently has a General Plan designation of Industrial. The zoning along the Katella corridor is M-2 with a few parcels west of Glassell Street that are zoned M-1. There is one parcel on the southwest corner of Main and Katella that is zoned C-1. The project proposes to change the General Plan and the zoning designation along the Katella Avenue Corridor in order to create a Commercial Recreation area. This is a new designation for the City's General Plan. It will allow for entertainment and recreational uses, regional and community serving, commercial uses and higher intensity office developments. It is estimated that 30 percent of the area is developed with industrial uses, 30 percent developed with office developments and 40 percent developed with commercial uses. The Katella Avenue Corridor also receives attention because it contains several large undeveloped and underdeveloped parcels (strawberry patch on the southeast corner of Main and Katella and the Stadium Drive-In on the opposite corner) that increase the economic development opportunities. The proposed change in land use and zoning will enhance the market forces which are transitioning this area from industrial to commercial. The land use intensity levels along the Katella Avenue Corridor will remain similar to the existing condition. The ultimate build out is estimated to be less than that under the existing General Plan. She pointed out in the staff report and the Negative Declaration there is a Table that describes the land use summary. It calls out the existing setting, the existing General Plan build out and then the proposed build out with the Katella Rezone Project. There is an error in that chart, under the regional-commercial category and the commercial recreation category, the chart calls out 911,000 square feet as the ultimate build out in both of those categories. It should say 738,000 square feet. That was pointed out by the City of Anaheim when they reviewed the environmental documentation. The proposed Commercial Recreation zoning district is intended to provide for commercial and office uses with a specific focus upon entertainment and recreational uses, regional and community serving retail and service uses, and higher intensity office developments. Uses such as restaurants, hotels, conference facilities, sport clubs, family entertainment or virtual reality facilities would be permitted and encouraged. The City does require site plan review for new developments, which is a discretionary process that requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Such projects require environmental review and documentation. That processing requirement is listed in the Orange Municipal Code, Chapter 17.10. Many of the uses currently along Katella Avenue are consistent with the new Commercial Recreation with exception to industrial uses. The new zone would not allow for industrial uses. The existing industrial uses would become "legally non-conforming". The Commercial Recreation zone includes special provisions for legally non-conforming developments that allows them to remain indefinitely. It allows anon-conforming use to be replaced by similar non- conforming use. And, non-conforming developments can expand provided all requirements of the Orange Municipal Code are complied with. If damaged or destroyed, a non-conforming development can be repaired or rebuilt within any number of years after the damage or destruction, provided health and safety issues are addressed. These provisions ensure that the transition to Commercial Recreation will not be forced upon property owners, but rather will be a collective effort between the City and property owners. It needs to be clear that Commercial Recreation tenants can only occupy properties improved to the Commercial Recreation standards because of the increased 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 parking required and the changes in building occupancy standards. An industrial development would have to be significantly altered or redeveloped in order to provide for Commercial Recreation uses. The development standards proposed along with the change in uses permitted are the same as the current standards with respect to street setback requirements, parking, landscaping, fencing and signage. Building height standards will differ slightly. Staff proposes in the Commercial Recreation zone that in the area from Glassell west to Batavia that there be a 65 foot high limit, which is about 4 to 5 stories and then, from Batavia west to the City limits there would be a 175 foot high limit, which is 12 stories. Again, all new development in the area does require site plan review. Ms. Gander reviewed the written comments received. Seven letters were sent in; five in response to the circulation of the environmental documentation for the Negative Declaration and then two letters came in from a property owner in the area. The first letter received was from the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. They had three points to make, which she agreed with and will change the Negative Declaration to reflect those comments. Basically, they wanted the City to acknowledge the Santa Ana Regional Riding Trail, which is along the Santa Ana River, and include some provisions that when a site specific development comes in, that the development has a landscape plan that creates landscaping and pedestrian linkage to the riding trail. They also made a point about acknowledging there are two former land fill sites in the project area; one on the Stadium Drive-In and one on the tank farms. They also wanted the City to acknowledge the Santa Ana River Project as a relevant project in the area, which will be done. Two letters were received from the legal representative of a property owner out in the area. The property owner is opposed to the zone change and general plan amendment primarily because of concerns with the non-conforming provision. They're concerned about new non-conforming tenants and similar uses. The decision will be up to the Community Development Director, who has the authority to make the call as to whether or not the uses are similar. The second concern is about the expansion of the non-conforming use provided all requirements are met. The problem is with having a conditional use permit requirement placed upon a future use in the area. The third concern is that the City will allow non-conforming uses to expand, either throughout the existing building or by adding on to the building. They felt the definition of "expansion" was too broad. The City also received a letter from SCAG, who basically acknowledged that the project is not a regionally significant project and therefore it does not warrant circulation through the State Clearinghouse. They received a letter from the City of Tustin and a letter from the City of Santa Ana. Both of those letters state they have no comment to the project. The last letter received was from the City of Anaheim. In the cover letter, Orange was advised the City of Anaheim was working on a project on the Stadium site, which they call the Anaheim Sports Center. They advised Orange of the updated project description, which they would like staff to use in the Negative Declaration. That's not a problem and the Negative Declaration can be revised to reflect that. The cover letter also asks two initial questions. The first question is regarding the list of uses that are being permitted in the Commercial Recreation zone. Staff calls out a number of recreational, entertainment uses such as stadiums, arenas, conference facilities; staff also allows office developments as permitted uses. The City of Anaheim is concerned there will be no public hearing review of such uses and no review of impacts such as traffic, parking, air quality, etc. The City of Orange has a review process called "Major site plan review". Any new development would require major site plan review. It is a discretionary action so it also triggers the environmental review process, which is when the parking impacts, circulation and air quality are reviewed. The second comment in their cover letter relates to circulation improvements. Doug Keys will address that issue. Doug Keys, Traffic Engineering Department, addressed the City of Anaheim's concern about the implementation and timing of intersection improvements as they occur through the project. Anaheim would like to see the timing and the extent of these improvements listed in the mitigation monitoring program. The City of Orange has established a critical intersection program that was accomplished back in 1988 when the General Plan Update was done. Those cross sections were included in that General Plan. Currently, the intersections that are in the study area (Main and Katella, Batavia and Katella, Glassell and Katella] are listed as critical intersections in the Master Plan. Therefore, at build out are given a designation of this critical intersection standard. The standards were established in 1988 and have been carried over through to this study. In order to provide timing for the intersections and their improvements, there needs to be a better idea as to how they will operate in 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 the future. Currently, all of the intersections operate at an acceptable level of service. They are very few, if any, delays at the intersections. In the future, as development occurs in the area, they will begin to see an increase in traffic volumes at the intersections. With that increase, they will see a deterioration of the level of service at the intersections. When staff, through their annual updating of the traffic volumes, start to see that deterioration occur, it is incumbent upon staff to acknowledge that problem and to put it on the Capital Improvements Program (7 year CIP list). At that point in time, staff can identify the timing of when the improvement needs to take place and potential funding mechanisms for that. Some of those potential funding mechanisms staff would look to would be the City's Capital Improvement Program, the local area TSIP fee, the Redevelopment Agency or through an application for Measure M funds. There's also the possibility these improvements may be conditioned through site development review. When the traffic volumes increase to the point where the intersection in the study area is in need of improvement, then that intersection will be placed on the Capital Improvements list. Staff will then be able to identify both the year and a potential funding mechanism for this source. Ms. Gander said attached to Anaheim's letter was also a list of 14 comments, which she and Doug briefly went over. Anaheim was asking since this Katella Project Area is within the Northwest Redevelopment Project Area, should Orange also amend, as a discretionary action, the Northwest Redevelopment Project Area? She spoke with Mr. Reichert from the Redevelopment Agency and he said the original legislation that established the project area recognized that all development in the area shall comply with the General Plan and zoning as it exists and as it may be amended in the future. The second point Anaheim brings forward is that the land use summary chart is not consistent with the traffic study, which was the correction she previously acknowledged. The third point Anaheim was asking about is that the ordinance previously indicated that general and professional offices would be allowed by a conditional use permit and the information distributed on September 18 at the community workshop calls out they would be permitted uses. Originally staff did have offices being allowed through the conditional use permit process, but staff received a number of comments at the August 7 study session and had some discussions with the Redevelopment Agency, and decided to call it out as a permitted use. So that's why there was a change with that. Mr. Keys answered the fourth point, which dealt with the City of Anaheim's desire to have...since Katella is in the smart street program, there is what is called the smart street implementation plan. That's necessary when you apply for Measure M funds for an improvement project along a smart street corridor. As mentioned previously, all of the intersections in that area are currently operating at an acceptable level of service. Orange needs to wait until a point in time when staff gets a clear idea of which intersection they would like to prioritize as the one that needs the most improvements. They will then be able to prioritize these and create the implementation program and apply for Measure M funds. They would not be very competitive at this point in time competing for these funds. Question 5 relates to the updated description of the Anaheim's Sports Center and Anaheim's desire to have Orange include that updated project description in the report. Staff agrees and wants to have the most accurate and recent up-to-date information. They will incorporate City of Anaheim's updated project description into the Negative Declaration. On question 6, the City of Anaheim asks for their Sports Center Notice of Preparation be incorporated as a reference document in the preparation of the Negative Declaration. Staff agrees, and since it is spoken to in the document, it should also be referenced as a reference document. Ms. Gander said the seventh question relates back to the land use summary table that had the incorrect reporting of the commercial recreation and the regional commercial recreation. There is a slight reduction in the general commercial land uses, but there is an increase in the regional commercial and commercial recreation uses through the Katella Rezone Project. Mr. Keys said questions 8 and 9 relate to each other. When going through the traffic study staff was trying to get in the best fit of land uses, so they went through a few iterations. One of these had a 9% overall reduction in ADT, but that was not the scenario staff used. It states staff had put 9% 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 reduction of ADT's in the Negative Declaration, but then the traffic study only says 2%. Anaheim wants to see a resolution of the 7%. It is a 2% reduction; it is not the 9%. Staff had changed the traffic study and the resulting decrease was 2%, but he inadvertently forgotten to tell those doing the Negative Declaration to take the 9% and drop it down to 2%. It is important to note it is a reduction in traffic volume. Question 9 relates to the reductions in peak hour and again, the same mistake occurred. It is not 43% and 35% respectively. It is 35% in the a.m. and 27% in the p. m. for these reductions. Ms. Gander said the City of Anaheim then asked two questions that relate to the evaluation of parking facilities. The first question, in review of their traffic study, approximations of an overall 2% reduction in the ADT's with a larger reduction of 35% in the a.m. peak and 27% in the p.m. peak, they're saying, would increase traffic during major recreational events can be anticipated. And, that would cause an impact on existing parking facilities. One of the things they failed to point out is that in the discussion Anaheim is referring to, Orange states that any new development requires compliance to the City's parking ordinance. So if you're increasing the intensity on a site, you of course have to comply with parking and create more parking. So that wouldn't have an impact on the existing parking. Their second related question is that major recreational events include those at the Anaheim Pond and the Anaheim Stadium. Anaheim states shuttle bus activity must be provided for between the Anaheim event centers and uses along the Katella Corridor in Orange. Existing parking facilities could be impacted by off site shuttle bus staging and operational requirements. She was not sure if their first comment was saying Orange needed to provide parking for Anaheim's uses. If Orange built a stadium in Orange, they would provide adequate parking for the stadium use so that people are not having to park in Anaheim. The shuttle bus idea is a good one. If there are uses that are compatible with uses in Anaheim, when the site specific plans are being reviewed, they could include some sort of shuttle bus service between the two cities. It's not appropriate to establish that at this level of review though. Mr. Keys stated Question 12 speaks to the problems at build out (post 2010) on the 57 Freeway, as well as locations on Katella that are immediately west of the 57 Freeway. From a traffic perspective he acknowledges at build out they are going to have severe congestion problems on the 57 Freeway. The volumes do reflect Level Service E and F. It's important to note this is a regional facility and everyone is a contributor to the congestion; not just Orange or Anaheim. This is a regional problem. They're dealing with a local zone change. With the reduction in traffic he had spoken about previously, they are actually reducing the number of trips that are created from this part of the City. The numbers on the freeway go down by 1,000 vehicles. That may not seem like much and will not solve the congestion problem, but it takes a whole lot of contributions from everywhere to make something like this work. Anaheim goes on to mention things like consideration of a transit way at Cerritos Avenue. That's something that should be explored, but it's beyond the scope of a zone change on Katella Avenue in the City of Orange. Question 13 is an easy one. Orange had data that showed 192,000 and 185,000; Anaheim has data that shows 193,000 and 186,000. That's not a problem. A thousand vehicles from a projected point of view is not a problem and it can be changed. Ms. Gander said Anaheim's last comment goes back to the permitted land uses where they would like Orange to indicate that significant projects like a stadium complex or conference facility would be subject to the major site plan review process and would require a public hearing with environmental documentation. Commissioner Pruett questioned item 4 which is the smart street program and they're discussing an implementation plan be prepared. With the project that is being planned by Anaheim, would they be preparing a similar smart street proposal for that part that was in Orange because of the impact it would have? Who mitigates the issues? Mr. Keys stated the cities would be looking at problem intersections within their own jurisdiction that would be in the smart street program. They have worked on cooperative funding applications and that's a possibility in the future where there are intersections which are of benefit to both jurisdictions. 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Joint city efforts seem to go over very well with OCTA and other funding sources. When Anaheim does their Anaheim Sports Center, he was sure they will be looking for intersection improvements within their corridor. When the City of Orange reviews their Anaheim Sports Center document, they will be looking at the impact their Sports Center will have on the City of Orange's intersections. If Orange felt there was a negative impact on the intersection in Orange via a project Anaheim did, then Orange would ask Anaheim to participate on a fair share basis to improve the intersection. Commissioner Romero said the comment of future traffic levels of service E and F, as compared to today, A,B,C, any comments of at what point in the meantime is it getting to the level of D and E? When do you anticipate levels of LOS becoming problematic? What type of planning procedures are used? Construction setback? Mr. Keys responded staff analyzes the number of vehicles that go through the intersections every year during peak hours of traffic. After each year, they see sometimes a deterioration; sometimes an improvement in the intersections. As staff goes through the annual updates, they get to a certain point before it reaches gridlock. Staff will forecast what they believe to be their best guess as to what the land use will be in 5 year increments, 10 year increments, and to build out. It gives them the percentage of increase. When it can be identified at what point in time it's going to deteriorate, then staff can add that intersection to the 7 year CIP. It will give staff an opportunity to work on those funding mechanisms. There is an anticipation factor that must be worked towards. In the approved General Plan, there are some cross section standards that tells them which cross section is needed when an intersection is expanded to its critical intersection standard. Relative to Katella and its smart street designation, they are already to the ultimate right-of-way. They are at 120 feet of right-of-way on Katella; they have the 100-104 feet curb-to-curb -- there will not be any physical widening on Katella that will be necessary. Any right-of-way that may possibly be needed for expansion would occur on the north-south streets (approaches). Commissioner Pruett read the staff report regarding the Negative Declaration and the added mitigation measures. With the comments received from the Environmental Management Agency and the City of Anaheim, and incorporating those changes, the staff review committee's findings would be the same or consistent. Ms. Gander responded there would be no change to the Negative Declaration. Most of the comments received were changes that would be made to the descriptive part of the Negative Declaration. Anaheim did ask Orange to add some mitigation measures to the traffic impacts analysis part, and that still wouldn't change the level of significance. The public hearing was opened. Tim Galusha, 2603 Main Street #1300, Irvine, was present on behalf of the Yoder Trust properties. They're the owners at 625 through 633 Katella Avenue. They were concerned with the language in the ordinance regarding the non-conforming uses for developments. He wanted to explain their concern. It states that if the non-conforming uses of light industrial or industrial change to a new tenant, that if they are "equal or more appropriate" then the Community Development Director will approve the new tenant for the new use. That's too vague and ambiguous and gives too much discretion to the Community Development Director. What is equal or more appropriate? The Yoder Trust Properties want to feel comfortable when they get a new tenant for a similar use. He suggested clarification of the language to something that says, "Any light industrial use in the future they wish to use would be acceptable." The next concern was the expansion. The language says any expansion requires an approval and must comply with the new requirements. And the term expansion" is not really defined. Some of the tenants might want to bring in new machines and expand a little bit. Will they have to go through the Planning Commission to get approval? The word "expansion" needs to be defined a little more clear when approval is needed. Under the terms, once someone moves from an industrial tenant to a commercial tenant with commercial uses, then they would not be allowed to go back to industrial uses. He understood the purpose is to change the area to make it a commercial area. The problem from their standpoint is they are going to be s Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 reluctant to start bringing in commercial tenants if they're not allowed to go back if it doesn't work out. They would prefer the option of being able to go back to an industrial tenant, within the same uses that were there before. To be grandfathered in as long as they are the property owners. Commissioner Pruett wanted to make sure he understood what was being requested. One of the things they try to do is not to restrict businesses to a point where they are creating a bureaucracy for them to continue to maintain their businesses. What he is hearing is that they want Orange to be more definitive, more narrow and construct something that is going to cause businesses to operate within a very narrow parameter under which they must go through a bureaucratic process in order to do anything. Is that what he is hearing Mr. Galusha say? Mr. Galusha responded not exactly. Although he could see how that was interpreted. The language as it stands, gives the opportunity for the Community Development Director to approve any changes that are made when a new tenant is brought in. A little more clarification or reassurance is needed. If you bring in a new tenant, or want to bring in a new tenant, who also has a light industrial use, then that will be okay." Commissioner Pruett thought that was what the ordinance was saying. It will be okay. And it's giving very broad parameters for that to happen. It appears in terms of the letter that there is a real concern over the so-called power the Community Development Director is going to have in terms of these findings. The Community Development Director, he didn't see, as being the ultimate decision maker in the event someone is not satisfied, to where there is an appeal process you could turn to. But, in front of that decision, you have something that allows the freedom and opportunity for you to continue to operate the business as you want and be very open as to the different directions one could take. Then, if you're not satisfied with the decision that is there, then you can go through the bureaucratic process. He was concerned that what he was proposing something that would put the bureaucratic process at the front end and cause people to go through that process before they even get to the decision. Chairman Bosch felt they look at the discretion of the Community Development Director and determination of what is equal or appropriate with regard to the City's ordinances. The City's ordinances spell out fairly succinctly what's equal or appropriate with regard to uses within any specific zone. That's the immediate guidance that the Director of Community Development has in exercising his discretion. Expansion is one of a bit more concern and he looked to staff to address that issue. But with regard to expansion within a building, obviously that is not a problem at all as long as the existing use is maintained and it's in the existing ordinance. He shares a concern in what this means in terms of minor expansion of the building. The land development standards and zoning requirements still must be met. Roland Kennedy, 1350 North Main Street, Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline, said they were not actually in the border areas, but just outside on Main Street by the river. Their main concern is the hotel type designation for the area. They also noticed while they were not in one plan, they were included in all of the concepts. Their other concern was traffic. The Traffic Department did not count for the traffic coming out of their facility and turns left at Main Street, going north to Ball Road. They currently run 140 petroleum trucks out of that facility. Being that close to the intersection and increased traffic flow creates a problem. If they start forcing the trucks to turn right, then that will create a traffic flow problem onto Katella Avenue. They would like in the near future to schedule a meeting with staff to go over these concerns. They would also like to get a copy of the legally non-compliance uses. Chairman Bosch understood with the visionary concepts designers have a way of seeing what is beyond what the City is addressing as strictly those areas that are within the proposed General Plan Amendment and Ordinance. He appreciated his concerns and asked for him to contact the Traffic Division staff. Steve Driscoll, 1221 West Struck, Struck Avenue Business Park, had three questions. Can commercial recreational development occur in M-1 and M-2 zones? The terminology also concerned 7 a•, Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 him. He started his company 10 years ago in Orange and he now employs 30 people. He will soon take over the entire business park he is in. It's zoned M-2 and he is doing very clean industrial work. It meets all City requirements and does not pollute the environment. He's next to the strawberry patch and is concerned if he will be pressured to change his use. It sounds to him like staff will worry about traffic problems when it gets bad, but it's already bad. Will they worry about it when it gets worse? It leaves a lot to be desired. By re-zoning, you won't see a difference in traffic. Chairman Bosch appreciated his concerns. It has been the policy of the City for a number of years not to involve people in changes they don't want to participate in. The City has also been very careful in not utilizing the fairly broad tools that are available to cities under State Redevelopment Law like condemnation to acquire land other than for purposes purely of public safety, but not for the purpose of putting together land to turn over development projects to others. The City wants to retain the people they have and provide them other tools so if they wish to transition over time or bring in other opportunities in addition to what they have, they could do it where they are. Greg McCatharthy, City of Anaheim, 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, commented briefly on the Katella Avenue Corridor project. He thanked the Community Development staff for their assistance in helping them understand the project. Anaheim always appreciates the good working relationship between the two cities. His comments focused on two areas: first, the public review process for major development proposals that would be followed if the Katella Avenue Corridor project is adopted; and second, project mitigation. They understand that proposed projects in what is called the permit use category such as stadiums, arenas, commercial sports facilities and regional serving commercial and conference facilities, will require a public hearing with public notice, project specific environmental analysis and documentation, and imposition of applicable mitigation measures. The City of Anaheim supports this public process. His second comment is relative to project mitigation. He requests that the extent, timing and mechanisms necessary to carry out identified mitigation measures be addressed in the environmental documentation for the Katella Avenue Corridor project. By extent, he meant the type of mitigation imposed and what the measure is intended to mitigate. By timing, that the measures imposed at the time of the impact. And, by mechanism, the method for implementation of the mitigation measure, such as fee programs or redevelopment funding. This will ensure that both cities can move forward in a coordinated fashion. The City of Anaheim submitted a letter to Jack McGee from Joel Fck, Anaheim Planning Director, with specific comments regarding the Draft Negative Declaration. He asked the letter be made a part of the record of tonight's hearing. Chairman Bosch explained earlier in the hearing the letter was entered into the record and each of the sub paragraphs and paragraphs were responded to specifically, which becomes part of the environmental review. He looks to the City of Anaheim partnering with the City of Orange in assisting Orange with mitigating the impacts Anaheim may have on Orange. He stressed they must work together to assure there are no negative impacts on either city. Commissioner Smith was curious about the shuttle buses. Could that be clarified? Mr. McCatharthy said that was a comment from their Traffic and Transportation man. He thought he was alluding to if by creation of this commercial recreation zone, it increases the traffic in the area, then shuttle buses might want to be used for transportation purposes. James Potter, 5300 Paseo Panorama, Yorba Linda, managed and owned a few of the properties along Katella. He was also a real estate broker in the area. He was always for a change or modification of the zone along Katella to take advantage of the street it is. In some of the public workshops he attended he heard the existing uses would be grandfathered in. He was confused as to how closely defined they would be if one didn't have a specific use in that one building -- would they then have a commercial use and could not rent the building if the requirements were not met? He was concerned with the level of approval. A lot of properties are going to remain industrial for a long time. 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Steve Prothero, 741 East Briardale Avenue, addressed some of the associated properties that were owned by his family in the area. He was concerned if you convert to commercial, that you may not be able to revert back to industrial use. The difference between retail use and industrial use would be the amount of sales. The properties in transition to the commercial use is going to be a long term process and there may be tenants coming and going. He sees a problem converting to a commercial tenant. The tenant leaves. The market indicates it could be rented to an industrial use. It's not entirely industrial, but has a small retail area. He would like to see some vehicle in place that a person could revert it back to industrial use -- maybe a time period or maybe when the area reaches a certain threshold to commercial use. It's not an area in fluctuation. Fred Holcolm, 740 West Collins, spoke for himself and his client. There are a lot of businesses in the area to support his company. It's a good family based business. He was concerned about the squeeze being put on manufacturing. You're getting rid of an area that is creating new dollars. It will hurt the area if manufacturing is lost. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Gander addressed the first group of questions regarding non-conforming provisions. Mr. Galusha was concerned about the more appropriate determination that is made by the Community Development Director. It seems like he was satisfied close to the end of the discussion where it was explained that ultimately the Director's decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission, and then to the City Council. The Director's decision is going to be based upon looking at the existing industrial ordinance, land use provisions that call out many manufacturing uses to determine a similar use. Another concern was regarding the expansion of uses. Anon-conforming use can expand throughout the building or even physically by adding on to the building provided they meet parking requirements and the setback and building code requirements. He wanted a more limited definition of the expansion, but she didn't see how that would help an industrial property owner. iitib nessngussMr. Jones added part of the issue was not requiring a conditional use permit for an ex to expand. If it were a permitted industrial use, he would have to meet all the other development standards to expand. Staff is not proposing an additional hurdle in the process. If a person has an existing conditional use permit and wants to expand, he would have to modify it. If a conditional use permit was not required, a person would not have to get one. Ms. Gander continued, a question brought up by several people is when an industrial development transitions to allow for a commercial tenant, can the City then allow for it to transition back to allow for industrial tenants? They have not recognized that in the Zoning Ordinance. They basically said that when you transition to a commercial tenant, you would have to upgrade your property to provide If theddars. more parking, the building may have to be retrofitted to meet the occupancy stan Commission wants staff to include a time period -- maybe within two years of the transition from commercial -- can they transition back to industrial? The overall intent of the zone change is to see a thAItof etheolesconcern. oheunderstandsetIIAvenue. S plandusechangealongKaeaP developments along Katella, particularly the ones that have buildings that don't front onto Katella -- right now the only use for them is industrial use, which is a great use. Once they have made that transition to commercial, is it wise to go back to industrial? Commissioner Pruett thought the idea of the transition is not a bad one, especially the way it is proposed. One question dealt with the businesses along Katella, the industrial type that may have some retail or small retail sales. How are those handled or viewed? Ms. Gander said right now in the industrial zoning ordinance a manufacturing use can have a small portion of their business (25% of the overall square footage) as a retail use. That remains unchanged. The intent is to allow someone to manufacture a certain type of part and then sell it on site. They can continue doing that. And, if that tenant moves out, then another manufacturer with a w small retail component could move in too. That could occur indefinitely. Another person had a ertroftheirthhiir y.p possoucconcernabouta12storyhotelbeingbuiltupontheStadiumDriveIn, wh 9 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 He didn't express the concern he had, but possibly it's because the hotel would be looking down on the tank farm. That could happen. They are allowing for commercial development on that site. A hotel could be built there. There could be a 2-story development there as well. It's not going to necessarily impact his development by kicking his business off the site. He's not part of the rezone project. The second concern was the Vision Statement took some liberty by expanding the area and showing all the possibilities that could occur. The action before the Planning Commission is to change the zoning on the properties within the boundary described. It does not include the Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline property. The third concern was with the increased traffic around the site and he wants to meet with staff, which is fine. One person who spoke asked whether or not commercial recreation uses concurrently occur in the industrial zone. Currently, in the M-1 and M-2 zones the City has allowed some commercial uses through the conditional use permit process such as Home Depot. They have allowed for some entertainment uses. There is a billiard pallor on Main Street that was approved through the conditional use permit process. All of the uses listed out in the new commercial recreation zone are not allowed in the industrial standards. The City of Anaheim brought forward their concerns about the public review process, which was discussed. Then, the project mitigation, which Mr. Keys discussed. Mr. Potter's question about whether or not industrial developments will be allowed to remain indefinitely and be occupied by industrial tenants. And the non-conforming provisions allowed such developments to be occupied by industrial tenants indefinitely. They can move in and out. The last speaker also asked about the conversion back, which was discussed. The last comment about depleting the industrial land uses in the area. The City recognizes that industrial uses provide a strong economic base. They are responding to some of the market conditions that have already forced this area to transition to commercial. The City is not depleting the remaining 1,400 acres of industrial land in the City; they're just focusing on this 150 acre portion of the Northwest Area. Mr. Reichert apologized for a poor choice of words; he didn't mean to infer pressure in the governmental sense. He was trying to refer to market forces...pressure in the sense that market forces might occur as a result of a change in land use occurring in the area. Having property owners then choose on their own to evaluate their existing circumstances in relationship to what they see occurring around them and making the choice on their own whether or not they want to take this step to change the use of their property. The City of Orange has implemented no ordinances or policies which would put pressure on the people. Mr. Keys said there was a question relative to whether the City was taking a proactive or reactive position regarding the improvements of intersections. They say timing is everything and it certainly is the case with traffic and forecasting. To anticipate what would happen now for 20 years down the road would be putting the cart before the horse. Now that staff has identified at build out exactly what improvements are to occur, they must determine which of the intersections will deteriorate first. That's going to be done through the annual count program. The City does not have the funding sources available to just go through every intersection and fix each one of them. Amore specific time frame might ease the concerns. Decisions can be made within a two to three year time period. Studies will be made long before a grid lock situation occurs. The Congestion Management Program has been established in the entire Orange County area. Katella Avenue is part of the Congestion Management Program. Any development that comes in and wants to locate along the Congestion Management network (Katella Avenue), if that development generates in excess of 1,600 trips per day, that by default has to go through a traffic review which is reviewed by the staff from the Traffic Engineering Department and then goes on to the Planning Commission and City Council. There is an extra mechanism that provides security to ensure an intersection doesn't get out of control. Chairman Bosch said there was one issue the Planning Commission must consider and that's the concept of transitioning to and from industrial to commercial and back. Commissioner Pruett asked staff to comment on the transition proposal time frame. 10 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Mr. Jones said staff has not fully discussed that option. They've approached the project on the basis it is voluntary; that it's as business friendly as they could attempt to structure it. If somebody desires to convert to commercial, typically there is some kind of significant expense involved and it is a commitment. And they should think very carefully about making that commitment if they're concerned they may go back to industrial. Because it's voluntary, staff felt it was structured in a very business friendly way. Because no one has to change. They can keep their business just like it is or even expand it for eternity. It wouldn't be too difficult to structure some type of a transition period if the Commission would like to do that. Chairman Bosch personally was not interested in it. He concurred with the concept that what they were doing is voluntary. If someone is concerned about the risk, don't do it. Don't push yourself in the direction of going to a commercial use early on. This is a very unique proposal in that it provides the flexibility; there's only one hook to it and that is, you either fish or cut bait in the deal some place along the way. There is a broad enough range of uses that are available under the allowed light industrial uses, as well as those that will be allowed under the commercial recreational zoning. The only risk is going back to those that in return are of a lower return. There is no risk at all for those facing on the arterial highways. Over the years it has almost entirely transitioned to commercial uses and office uses as it is. Commissioner Smith said the one area she wanted to change regarding the wording was the section in the ordinance, Page 5, A-3, the paragraphs that refer to expansion. That is rather vague the way it is worded and she would feel more comfortable if it were defined a little better. She questioned the second sentence. "When the expansion of anon-conforming use requires an expansion of development (she didn't know what development meant), the building addition or additional structures shall comply with the requirements contained herein and all applicable requirements of the Orange Municipal Code." The letter from the Yoder's representative said, "You indicated that expansion includes both physical expansion in terms of floor space and expanded use of the facility in terms of the type of business therein." The first part was covered, but the second part was not. Chairman Bosch referred to the first sentence, "Shall be allowed to expand within a conforming or non-conforming development." And then the second states directly to building addition or additional structures. He thought the intent was there. Commissioner Smith also thought the intent was there, but when the expansion of anon-conforming use requires an expansion of the development -- what does that mean? Chairman Bosch thought they could clear up some wording. He took "development" to mean the property or single parcel of land that exists at this time. Mr. Jones affirmed that was the intent of the word "development". Chairman Bosch said the word "development" is the problem. Is it appropriate to say "conforming or non-conforming property or parcel"? What is the best wording for that? Property is a term they have defined elsewhere in the zoning ordinance to indicate a single piece of land with regard to the permits that are granted. Staff thought property works just as well as development. The word "property" is used a number of times throughout the zoning ordinance and is self-defined. Non-conforming use sections are always somewhat confusing. Ms. Gander thought the word "parcel" is more specific than property. That's the first sentence under 3.A. "Non-conforming use shall be allowed to expand within a conforming or non-conforming parcel." The second sentence, "When the expansion of anon-conforming use requires an expansion of a building..." 11 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Mr. Jones read the definition of "development" in the zoning ordinance. 'The division of a parcel of land into two or more parcels, the construction, re-construction, conversion of structural, alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure, any mining excavation, landfill, or land disturbance, and any use or extension of the use of land." It means just about everything. Chairman Bosch thought the second sentence should be: "When the expansion of the non- conforming use requires alteration of buildings or site improvements, the building addition, additional structures or site improvements shall comply with the requirements contained herein and all applicable requirements of the Orange Municipal Code." He believed that carried the intent and makes it clear what is allowed to happen. Commissioner Smith referred to the list of comments from the City of Anaheim. Would those comments be incorporated into the revised Negative Declaration or would they need to be called out? Chairman Bosch said they were specifically stated and would be included, in addition to the testimony received, and becomes part of the final documentation for the Negative Declaration. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Negative Declaration 1478-95 with the understanding that the project could have a significant effect on the environment; however, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of added mitigation measures which have been called out in the Negative Declaration. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to recommend to the City Council to approve General Plan Amendment 2-95, Ordinance Amendment 4-95, and Zone Change 1177-95, including the amendments made to Chapter 17.18.050 A-3 on Page 5. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-95, BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN -CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to amend the General Plan, Circulation Element by modifying the existing Bikeways Master Plan to include a comprehensive system of bike routes that provide access to the City's residential areas, businesses, schools, as well as connections to adjacent cities and County bike routes. N TE: Negative Declaration 1480-95 has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of this project. Jere Murphy, Advanced Planning Manager, presented the staff report. The purpose of the plan is to make the movement of bicycle traffic through the City for work, shopping and school purposes as easy and as safe as possible. The orientation is towards business trips; not towards recreation. Staff has been trying to put together a comprehensive bicycle master plan for many years, going back to the General Plan adoption in 1989 and again in 1993 when the City adopted the recreational trails master plan. The project before the Commission has been funded through AB 2766 funds, the Department of Motor Vehicle fees that are collected to improve air quality. Pam Elliott, Landscape Architect, was hired, along with Mike Jones from Fehr & Peers Transportation Engineers, as consultants for this project. Again, both their costs and staffs' costs in preparation of the plan were covered by the AB 2766 funds. He introduced the staff members involved in the 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 project. The Citizens' Advisory Committee needs to be recognized because they spent a substantial amount of time on the project, including four meetings. The goals of the plan were to create a bikeway system that was integrated with other transportation elements to link residential areas with other major activity centers in and around the City, and to connect Orange's bikeways with adjacent jurisdiction of bikeways. Lastly, to provide a safe as possible bikeway system. They used a 14-15 year old as a typical bike rider when looking at the type of people the City should be planning for in terms of this system -- not necessarily the avid adult bicyclist. The other three key assumptions staff developed during the preparation of the plan was that it would be implemented over a 15 to 20 year period; it was not a short term implementation program. That no additional right-of-way would be required for the bikeways and that no significant parking removal would be required. The other item that goes along with the implementation of the plan is that the implementation would occur only as funds were available. Again, they're looking at specialized funds like the AB 2766 for both development and maintenance of the system. The wall in back of Commissioner Romero shows two plans. The top one contains the existing bicycle system in the City, which is about 30 miles in length. That plan is composed of specific user trails related to the middle and elementary schools. It includes the Santa Ana River Regional Trail and the other aspect is the new portion of the City to the East where there is significant miles of trails in the area adjacent to and including the Irvine Ranch. The proposed system, which is the lower map, attempts to interconnect those separate portions of the system. The upper map shows both the existing system and Phase 1. It shows what the bicycle routes would look like after a period of about five years. There are three types of bicycle trails -- Class I or the offroad trails; Class II or the on-street signed and striped lanes; and Class III, the signed only bikeways. The criteria for Class III were that they be the low volume and slower streets, such as Palm and Almond Avenue. Pam Elliott, consultant, talked about some of the standards that are part of the document. The standards follow the Cal Trans Highway Design Manual. That's very important in terms of a liability, legal standpoint for the City. Adherence with the Cal Trans Standards assures that should anyone ever be injured on the bicycle routes that you have an applied protection because the City followed the established standards. She explained the different standards for each Class. She touched on the guidelines for bike lockers and racks. A cost structure was divided between the two phases. The first phase is anticipated to occur within a five year period. The criteria for determining whether a route ended up in Phase I or Phase 2 is whether it filled a void and reflected current development efforts and in terms of its relative expense. In Phase 1, the Class I bike routes would be the Santiago Creek, approximately two miles. A small section on Tustin, between Taft and Taft, which they propose to implement on the Edison right-of-way. Class II routes on Batavia, Katella, LaVeta, Meats, Taft and Tustin. Class III routes, which are only signed, on Almond, Bedford, Feldner, and Palmyra. The difference between these routes was determined whether there was adequate street right-of-way and did not necessitate the need to remove parking. Within the first phase there would be approximately 10 miles of bike lanes constructed. Then, ultimately the full system would be approximately 86 miles. But that is envisioned to be all the way up to a 20 year period. Funding sources were discussed; they were broken down in the plan by each Class. Commissioner Pruett referred to the proposed map of Page 23 for phasing. It was difficult to see -- he saw a proposed Class III on Lemon, between Almond and Palm. Does the one on Lemon connect to the Metro station? Maple is one way out of the station, with the exception of buses. Buses can go in and it is not clearly delineated that bicycle traffic would be appropriate. That would be the appropriate way to enter rather than off of Chapman. That's something you may want to look at. Mr. Murphy said it was about two blocks away from the station, going across Maple. It's close enough to consider it to be attached. Mr. Keys shares those concerns. The one problem on Maple is that they're trying to prevent private vehicles from coming in off of Maple. They could put the bike lane up onto either the north or south side of the sidewalk. They would do this so as to not confuse the cars from the bicycles, and give cars the impression they can access through that area. 13 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Chairman Bosch said the intent of the City is to make the Maple Street Depot area a very pedestrian friendly district and they don't want to set up the liability of proposing that as a permanent solution. Mr. Keys stated they are actively looking for additional ways to help mesh the two alternate modes of transportation (bicycles and commuter trains). Commissioner Romero saw in East Orange Canyon View appears to be Phase 2, but he was aware there were bike lanes on Canyon View now. With regards to Northwest Orange and Southwest Orange, is it accurate with regards to the different phases and the existing routes? Mr. Murphy replied yes, as accurate as they could be done at this time. There is a portion of Canyon View that is a bicycle trail. It's a very small portion which runs from the top of the hill down to Newport and ends at both of those points. The bike trail needs to be completed. They were looking for short areas that were filling part of the system as much as possible. Commissioner Romero noticed Phase I appears to be largely the northwest and southwest areas of Orange, compared to central and east Orange. Mr. Murphy said there were more voids in the system in the northwest and southwest part of the system, whereas the newer part of the City (East of the Newport Freeway) has full right-of-way; therefore, it has the capacity and in some cases, such as Santiago Canyon Road, has the bicycle lanes being installed as the road is widened in that area, compared to the older part of the City where there is more of a fractionalized system of separate facilities. Santa Ana has a master plan underway right now and they are trying to connect something to the southwest and trying to connect the system with the Santa Ana River Trail, which is hard to do. Commissioner Romero made another unfortunate observation regarding Phase 2 is the 15 to 20 years for full implementation. Is that realistic with that lengthy time period? Mr. Murphy said it was realistic. The 5 year first phase is optimistic because there are some major issues there. The City needs to acquire an easement on the power station at Taft and Tustin. The improvements are going to be expensive. The 15 to 20 years may be fair in terms of developing the system. A lot of it depends on the availability of funds. They can apply for special funding and will be talking to the City Council tomorrow. He mentioned the Southern Pacific Railroad project because Cal Trans does not want to be the applicant on that project. They do not want to provide the matching funds either, which is a 20% match. There will be a public hearing in November on the Environmental Impact Report for the Southern Pacific Railroad Tustin Spur Trail, and the results of that public hearing, as well as the ability of the City to come up with the 20% match will be the two major stumbling blocks to even applying for TEA funds. Chairman Bosch said it was interesting the Southern Pacific Railway Trail was the first bikeway trail proposed in the County as part of the Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek Greenbelt Corridor system back in 1973. He participated in that in having the Southern Pacific line added to the plan. It's such an obvious key note for this and the only part of it that has been implemented is the part along Esplanade and North Tustin. It's a shame that over 20 years we've been unable to do a bit more on apiece of land that sits fallow. He would think a little more energy could be placed on providing something that not only is a sure link to the Santa Ana River Trail, but as a relatively liability free link across town with just a few road crossings. He strongly encouraged staff to work hard to place more emphasis on something that has been recognized for so many years and it keeps slipping out of our grasp. It's worth doing something a bit more on that. He recognizes there is competition for funds, but he understands the City has an integrated plan for handling the transportation system in the City of Orange that accomplishes all of these things. He noted with concern on the proposed routes the segment of the Southern Pacific Line between Palmyra and Walnut and the creek crossing is missing. Why is that missing from the plan? He thought they needed to provide the link other than on the streets. A lot has been done in the City in planning for improvement of major arterials, particularly in the Eastern part of the City to provide for adequate right-of-way and road width 14 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 because it was the City's only chance to get bike trails. He hopes the City can put that same kind of energy and recognition of the need to compromise here and there into seeing a realization of the Southern Pacific link to the Santiago Creek link. He attended the Santa Ana Planning Commission hearing on September 11 when they reviewed, and yes the Commission failed to include the stretch from I-5 westerly to the Santa Ana River along Santiago Creek. There's probably no way to circumvent that without property acquisition which will probably never occur with a bikeway trail. But they did adopt a Class I trail from I-5 to the city limits aligned at approximately the Garden Grove Freeway and Orange city limits which ties well with the City's plans for the creek. He had a couple of other thoughts in addition to Commissioner Pruett's observation about tying the Depot in. On Page 3 it should be CAPITAL rather than CAPITOL. Beyond that, on Page 5 out on Jamboree Road we represent having a completed bike trail over a portion. Yet, between Canyon View and Port Road there is a chunk that is undeveloped for some reason that escapes him. There is a piece of land on the west side of Jamboree that has no equestrian trail, no bike trail, no sidewalk, no landscaping; it's probably 300-400 feet. It should be looked into and identified. What needs to be done to cause completion of that link? A lot of effort has been put into equestrian trails, and giving consideration to people on horses punching the buttons for cross/don't cross signs. There are raised buttons at intersections so they don't have to get off their horse. Bicyclists don't have quite the same problem, but he thought they were all faced with seeing them at major intersections at signals stumbling, falling or crashing around trying to get to the walk/don't walk buttons, which is their only means of getting across often times. What is being done to address that issue? There needs to be a way to do that which is safe and doesn't clog traffic. Mr. Murphy thought the bicycle buttons are part of the implementation process to be put in place, but they haven't spelled out the implementation process completely. They don't plan to put loop detectors in for bicycles in the pavement. Chairman Bosch thought it deserved mention or it won't happen. He was not suggesting loop detectors. He was suggesting a practical thing that needs to be done because in looking at the accident reports at the key intersections, that's where a great percentage of the accidents occur. They haven't made those intersections at all marginally user friendly to people on bicycles. He urged something be done to encourage that as they put money in at a $1,000 a mile for signage, something be done when the intersections are being improved for signalization, which is a minor percentage of the investment of signalization at the time to make it a little more safe. Chairman Bosch would also like to see a link added between Palmyra and the creek, going north and south. The Palmyra link should be retained as well. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Negative Declaration 1480-95 in that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to recommend to the City Council to approve General Plan Amendment 3-95 -Bikeways Master Plan -with the changes as discussed: the Southern Pacific Railroad Spur, the connection to the Depot, address the intersection standards at signalized intersections, and the minor change to Jamboree regarding the missing link. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED 15 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT 0 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED sld 16