HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-21-1994 PC Minutesc~~'
oo-~•a•3 MINUTE
Planning
Commission City
of Orange November
21, 1994 Monday -
7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners
Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Vem
Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary;Stan Soo-
Hoo, Assistant City Attorney;Gary
Johnson, City Engineer, and Sue
Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE
OF ALLEGIANCE IN
RE: MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7. 1994 Moved
by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Minutes of November
7. 1994.AYES:
Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES:
None MOTION CARRIED IN
RE: NEW HEARINGS ZONE
CHANGE 1173-94 - CHOCO REALTY A
request to reclassify a property from O-P (Office Professional District) to P-I (Public
Institution District}
zone.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section
15305.There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. The
public hearing was
opened.Mr. Jones said this was a follow through of a previous approval in which there was a
condition placed to require the applicant to file a zone change to make the property
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
Aoalicant
November 2l, 1994
John Meisenhelder, Haynes & Oakley Architects, 835 Mission Street, South Pasadena, said this
was a house keeping item that needed to be taken care of and he had no further comments.
The public hearing was Gosed.
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA Guidelines.
Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City
Council to approve Zone Change 1173-
94.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith,
Walters NOES: None MOTION
CARRIED TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 14983, 14984, 14985; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2076-
94; ZONE CHANGE 1170-94; MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13529 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1678-88 -
BA
PROPERTIES (CRAWFORD HILLS}This project is a request to modify an approved development plan
for this site.The previously approved project (approved in 1988} allowed construction of
400 dwelling units,including a mix of single family attached, single family detached,
townhouse,
and condominium units.The current proposal is to construct a total of 298 dwelling units, all of which
are detached single family units. This proposal revises portions of the site; the remainder of
the development
plan remains unchanged.To develop the property in the manner proposed requires approval of
the following applications:Tentative Tract Maps 14983, 14984 and 14985 - To resubdivide various portions of
the previously
approved map.Conditional Use Permit 2076-94 - To develop the project as a planned
unit development.Zone Change 1170-94 - To rezone approximately 2 acres near the Chapman Avenue entry
to the project to allow construction of homes in an area previously designated for a
project recreational facility, and to adjust the boundaries of City owned property containing a
water reservoir.Modification to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13529 and Conditional Use Permit 1678 - To
modify some of the existing conditions of
approval.The project area includes an extension of Crawford Canyon Road, from its current terminus
north of Chapman Avenue, to Cannon Street, and incudes approximately 182 acres east of
this planned roadway and north of Chapman
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
November 2l, 1994
NOTE: Environmental Impact Report 496 was previously approved for this project site. For this
modification to the project, an expanded initial study and addendum have been
completed. The previous EIR and current addendum adequately describe the
anticipated environmentaleffects and feasible mitigation measures associated with the
project as now proposed.
Joan Wolff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as there was opposition to this project. The
Planning Commission received a large packet which included an original staff report, an expanded
initial study and addendum to EIR 496, a memo from the City Attorney regarding the
recommended condition for Crawford Canyon Road, a memo dated November 21, 1994 regarding
modifications to certain conditions, a batch of attachments that included the applications,
correspondence, list of conditions for each application and the previously adopted Resolution that
approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13529, which stands as the approval for this property. The
site is approximately 182 acres in size. It is located east of Crawford Canyon Road, west of
Orange Park Boulevard, north of Chapman Avenue, and south of Muir Drive. It is surrounded by
residential development to the north, east (OPA) and south (Ville Urbane). To the west is a
pennanent open space reserve owned by the County of Orange. This project is a request to
modify a previously approved development plan and the project has had a long history with the
City. Application was originally made in 1979 to develop this property, and a development plan
was approved in 1980. An EIR was prepared for that project, to study the environmental impacts
of a 300 unit residential development. The project approval was amended in 1983, 1986 and
1988. During that time, the number of permitted units increased to 381 and then to 400. The
project consisted of single family homes, condominiums and townhouses. The 1988 project
approval is still in effect. It consisted of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for development of the
overall project with a total of 400 dwelling units. Final maps have been approved and recorded
over the entire project area. The current proposal consists of 298 residential units. All of the units
will be detached single family residences. The project keeps certain aspects of the project intact.
Two of the recorded maps are basically unchanged. One map will be re-recorded as tracts
14983 and 14984. The changes proposed are primarily in the southerly and central project site, and
are located along Crawford Canyon Road. No changes are proposed to the previously approved
one acre lots for custom homes, or the single family residential development at the northerly portion
of the property. The area along Cliffway Drive previously approved for single family attached
homes,will keep the same lot Tines, but the homes are now proposed to be detached. Overall, the
project consists of: 17 1 acre lots, 86 lots of approximately 7,000 square feet or greater, for
residential tract development, 100 Tots on an average of 3900 square feet in size, for residential
tract development, and 95 detached condominium units. The project also inGudes the extension
of Crawford Canyon Road north of Chapman Avenue to Cannon Street. Crawford Canyon Road is
a secondary arterial, and is part of both the adopted City and County Master Plans. Several
phone calls have been received from area residents with questions about Crawford Canyon Road.
Many people are unaware of previous public hearings that have been held, when the decisions
were made to include Crawford Canyon Road as part of the City's arterial road system. The purpose
of tonight's hearing is to consider the proposed revisions to the development project.
Although Crawford Canyon Road would be constructed in conjunction with this development, any change
in its status as an arterial would require separate notification and additional hearings for a
General Plan Amendment. The pertinent issues for this project that are relevant to Crawford Canyon
Road have to do with the timing and the means of its construction. Staff generally sees the
proposed changes to the overall project as positive. The density is lower, the open space areas
and topographic features are retained, and the project will utilize much of the grading
Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1994
Page 4
infrastructure that is already in place. There are a number of details that do need to be looked at
more closely, as outlined in the staff report, and as addressed by the recommended conditions.
They include:
The PUD concept and implementation -the Planning Commission needs to determine whether
the detached condominium and small lot single family developments create a living
environment equal to or better than conventional development under the R-2 base zoning,
and whether the proposed development standards are
adequate.Assurances for the consUuction of Crawford Canyon
Road.Trail
provisions.Allocation of maintenance
responsibilities.Zone change establishing residences in place of a recreational
facility.Commissioner Cathcart asked if the addendum to the EIR requires any
action?Ms. Wolff responded it requires basic certification that it has been done in compliance with
CEQA.The public hearing was
opened.
Aoolicant Sandy Throop, Vice President with the Bank of America, 333 South Hope Street, t_os
Angeles,representing BA Properties, Inc. thanked staff for getting to this point. He described the project
as being fairly complicated with a number of issues. He turned the presentation over to
Kevin Canning, their consultant. The merchant builders, who will actually be building out the
project,were also present to answer
questions.Kevin Canning, Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Inc. 85 Argonaut, Suite 220, Aliso Viejo,
focused theCommission's attention to the exhibits on display. At the October 3 workshop they
presented the concept of the plans and the Commission, at that time, requested they come back
and address several issues. The exhibits showed the particular streetscapes of the cottage and
village concepts. They propose for the slopes to be separately maintained by the association.
The photos showed typical street furniture (i.e., mailboxes, trash enclosures, lights} that exist in
Aliso Viejo. He referred to the November 21 memorandum to discuss the conditions of
approval.Modificafion fo Vesting Tentafive Tract Map
13529 This was the original Vesting Tentative Tract Map that was approved. The conditions will
be implemented as various portions of the subject project are implemented. The first condition
they wished to address was the City Attorney's recommended condition regarding the construction
of Crawford Canyon Road. There is no dispute with A., B. or C. They do not have a problem
with the method and manner, timing, key development or milestones that need to be met.
They requested some consideration, though, with the introductory sentence to the condition. The
issue of construction of Crawford Canyon Road is somewhat involved with litigation between the
City and a third party (not BA Properties}. They asked the Commission to allow them to
continue fonrvard to the City Council, and allow the City Council to establish both a timing and amount of
the deposit. The reason for this is stipulated within the City Attorney's memo (third patty
litigation involved). The bank is concerned that a specific action by the Commission wilt have a bearing
on the settlement within that litigation. The $2.4 million is the agreed upon cost for the entire
Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1994
Page 5
but which parties pay which portion -that hasn't been settled. They ask that the Commission
acknowledge the timing of that payment and the method of that payment to be subject to City
Council approval, or there is an alternative suggestion. Broader wording could be used, "Prior to
issuance of the first grading permit for the project, sufficient funds shall be deposited with the
City."
On Page 2 of the revised conditions, condition 32 -the condition stems from a meeting between
BA Properties and City staff last Thursday. It was their understanding the agreed upon condition
was going to state the signal would be designed and constructed by the City. The design and
construction will be funded by BA Properties. Energy and maintenance costs of the signal would
be home by the Homeowners Association on a pro rated basis or 25% based upon the quadrants
within the intersection. They asked that those modifications be made to this condition.
There are two other conditions they believed would be deleted -conditions 43 and 44. They deal
with a piece of property that is on the west side of Crawford Canyon Road and currently is under
County ownership. It is no longer owned by BA Properties and the condition is moot for the
development.
Condition 58 is more of a policy issue. It deals with the second bullet point on Page 7 of the
recommended conditions of approval for the modifications to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13529.
It regards an equestrian traffic signal across Crawford Canyon Road. It will not be limited to
equestrian use because it is a recreational Vail that is indicated on the City Maps. This will be a
signal that will allow users of the recreational trail to cross Crawford Canyon Road on demand.
They believe because the signal will be a regional benefit, the energy and maintenance costs
should be borne by the City and not the specific Homeowners Association. Staff was obligated to
stick with the wording of the condition; however, it was the developer's understanding that it was
up to the Commission or City Council to change that policy in recognition of the regional use for
that future signal. The signal would be installed by the developer, yet maintained by the City.
Tentative Tract Map 14983
The condition regarding Crawford Canyon Road -they requested deferral of the trigger and
amount of deposit for the same reasons as stated previously.
They concur with the deletion of condition 27 on Page 4 of the revised conditions. That condition
deals with the hauling operations for the construction of Crawford Canyon Road and doesn't affect
the map.
Not noted is a request to change condition 29. This has to do with the signal for the recreational
trail. They requested the City be responsible for the maintenance and energy of that signal.
They concurred with the other changes listed on Page 4 and have no other comments on the
conditions of approval.
Tentative Tract Map 19484
The comment regarding condition 1 -construction of Crawford Canyon Road -same as previously
stated.
Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1994
Page 8
On Pages 5 and 6 of the revised conditions, they concur with the changes listed. Not noted,
condition 35 deals with the recreational trail signal (same as previously stated).
Tentative Tract Map 14985
Condition 1 -Crawford Canyon Road - as previously stated.He
had three additional comments that were not listed on staffs report that dealt with the requested
deletion of condition 27. It was deleted on the other two maps; this was the hauling condition
for Crawford Canyon Road. It doesn't deal with the development of this property;therefore,
they request condition 27 be deleted.Condition
30 is a policy statement on cost of energy and maintenance for the recreational trail signal.
Condition
40 which deals with fuel modification, Page 5 of recommended conditions of approval for
TTM 14985 -they requested the condition be modified to read, "The project shall comply with City
of Orange's fuel modification program to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief." The entire site will eventually
have a single fuel modification program, and in certain areas there will be a modification between
several City guidelines for fuel modification. The reason they need to modify is they are dealing
with steep terrain, and in certain areas, are dealing with Coastal Sage Shrub. There may be
some limitations placed on them by the Federal and State government, on the amount that can be
removed or amount that could be thinned.They
felt aII of these were minor and technical in nature; they did not have significant differences with
staff throughout the process.Those
soeakino in favor Roger
Long, President of the Ville Urbane Homeowners Association, wished the Commission to recommend
approval of the project. The changes are positive and they appreciate lowering the density
back down to what they felt was more compatible with the area. The only real concern they
had was with the traffic flow on Crawford Canyon Road.Those
soeakino in oooosition Kevin
Farrell, 282 North Quail, was not in opposition to the entire development plan. They asked that
the City modify the plan such that the section of the road that connects Crawford Canyon to Cannon
be held back and taken out of the plan at this time. The plan that was developed in the 1980'
s - a lot of the growth projections that were used and published by the State and by the County of
Orange have been under rated. The population growth in Yorba Linda and Anaheim Hills is
12% higher than what they had projected, which means there will be mare traffic than what is projected
on the plan. CaI Trans does not currently have a plan to take the existing 91 and 55 Freeways and
adequately make those freeways large enough to handle the increased traffic. Any traffic overflow
will spill out into their neighborhoods. The East and West Transportation Corridors should be
completed before anyone can validate any traffic projections as to what will be coming down Loma
Drive. The residents share the common concern that more cars will use their surface streets and
disrupt their lifestyle. Eleven houses will be removed from Cannon Street in order to
Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1994
Page 7
widen the road to four lanes. Five more houses, south of Linda Vista School, will lose their
parking on the street in order to maintain the two lanes each way. You can project about 8,000
vehicles a day will be passing through the area and not be residents of the area. They also asked
there be a period of time where validation of the traffic projections on Loma Street be conGuded to
make sure the traffic data that is being used to approve Crawford Canyon Road going through is
actually validated and correct. He felt there was no major benefit to the residents who currently
live in Crawford Hills.
Bob Mittlemeyer, 5618 East Patria Court, echoed the comments of the previous speakers. He was
not opposed to the proposed development, but was more concerned about the roadway that was
planned as part of the development. It essentially connects the 91 Freeway to the cities of Tustin
and Irvine. In so doing, it allows commuters on the 91 Freeway to use the City of Orange as a
shortcut and to travel through the residential streets. There is a high cost involved for the
completion of the street and to make it safe. It's a high cost that does not need to happen. He
requested the street be put through to the housing, but don't connect it through.
John Smith, 1198 North Cannon Street, spoke many years ago on behalf of ROAR to the City
Council. The indication from the Council at the times he spoke was that it was a done deal. The
street, Crawford Canyon Road, was going to connect to Cannon. There had been an agreement
worked out with the City of Anaheim, City of Villa Park, and City of Tustin many years ago. None
of the residents were aware of the deals made years ago. He was instrumental in creating an
open space on the west portion of the project across Crawford Canyon Road, which was a parcel
owned by their Homeowners Association that was dedicated as open space. He did not oppose
the project, other than Cannon Street. Everyone is opposed to the flow of traffic that is going to
be created by connecting Cannon Street. What will happen to the children going to school on
Cannon Street? No one stops at the stop sign in front of the school. Cars travel in excess of 55
m.p.h. in that location, even though it is posted for 25 m.p.h.
John Corea, 257 North Quail Lane, spoke about the safety factor in exiting their neighborhoods on
Quail Lane to Crawford Canyon Road. It's dangerous leaving that area in the afternoon hours,
and with the additional traffic in the future, it's going to be tougher. He obtained a petition of 82
signatures in his neighborhood opposing the extension of Crawford Canyon Road to Cannon. He
asked what kind of traffic lights were planned for the area on Crawford Canyon Road?
Kathy Stevens, 5744-69 East Creekside Avenue, was concerned about traffic. The plan itself is
a good plan, but she was concerned because of the traffic. No one stops at the stop sign
at Creekside. She would Tike to know where the signal is planned. She also requested there be
a stop sign if the plan were allowed to continue. Is there enough street lights to ensure everyone'
s safety at night? Was reGaimed water looked at on the large greenbelt
area?Victor Alfarevik, 1183 Navarro, opposed the extension of Cannon and he was concerned
about the lighting and excessive speeds. If the Commission acts to recommend approval of this
project and asks for the 4-way extension to go through, he suggested the Commission disallow
BA's request to defer the $2.4 million good faith deposit. He sees this figure as a token
gesture to ensure the project was carried out. He wanted the extension to be limited to just a two
lane road for direct access to the homes in the area. He was concerned about the general safety
of
Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1994
Page 8
Chairman Bosch explained the $2.4 million was an engineering estimate agreed to by all parties of
the remaining cost to complete Crawford Canyon through the site. That's the purpose for the
funding. The concern is over the correct division of the total amount of $2.4 million between those
previously, legally encumbered to provide the road and those who are taking over the rest of the
project.
Commissioner Pruett said the Crawford Canyon extension was approved with the last tract map
approval for the project. A bond was required to be put up for the construction of that. The
monies that are to be deposited is to assure those bond monies would come forward for the
construction of that project.
Mr. Johnson said the bond amount is $2.4 million and the road has been dedicated, but just not
constructed.
Commissioner Cathcart explained even though the Commission might agree or disagree with
those speaking on the extension of Cannon, there was nothing the Commission could do. It was
beyond the Commission's purview.
Ted Wilenski, 5748 East Muir, was also opposed to the extension of Crawford. What can be done
about it? How do the residents oppose it?
Chairman Bosch thought that was a question to address to the City Engineer with regard to the
entanglements that the City has for the whole Measure M, Prop 110 and various things people
voted on. There is a new layer of bureaucracy in the State with regard to inter-city
transportation networks that binds the hands of every city with regard to control of some of the local
resources,down to specific traffic
intersections.Mr. Johnson said staff had an analysis of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. It is viewed as
a vehicle that is a system rather than one or two important streets. Crawford has been on
that Master Plan since 1970. Unfortunately, it should have been built at the time the Jones Ranch
was developed. The property started being split up into smaller parcels and before long the
homes were there, but the road wasn't. The study shows the road serves an important function. If it
is not built, Vaffic will be pushed on to other streets in the
system.Victor Alfarevik reminded the Commission that Hewes Street is a developed, 41ane
access between Santiago Canyon and Chapman. There is plenty of access between those streets
to allow traffic
patterns.Chairman Bosch wished everyone the best efforts of finding ways to solve the street issue, but
the Commissioncouldn't, other than agree or disagree with the public's viewpoint. The
Commission must look at the specific plan as it is encumbered by the street and also look at the equitable
fair share cost of improvement of the road that has been tied to this piece of land. It would
be appropriate to address the traffic issues with staff. And, have staff address a memo to the
Police Department to review the conditions -especially with regard to stop signs and traffic
speeds around the
schools.Commissioner Cathcart informed the public a representative (Chuck Glass) from the
Traffic Engineering office was present at the hearing. One of the other options open to the
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 9
November 2l, 1994
but not under their direct purview, was to give recommendations for options and opportunities for
the Traffic Commission and the Traffic Engineer to look at specific ways of solving certain
problems.
Mary Corea, 257 North Quail Lane, opposed the extension of Crawford Canyon Road. She
encouraged the Commission to do anything they could to put in the traffic controls to make sure
part of the plan has the necessary controls for Cannon and Crawford Canyon extension. During
the construction of the projects in the area, the load of the trucks has wom Crawford Canyon
quite a bit and the road is now damaged.
Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, stressed decisions have to be made.
The decision regarding Crawford Canyon Road was made 10 to 15 years ago. The people knew
Jamboree was coming. They also had to think about what was going to happen in East Orange.
There was no way to stop it; they could only modify it the best they could. The Irvine Company is
not going to build East Orange for awhile, but when they do, there will be 280,000 cars per day.
They also know the County has no intention whatsoever of widening Crawford Canyon between
Chapman and Newport. When Loma is opened, 75% of the people are going to come down to
Cannon, make a left tum, and head for Jamboree. He thought everyone needed to face reality.
The Master Plan of Arterial Highways cannot be changed -it's too late. The down side of that, it
will cost the City too much money.
Kevin Farrell asked the Commission, prior to approving the plan, to get a detailed traffic study so
the citizens could see where the traffic signals would be installed on Crawford Canyon Road.
They want to protect their neighborhood and the safety of their kids.
Rebuttal
Mr. Canning thought Chairman Bosch covered the issue on the extension of the road. It's
somewhat beyond the extent of their purview. They're merely addressing a requirement from the
previous approval. Regarding some of the other items, there is no reclaimed water available. The
recreational trail signal is a new condition. It was not something that was previously agreed to.
The signal replaced a previous condition for an equestrian tunnel, which after some study, was
thought to be a safety hazard and public liability. A traffic study was submitted with the submittal
of the project. They were willing to cooperate with the City and neighbors to a feasible extent on
the Crawford Canyon Road extension.
Commissioner Smith referred to the conditions for Tentative Tract Map 14985; specifically,
condition 40 regarding the fuel modification program. A portion of that condition designates the
responsibility for maintenance of the access areas or the cost of maintenance to the homeowners
association. Did he want that part deleted as well, or only the specific conditions of the fuel
access modification plan?
Mr. Canning would not have a problem with that clarification. The intent is for the Homeowners
Association to bear the responsibility of the maintenance. That is in the City's guidelines now.
Commissioner Cathcart wanted clarification of the City bearing the cost of the energy and
maintenance of the equestrian traffic signal. What would be the dollar amount? (Approximately
500 a month.}
Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1994
Page 10
Mr. Johnson did not know the cost of the traffic signal, but the ballpark figure was approximately
500 per month per staffs discussions. Mr. Glass confirmed the $500 cost of the traffic signal.
Mr. Johnson thought the study that was prepared by the transportation engineer for the applicant
showed that on the basis of the traffic generated, it doesn't appear any signals are warranted to
act as a control.
Commissioner Cathcart didn't like using the term "accidents" as triggering mechanisms to warrant
a traffic sign or signal. is there a time the City will go out and check to see whether or not the trips
have already occurred, or will the City wait until someone gets killed? There has to be an on-
going study of traffic controls to make sure all the triggering mechanisms are
triggered.Commissioner Pruett said the EIR spoke of traffic signals being warranted when trips
are generated by the project. The trips are generated on the arterial that is being constructed.
He questioned whether they took into consideration the trips that are generated on the new
Crawford Canyon
extension?Mr. Glass said the Chapman signal is not warranted on a volume basis. It's an option for
the developer if he wants to provide left tum egress. There is a sight distance restriction there. That'
s the reason the right tum only condition was placed on the tract by the City Council. As far as
the access points over on Crawford Canyon, they probably will not warrant signalization on a
volume basis. Crawford Canyon is projected to carry in the year 2020 some 10,000 trips per day. That'
s about 60% of what Collins
carries.Chairman Bosch asked what approach the Traffic Division has taken to address what speeds
or other traffic control measures may exist along all of Crawford to help mitigate what they know
will
occur?Mr. Glass didn't believe there were any signals proposed in the current Capital
Improvement Program. The procedure, once Crawford Canyon is open, would be to take whatever counts
are necessary, process that through the Traffic Commission, with the final determination to be
made by the City Council as to whether or not signalization should occur and at what point in time.
That would be considered in the City's annual Capital Improvement Program. As far as speed,
the normal procedure on a new street opening would be to post a speed limit which the City felt
was probably what it should ultimately be posted at. Once there is traffic, per the California
Vehicle Code, staff will do a traffic survey and the speed limit will be established based on that
survey.Mr. Johnson spoke about street light standards. They are going to be maintained on
Crawford Canyon, as well as all other arterials. The street installation will include safety lighting to
the standards of the
City.The public hearing was
closed.Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend approval
to the Gity Council on the expanded Initial Study and Addendum to Final Environmental
Impact Report 496. The Commission finds that the proposed project is within the scope of Final EIR
496 and 1988 Addendum; and since the final EIR 496 and Addendum dated October,
1994,adequately describe and address the environmental effects and feasible mitigation
Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1994
Page 11
associated with the project, and the final EIR 496 and Addendum dated October, 1994 meet the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Walters
Commissioner Cathcart commented on the Tentative Tract Maps. There is specific language for
the condition for the financial obligations in completing Crawford Canyon Road. Is there a way to
take the original condition, as presented to the Commission by Mr. Soo-Hoo, and modify it
by adding the words "up to $2.4 million.. "? A recommendation of not addressing this issue at
all seems that the Commission would be not doing their job as a recommending body to the
City Councl. He would not like to leave it out, but would like to also make it Gear that he
understands the position which B of A is in and the City does not want to give the impression that the
litigant can give up and say it has already been taken care of so they don't have to negotiate in
good faith. Would that be an appropriate recommendation to the City Councl -for them to evaluate
the final
sum?Mr. Soo-Hoo thought that might be a possibility, but he didn't believe, in speaking to
the applicant during the afternoon, it would totally address
their concerns.Commissioner Pruett thought one of the things the Commission might try and do is
clearly state that the construction of Crawford Canyon Road was made a condition of approval for
the original tract. And the approval of this project also includes that same condition {
required Crawford Canyon to be completed}. The issue of the litigation, as well as the final consideration in
teens of construction of Crawford Canyon, will be determined by the City Council. The
Commission is recommending that either a deposit of funds be made to assure construGion or someotherlegalsettlement
is appropriate.Chairman Bosch said the responsibility for provision of the funding rests in an as yet
to be determined proportion between the successors and assigns of the previouslyapprovedprojectandthecurrentproponents. The key is that the funding be in place or guaranteed,
however the litigation comes out, prior to issuance of a grading perrnit or
building permit.Commissioner Pruett thought it was very important for the City to have a road and it must
be built.There is supposed to be money in the bank, buthe didn't know where it
comes from.Mr. Soo-Hoo had some suggested wording as a follow-up to Commissioner
Cathcart's point. He would encourage the trigger points that were suggested in the staff report. It
was brought to his attention by special legal counsel that is involved with the litigation regarding
the road that then;may be a possible jeopardy to the previous bonds if the City were to delay the
trigger point to the point that far in the future, such as grading. He suggested the following
wording: "Prior to the approval of the tentative tract map, applicant shall deposit an
amount adequate to cause construction of Crawford CanyonRoad up to $2.4 million into
a City controlled interest-bearing escrow account, the terms of which are defined below."
The qualifying language will allow possible
Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1994
Page 12
Mr. Canning stated their legal counsel did not share the opinion of the Assistant City Attorney, that
approval of the revised project will put any previous bonds into jeopardy. As a counter proposal,
they suggested if there is some concern, that delay to building or grading permits would be
unacceptable, a time certain (60 days} from map approval by the City Council could be
established. And at that point a deposit would be made.
Mr. Soo-Hoo was not prepared to negotiate the specific terms. They were advised by
special counsel there was a hazard. Frankly, that opinion disagrees with the legal advice being given
to the applicant. Because of the lateness in discussing this matter with the applicant andapplicant'
s counsel, the City did not have an opportunity to consult with their special legal counsel. Anydelayinreceivingimplementationoftheconditioncouldjeopardizethebondstheapplicantisworkingwith. Obviously, that is subject to further
clarification.Chairman Bosch said their action is a recommendation to the City Council. Actual approvalonlytakesplacebytheCityCouncil. What the Commission does would have an impact on
whatever process is under way. The Commission can recognize litigation is under way and the
Commission would recommend the conditions as set forth in the staff report, along with Mr. Soo-
Hoo's recommended modification. The Council will be aware of the litigation in any event
andthe Commission's recommendation should protect all
the parties.Commissioner Smith was prepared to address the conditions. She referred to TentativeTractMap14985recommendedconditionsofapproval, condition 40 -fuel modification
program. The condition does not carry over into the other tract maps. She proposed the wording of
condition 40 to be: 'This project shall comply with the City of Orange Fuel Modification Program
to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief." The rest of the condition would be deleted down to
the sentence which reads, "Access areas are to be designated in compliance with the approved tract
map, and a condition of construction shall be that the homeowners association is responsible
for the maintenance of the access", with the following sentence to remain intact
as printed.She addressed condition 30 -trail crossing signal. If the excessive amount of $500 is
needed per month for the maintenance of the signals, that would work outto $6,000 a year,
with the approximate cost to each homeowner at $20 a year, which would be approximately $1.
65 a month. That is not an excessive amount to charge a member in the
homeowners association.Therefore, she recommended that the condition remain in the document as
written. (This recommendation would apply to all
tract maps.}Condition 27 -hauling. She was unclear on that. The applicant asked that the
condition be deleted, but there was some reference it had already been deleted on the revised
list. Chairman Bosch understood the applicant wanted the condition deleted from tract 14985 because it
didn't apply to tract 14985. He suggested leaving it alone for
due process.The last item was condition 1, which was just taken care of (usingMr. Soo-Hoo'
s language to
amend the condition}.Commissioner Smith believed everything stood the same in Tentative Tract Map
14984, but the equestrian traffic signal was numbered
Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1894
Page 13
Regarding Tentative Tract Map 14983, the condition regarding the equestrian traffic signal was
numbered as condition 29.
In Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13529, the equestrian traffic signal is condition 58, second bullet.
Chairman Bosch stated there were a couple of unique conditions to Vesting Tentative Tract Map
13529 -conditions 43 and 44, Page 5, with regard to the reservoir site. The applicant
represented they were not applicable to the tract map.
Mr. Johnson stated condition 43 could be deleted. Condition 44 -the concern was that the tank
site have a feasibility study done or a geologic certification that the lot is suitable for the reservoir
site. It has been dedicated as part of a previous tract; however, it will still serve this development
and was meant to be part of this development. Staff suggested condition 44 indicate a geologic
report for the suitability of the site for a storage tank be provided if not already certified in the
original rough grading phase of the project. The City needs something from the developer that
says the site is available and structurally sound to support the storage tank.
Chairman Bosch said condition 44 could be modified at the end of the first sentence to add, "if not
previously certified under the rough grading approvals for the site."
Commissioner Smith recommended deleting condition 43 under Vesting Tentative Tract Map
13529, and maintain condition 44 with the addition to the first sentence as previously stated by
Chairman Bosch.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City
Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 14983, Tentative Tract Map 14984, and Tentative Tract
Map 14985, with the conditions as previously stated. Also, to recommend to the City Council to
approve Zone Change 1170-94 and Conditional Use Permit 2076-94 with conditions as
listed in the staff report. To recommend approval of modification to Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 13529 and modification to Conditional Use
Pemtit 1678-88.AYES: Commissioners Bosch,
Cathcart, Pruett,
Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner
Walters MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend
to the City Council to direct the Traffic Commission and Traffic Engineering staff that
special consideration be given to the traffic conditions involving Crawford Canyon Road and
Cannon Street. That investigation of traffic controls, beyond those presently employed in that
area, be made immediately to address the following three issues: grossly excessive speeds;
failure of motorists to stop at existing stop signs; and special attention to the speed enforcement at
local school sites.AYES: Commissioners Bosch,
Cathcart, Pruett,
Smith NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Walters
Planning Commission
Minutes MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 14
IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS
November 2l, 1994
APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO DENY ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUSTMENT PERMIT NO. 9406, WITH DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL NO. 3-94 (D.R.B.APPLICATION N0.2991) -DANNY SHIELDS, APPLICANT AND
APPELLANT A request to allow the reconstruction of a residential single car garage and a second story
addition proposed as a workshop, with a "view balcony." The property is located in the R-2-
6 and Old Towne Districts, at 433
East LaVeta Avenue.The proposal does not satisfy minimum requirements for the rear yard, internal
clearance for a parking space within a garage, and distance between the garage door and
a public sidewalk.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act CEQA), per State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15303.There was no opposition and the public
hearing
was opened.Aoolicant Robert Colin, 3810 East Palm, was the applicant's representative. They
were proposing to relocate an existing non-conforming garage, moving it back a few feet and make
it wide enough to allow a parking space and stairway. They also wish to add a second story. It willbeanewgaragewhencompleted. The original non-conforming garage was a hazard
in that it was deteriorating.The applicant cannot park on LaVeta nor side streets on
sweeping days. Their original proposal was different from what was before the Commission. The applicant was red
tagged by the City for building without permits. He stopped and proceeded to follow the processandworkwiththeCity.His lot is a legal, non-conforming lot. In reading the staff
report, the applicant understood he did not need to comply with the parking requirements. The second
story addition became an issue at the staff level, and it was determined a CUP would not be required.
They tried to comply with the DRBand City's concemstsuggestions. The DRB's issue was to
reduce the second floor and the height of the structure (bulk and mass
issues). Another issue involved the administrative adjustments. They would like to stick with their original request of 16 feet in
the front, 9'-6" in the rear and a 19'-6" garage, It does work as it is and will not createa
hardship on the owner. He's looking for a recommendation of approval to
the City Council for this project.Commissioner Pruett asked if the owner were present? {No, he tendsto getalittlehyper, it's very emotional for him.) Mr. Colin was the architect involved with the
project; he got involved when the applicant
was red tagged by the City.Commissioner Pruett had never seen a garage constructed
with an interior stairway. He was concerned if they approved the project, it would turn into a residence
of some kind. One of the issues he's trying to deal with is how to assure the property owner
is not going to misuse the property in terms of what the use is going to be. He raised the question
to staff as to a deed restriction onthe use of the property. It's more than just a deed restriction in
terms of the use of it.Would the property owner be willing to have a deed restriction on
the property that if the building were misused, he would agree to tearing it down at the request of the
Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1994
Page 15
penalty. If the individual is being honest and representing his project as being accurate, he would
be willing to stipulate to those conditions.
Mr. Colin thought it was over kill and it would be hard for the City to tell someone that. He couldn't
answer for the applicant as to whether or not he would agree to the proposed condition.
Mr. Soo-Hoo thought the agreement could be worded in such a way as to be defensible.
He suggested in the event it was found there was a residential use that evolved on the structure,
that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for revocation of these approvals. At
that Gme, the property owner would be given an opportunity to show cause why the building shouldn'
t be demolished. In that way, the City could follow through with due process. After that, it could
be
enforceable.Commissioner Pruett only asked the question in order to get to the root of what he believed
the issue was. The applicant is basically circumventing the codes of the City. By his suggesting
that he would be agreeable to that kind of condition, doesn't indicate he would necessarily support
the project and approve it. It's only indicating to the applicant that if the project did move forward
and the Commission did want to move to approve it, he would seek some type of condition that
would take those extreme measures because of the way the project was brought to the City and
has moved forward on part of the
owner.Chairman Bosch said most buildings survive their owners and such a condition could be
very appropriate to future owners. Future owners might be tempted by the plumbing in the building
to use it for illegal uses. The deed restriction running with the property affords a method by
which the City can assure their
attention.Commissioner Cathcart said the balcony and door make it appear to be more than it possibly
is.Suppose the balcony were removed and two windows were installed instead of the door.
In essence, the height of the building could be lowered 18" and have a great view out of
the windows. If the project were approved with an 18 foot setback rather than 16', would the
applicant be willing to do that? (The applicant was willing to do that
before.}Chairman Bosch stated to help understand the land use impacts, he asked where the
plumbing was stubbed up in the garage for the future laundry? (It was Goser to the stairs.) Where on
the plan was that noted? (It was pretty much in line with where the parking was and the line of
the stairs -east of the stairs.} He looked at the plan as ft was laid out and it raised
suspicions because of the location of the door, the door swing, and the location of the stairs indicates if
one were to parts a car here, one didn't intend to get to the second floor. If the intent was to park
the car in the garage and to use it as a laundry as well, and to be able to get upstairs to a
workshop when the car was in the garage, the staiway should be on the house side of the garage, even if
it was inside, with a doorway down at the lower landing of the stairway. The Commission is asking
a lot of questions because they relate to the issues raised by the project. He had concerns
about the driveway -not aII owners may have a compact car. There needs to be assurance ofhavingminimumstandardswithalittlebitofadjustmentappropriateforgivenconcerns. The design
of the building is of great concern because ft will cause big problems, even with a sectional
garage door. There is also concern with the bulk and mass impacts of the design. The Commission
must also look at the layout of the space and access on site for impacts on neighbors and
the appropriateness for the reductions and setbacks, and the location of the stairway and
Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1994
Page 16
plumbing, if it were to stay in its location, preclude any use of the space for a garage. They are
not allowed to preclude that under City ordinances.
Public Input
Anne Seibert, 340 South Olive, said they built a garage a couple of years ago and had to go
through the whole City process. She did not understand why they were discussing something that
has been a flagrant misuse of the ordinance that is in place. She can't understand how it even got
to the Commission to even be discussed.
Rebuttal
Mc Colin answered the question as to why the owner started building without a permit. From that
point on he has been trying to process the plan through the appropriate steps to get something
approved.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Cathcart asked what was expected of the Planning Commission should they uphold
the decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny the Administrative Adjustment, and uphold the
Design Review Board's appeal for denial? Is there some other avenue the Commission should
take?
Commissioner Pruett's reaction was that based on the staff report and some of the issues staff
has raised, as well as some of the things he has seen on the plans, was to deny the appeal. But
rather than deny the appeal, he would offer the applicant the opportunity to go back with staff and
work out some issues so that the owner could basically have a garage. But as proposed right
now, he would deny the appeal.
Chairman Bosch said the Commission was making a recommendation to the City Council under a
policy the Council has set -not an ordinance. He was not sure they could continue or
recommend great changes rather than making a recommendation. He didn't disagree with the
reasons why the Design Review Board found this to be a problem. He didn't disagree with the
reasons the Zoning Administrator found this to be a problem. The issues are very clear and well
reiterated. He also agreed with due process and good public order in that there is a way to go
through the process. He didn't want to circumvent or override the Design Review Board and
Zoning Administrator when they had good ideas that the applicant was unwilling to instruct his
architect to follow. He preferred making a recommendation to the City Council to deny the appeal
and direct the applicant to re-file a modified design building in the points made by the
Commission and then go back through the
process.Commissioner Smith commented even though there has been hardship to the builder, there wasn'
t as much hardship as there could have been. Under the taw, there is a financial consequence
for illegal demolition; that was not enforced. There was no financial consequence for building
without a permit. It's another illegal demolition in OId Towne and they continue to occur. Maybe one
was enforced in the last 10 years. She supported the denial of this
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 17
November 2l, 1994
Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend to the CityCounciltodenytheappealbecausethegroundsfordenialbytheDesignReviewBoardand
Zoning Administrator were appropriate. The owner must follow the demolition ordinance
requirements; to meet within 10% of the Administrative Adjustment allowed for setbacks and the
driveway length; reduce the mass of the building and the roof height by eliminating the balcony;
and relocate the stairway to the exterior and design the building so that ft works as a garage, and
the plumbing can work only as a laundry. It was also recommended to add the condition to place
a deed restriction on the properly that if the building were misused, the owner would agree to
tearing ft down at the request of the City.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn at 9:55 p.m.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED
sld