HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-1997 PC Minutesc~ :./1 ,C:....-t156C).
6.;).3 MINUTES
Planning
Commission City
of Orange December
15, 1997 Monday -
7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners
Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Vem
Jones, Planning Manager and Commission Secretary,Ted Reynolds,
Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum,
Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin,
Recording Secretary IN RE:
CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1997 I ".':Moved
by
Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of December 1,
1997 with the following correction: On Page 15, regarding the Motion for Conditional Use Permit 2194-
97. Commissioner Carlton voted no. - };,:,~'~)1 ....I1!
J -
AYES:NOES:ABSTAINED:
Commissioners
Bosch,
Carlton,
Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero
MOTION
CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED
HEARING 2. TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 15546; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2191-97; ZONE CHANGE 1192-97;AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-97 - HEARTHSTONE DEVELOPMENT The
request is for approval of a revised tentative tract map with 47 dwelling units, a zone change to R-2,
Duplex Residential District (rather than R-3), and a general plan amendment (from low density
residential to low-medium density). The development also requires approval of a conditional use permit
as a planned
unit development.The site is located East of the 55 (Newport) Freeway on the South side of Taft
Avenu~ between Morningside Street and the
Newport Freeway. . \NOTE: Negative Declaration 1534-97 has been prepared to evaluate the
environmental impacts
of this project.This item was continued from the October 6, and December
1, 1997 hearings.)Commissioner Smith excused herself from the meeting due to a potential
conflict of interest.Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, reported at the last meeting the Commission asked theapplicanttogobacktotheEdisonCompanyandaskthemwhethertherecouldbeanypermanent
restrictions/placed on the use of Lot C, which is the remaining parcel existing under the power lines
along Taft Avenue.Because of logistical problems and public utilities regulations. Edison cannot commit
that property to permanent non-buildable open space. However, the applicant did obtain
the concession that Edison would allow them to use more of the property. The property boundaryhasbeenshiftedapproximately95feetfromthelocationthatisparalleltoTaftAvenuesothatLotCISreally
only about two-thirds the size that it was at the last hearing. Net acreage area within that developable area
has increased to 7.767 acres, which gives the development a density of approximately 5.9 units per acre.
Page 2 of a memo the Commission received briefly outlines the characteristics of the development.
The minimum lot area in the memo was not changed, however. It stayed at 3,600 square feet. The
applicant has pointed out the average area has increased to 4,~100 feet and the minimum area is down to around4.000 square feet per parcel. The proposal does satisfy the City's open space requirements, both
fQr private yards and for the recreational area, which still exists at the center part of the
property.
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1997
changed from what has been proposed all along. The homes will be two-story and will range in size
from 1400 to 1600 square feet. The development standards for setbacks and required yards have not cha~ged from before. The only wording that has been changed in the conditions of approval reflect the
locations of lots at the
corners.The public hearing was
opened.ADDlicant. Bob Mickelson. P.O. Box 932. Orange, said their plan was essentially the same concept
with the same layout of a loop street following the triangular shape of the property. What has changed is
the ability to acquire a wider strip of land from the Edison Company and spread those 46 units out over
the project. Where there was 10 feet between the homes, there is now 15 feet. Where there was asmallersideyardforthehomesalongthefreeway, the lots have been increased in order to compensate forthefactthehomesarebackeduptothefreeway. They've reduced the number of condition 2 lots thathavetheminimumfivefootrearyard. Only those along the freeway have that. The remainder of the lotsallhaveaminimum20footrearyard. They still have the condition along Momingside where the homesaresetbackaminimumof20feetwithasinglestoryelementrisingawayandashedrooftowardtheprojectforthelookofaone-story home adjacent to the existing one-story homes with no
dormers, windows or any glazing to look down over the neighbors' back yards. The size of the commonrecreationareahasincreasedbecausethesizeoftheparcelincreasedanditiscentrallylocated. Overall, the changes are positive in that the, make it even more like a standard single familY subdivisionenvironmentwiththeaddedamenities0thecommonrecreationarea. They now have a planned unitdevelopmentthatfitswithintheparametersoftheR-1-8 zone and it is designed to fit the density allowedbycodeintheR-1-8 zone. They request to withdraw their request for the R-2-6 zoning and leave the property zoned R-1-8.They also withdraw theirrequestfortheGeneralPlanAmendmenttothelow-medium density. However,there is a house keeping factorthattheopenspaceontheGeneralPlangoesdiagonallyacrossthepropertyanddoesnotreflectthelocationofthepowerlineeasement. It would be appropriate to retain that part of the General PlanAmendmenttoreflectwhatactuallyexiststhere. Also, the trail had been
relocated through a special study and the General Plan was not amended.Commissioner Carlton referred to the blue printandnoticedasixfoothighchainlinkfencewasgoingtoberemovedonthosepropertiesthatbackuptothefreewayandwillbereplacedwithasixfoothighblockwall. Above that, there is a
proposed four foot high retaining
wall. She couldn't picture what that was going to look like.Mr. Mickelson responded that reflects the plans thatCaltranshasforthefreewayanditisnotpartofthisproject. The CivilEngineer, Surender Dewan, explained the proposed retaining wall will be four feet high along the property line of the NewportFreeway. A
chain link fence will
be installed on top of the retaining wall.Those speaking in opposition:Grant Stephens. 2117 East Parkside, was not totally against the project; the only concern not mentioned is the drainage. His neighbor took a video ofthelightrainlastSundayandherequestedtoplaythatvideotoshow
the drainage problem. (Staff set up the VCR to view the video,)Joe Davis. 1659 North Morningside, said theneighborscameupwithamapoftheirownthatshowswhattheyconsidertobeaR-1-8 development that consists of 22 homes. He was still confused
as to the number of homes being proposed and requested clarification of the zoning.Mr. Jones explained theGeneralPlandensityinthelowdensitycategoryallowsuptosixdwellingunitsperacre. By conditional use permit, a planned unit development within any zoning district can be applied for. In this case, it's low density and the proposal is to fall within the low density maximum requirement of six units peracre. It's 5.9 units being proposed. There is a conditional use permit process thatallowsanybodytoapplyforaplannedunitdevelopmentwithintheallowableGeneralPlandensity, which allowsthedevelopertobuild46homes, If the project is approved, the conditional use permit is good fortwoyears. Someone can come in and build this development as proposed and as approved. If the
CUP expires, the underlying zoning of R-1-8 and low density wouldremainineffect.Chairman Bosch further clarified if the Planning Commission approves the planned unit development proposal, the
applicant
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1997
to do something different than traditional lots outside of the planned unit development, they would have
to come back in with another planned unit development proposal for the R-1-8 zone. The purpo.
se of the planned unit development is to allow developers to be creative while providing a
living enVIronment that creates some portions of the development standards for some greater amenities that they
couldn't get if they developed
traditional lots.The video was shown at
this time.Chairman Bosch will refer to the Assistant City Engineer to address several issues relative
to the drainage and water collecting over the top of the curb inlet to the storm drain handling the
water. He wanted to know the standards and how the problems are
being addressed.William Flory. OUSD. 1401 North Handy Street. said at the last meeting he presented an
initial fee mitigation study and indicated his Board would be taking action on December 11. The
OUSD Board accepted the report and is in the process of formulating a resolution which will be sent tocitiesregardingfuturepositionsandactionstheBoardwouldliketoseethecommunitiestake. He provided a
letter to the Chairman, which was provided to the City Council to address a number of issues
and environmental concerns affecting schools with the development. Since the last hearing, he met with
the Hearthstone Corporation and attempted to develop a mitigation plan. He was told none of the
agreements had been taken to Edison. Edison has not committed to any of the agreements and it is unknown
what their position is regarding the environmental impact or the development's impact on the
schools. The developer does not feel they have any obligation and stated they would defer tothePlanningCommissionregardingschoolimpacts. He quoted, "The developer stated schools are the
community's problem." The environmental impact report does not address the mitigation measures needed
for the schools and until it does, Orange Unified is opposed to
the project.Alex Bowie. attorney for OUSD. 1401 North Handy Street, said it was easy to focus on the
question with regard to school facilities. It can simply be stated, is it in the best interest of the present
and future residents to have Edison close escrow, take its money, and leave a residual short fall onthecommunityforschoolfacilitiesofapproximately $270,000. This is identified in the letter that was submitted
to the Commission dated December 1, 1997 by Lysa Saltzman. Before making a decision, hewouldappreciatetheCommissionreviewtheletterbecausethefactsofwhathewastalkingaboutareclearly
identified in that correspondence. To build school facilities for these homes will cost an estimated $385,342.
On the basis of statutory school fees, which were never intended to be adequate to cover school
facilities, the project will generate $116,803 for this residual shortfall of $268,539, which he rounded to $270,000.
It's maybe a third of the cost. The City wouldn't take a third of the water storage or water facilitiesfortheWaterDepartment, or a third of the street improvements, or a third of the sanitation/sewerfacilitiesfortheproject. Education should be considered as adequately as sewer capacity. Edison, theowner, is leaving an unpaid tab of $270,000 for the community. He did not believe it was legally
permissible to approve the project because an environmental impact report was necessary. Amitigatednegativedeclarationwouldbeapossibility, but they can't get an agreement to do that. Astraightnegativedeclarationisnotpermissible. A public agency must prepare an EIR whenever
substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The amount of $270,000 is a significant issue, particularly in a community where there are 5,000
students in temporary trailers and the City is lookin~ at 20,000 dwelling units in the next 10 years.
Separate and apart from the CEOA issue are the provisions of the General Plan. The infrastructure system
must be adequate to meet the needs of existing and future residents, including public institutions suchasschools.For the Commission to approve the General Plan Amendment, the City will have an
internally inconsistent General Plan. The zoning by statute has to be consistent with the General Plan and it can'tbecausetherewillnotbeinfrastructureadequatetomeettheneedsbecausetherewillbea $270,000
shortfall. He suggested continuing this matter until mitigation could be reached and a mitigatedNegativeDeclarationcouldbecirculated, or deny
the project.Commissioner Pruett said there was an analogy drawn between the over taxing of the sewersystemandthewaterfacilitiesbysuggestingtheywerenottaxed (or burdened) to the two-thirds, butyettheschoolsystemis. Was Mr. Bowie suggesting these 46 homes are going to place that kind ofburdenon
the school system.Mr. Bowie said they were paying a third of what the actual cost is and there have beenstudiesdonefortheaveragestudentgenerationinthecommunityfromnewdevelopment. That
student
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1997
then applied toward a student cost, which is based on State standards and costs of land in the
community.
Commissioner Pruett said the attorney indicated this project does not burden the sewer system and the
water facilities to the extent that it does the School District. It sounded like to him that what the attorney
was suggesting was that the difference between what the School District is looking for in terms of fees vs.
what is approved right now in terms of code, that difference is going to have an impact to two-thirds
of the school system. This project has 46 lots and he didn't believe the project would have that kind
of
impact.Mr. Bowie was trying to point out the report that was done has determined the cost per dwelling unit
and that cost is $8,377. The statutory school fees are about $2,600. The City is short as far as the funding
of the cost of school facilities if a mitigation agreement is not required of something in excess of $5,000perunit. Unless a mitigation agreement is reached, this project will only be paying about 30% of the cost
of the school facilities
needed.Commissioner Pruett talked about the impact to the school system of Orange. He asked what
they were talking about on a per capita student impact. He was concerned when they get into the issue
of impact, he wanted a clear understanding of what the 46 units will have on a per capita student in
the
OUSD.Mr. Bowie thought OUSD had a .3 student generation rate. Each student is about $24,
000.Commissioner Pruett was trying to get to the issue of what kind of impact this is suppose to have on
the School District. Generation figures are one issue. He was talking about the per capita
student population right now and what kind of impact that is going to
have.Mr. Bowie said this particular project, based on the student generation rates, will create 19
additional students, and the cost of those 19 students will be an estimated $385,342. There are currently over 5,
000 students that are in trailers without wheels in the
community.Commissioner Pruett wanted to focus on the 19 students. He asked if those 19 students are going
to create $400,000 in costs. And, how many students does the School District have right now? (
About 28,961
students.)Mr. Bowie stated Orange was a very substantial amount behind in the community in relation
to development within the
OUSD.Commissioner Pruett asked if it were actions by the City or that the School District is still operating
under rules that Orange basically is obligated to follow in terms of fees. Are those not the fees ($8,
377)adopted by the School District right
now.Mr. Bowie responded that report was received and preliminarily filed by the School Board earlier. That'
s been the law in the State of California since mid 1991. When someone comes before a body
for legislative approval, a project cannot be approved until the school impacts are mitigated. Separate
and apart is the CEQA argument and you can't approve it unless they have been identified. Now, if
the School District sits on its hands and does not partiCipate in proceedings like this, the project can
be approved and everyone pays $1.
84.Chairman Bosch stated it was unfortunate the School District has set up for the last several meetings
such an adversarial relationship by accusing the City of not being diligent about taking care of the
educational needs of the City. It's very implicit in what the Commission has been addressed with for many
hours over the last three hearings. The City of Orange and the citizens are very concerned about thequalityandadequacyoftheschoolsystemandthatpeoplebeartheirfairshare. It isn't some
nameless corporation that pays these costs; it is the people who buy these homes that pay the cost.
He appreciates that the School District, after many years of apparently not bringing this issue forward,
has decided to participate. It shows a wonderful change that is occurring. Unfortunately, the method in
which it is being done, is inappropriate. It is a last minute thing by the School District and now they want
the City to hold up and wait for them until they can get things in order, The Planning Commission does
not establish fees. The fees are .9stablished by the legislative body that has the police power, which is
the City Council, based upon the advice of the School District and what it adopts. The Planning
Commission
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1997
recognizes where there are concerns that must be met and it recognizes current City ordinanc.e byrequiringthattheinplacefeesthatareestablishedbyordinanceandStatelawarethosethatWI!' beassessedtoeachindividualprojectandthusmitigatetheimpactsthatarebroughtforward. The PlanningCommissionrecommendstotheCityCouncilandCounciltakesfinalaction. He stressed that they act asateamtosolvetheissues. Next, they need to determine where the costs really need to be borne andthatisbythepeopleresidinginthehomes. The environmental impact arguments that have beenpresentedarenotverygood. When you look at 19 students - not just $8,377 per dwelling unit - but the numbers thathavenotbeenbroughtupintermsofwhattheshareoftaxesperyearonthevalueofthedwellingstopayoffthebondsthatarecurrentlyinplacetofundschoolfacilitiesandotherprogramsthatareinplacetodothat. It's a huge burden on any new home being built in the City; not just here. This needs tobeputintherightperspectiveandgetoffthesoapboxesaboutwhoisnotdoingtheirjob.It was
Mr. Bowie's responsibility to make the record in these proceedings.Chairman Bosch
thought the argument that needs to be tossed out to get to the facts is, what is the duty and obligationofthePlanningCommission, under State law and City ordinances, with regard to assessing the environmentalimpactofthisproject, and the adequacy of the mitigation measures.Mr, Reynolds
said the duty at this hearing is to determine whether or not the negative declaration is the appropriate courseofaction. As the Commission has heard, the School District does not believe that is sufficient. Onthatissue, the negative declaration was recommended by staff because they did not believe thesocio-economic impacts upon the School District were within the scope of CEQA. And becausetherewasnotaphysicalimpactontheenvironment, Le., the need for a new school as a result of theproposedovercrowding. If the Commission determines that the negative declaration is not sufficient, that there should be an environmental impact report prepared to examine certain impacts that havebeenalle~ed to occur, that's within the purview of the Commission to do so. The main issue of the SchoolDistrictIStheirrequestthattheCityimposecertainmitigationmeasuresintheformofafee. Now mitigationmeasurescannotbeimposediftheyviolatestatutoryorconstitutionalprovisions. It's the opinionoftheCityAttorney's office that in this case if they were to impose a school impact fee or a fee ofanysorttomitigatewhattheSchoolDistrictiscontending, that the City would have to go through a AB1600process, which means the City could take the report that was approved by the School Board of DirectorstotheCityCouncil, have the Council determine they are interested in teaming up with the SchoolDistrictandgoingthroughaprocesstoeitherapprovethenumberstheSchoolDistrictproposesandthenembracethosefeesandpassanordinancewhichsaysforanyprojectthatcomesbeforetheCity, under the legislative approval process, the City will impose the additional fee over and above what theschoolscanstatutoriallycollecttoday. But that is a process that is pursuant to a public hearing with theadoptionofanordinanceandithasa60-day effective period. The City cannot impose that additionalfeewithoutgoingthroughthatprocess,
Mr. Bowie said they were not asking the City to impose a fee. They were merely asking the City todeterminetheimpactsandthentodeterminethatthoseimpactshavebeenmitigatedtoalevelofinsignificance. They were not asking the City to adopt a fee.
Commissioner Carlton asked Ms. Saltzman (from previous hearings) if the mitigation fees from thisprojectweregoingtoactuallygotowardsbuildingacoupleofmoretemporaryunitsattheschoolswherethesechildrenwouldattend. Is the $385,000 going to be spent at Cerro Villa and Villa Park High School.The answer was no, the money goes into a kitty and whatever school needs the money the most, it won'tnecessarilygotowardstemporaryclassroomsattheschoolsintheneighborhood. How over crowdeddotheschoolshavetogetinordertogetsomefunding. She read in the paper that OUSD had aboutfivemilliondollarssurplusandshewasnotsurewhattheyintendedtodowiththatmoney.
Mr. Bowie responded that funding for education at the local level falls into two separate compartments.The State allocates an amount per student, per year -- a little under $5,000 now. That's the operating money. The State does not allocate any money for the capital facilities. The $1.84 pays for the lease on theportableunits. That's why the community is far behind (about 5,000 units). There haven't been any bondissuesforthepastseveralyears. The State requires that a School District finish with a 3% balance ontheoperatingsideoftheirbudget.Mr.
Flory said there were three financial certifications the District can make to the State and he explained thosesituations. They track their income by development, by attendance area. And, they attempt to spendthemoneyinthatfashion. They are currently over crowded and they must look at the accumulatedi 5
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1997
impacts. They have to do more than just the temporary housing. Eventually, they must put in pe~manent
housing. At some point, the District will have to build a new school and that's where the money will go.
Commissioner Pruett would like to know where the revenues go that the City receives from the Per~lta
Junior High School site that is now a sports complex. Do they go to the capital accoun~ or operating
funds. An elementary school has been converted to a district office and is no longer being used as a
school. Is the problem generated by the development of new homes or is the problem partly
generated by the decisions that have been made by the School District to take class rooms out of
circulation.
Mr. Flory responded both were probably appropriate when looking at the history of the District. They
are in the process of restoring those units to service. They put Katella back on site last year and opened
a new elementary school. Next year, Olive will be put back on site and they will open a new elementary
school the year after. The funds from Peralta do go into the capital fund to help offset some of the costs
that are generated in other areas.
Commissioner Carlton asked if the projections of 46 units generating .x" number of students took i~to
account the probability that a percentage of students would go to a private school. (Yes. that calculation
was factored in when the District did their student generation rates.)
Pat McCrory. 2415 East Taft Avenue, talked about the impact these homes will have on their area. He is
not opposed to changes. He has seen a lot of changes and appreciates them. However, building a
PUD on the east side of the freeway is way too much. The neighbors would like to see one house on an
8,000 square foot lot.
Alex Ciavola. 2440 East Hillside, showed an exhibit A of a not very pretty piece of land. He referred to
two other exhibits regarding Lot C. They don't understand why a representative from Edison is not at
this meeting to stand up and tell them exactly what it is they are going to do.
Betty Roberts. 1752 North MorninQside, was told by the assessor's office that Edison has never paid a
cent on that land. She thought a PUD is an urban disaster, and it will take away from the neighbors in the
community.
James Roberts. 1752 North Morningside, spoke for all the people who signed the petition. They want
8,000 square foot lots but do not want a PUD. He objected to the wrap around concept proposed byChairmanBoschatthelastmeeting. This type of development is out of place in their neighborhood.Rather than see a PUD, they would like to see a park. He would also like to know why there is
construction on the Edison property, if the project has not been approved.
Jennifer Atkins. 1752 North Morningside, addressed the tentative tract map proposed by the developer.
The homes along the freeway are considerably stressed up against the freeway. She objected to the
homes running parallel to Taft, where the property line has moved closer to the power lines. She felt it
was possible to have 8,000 square foot lots on the original acreage, including a recreational trail runningparallelwithMorningside. On the map that has been presented, it has two entries. This lessens the
traffic impact on Taft by having 22 homes vs. 46. Their proposal blends in much nicer with the existing
community.
Terry Etchechury. 2143 East Taft Avenue, was very unhappy with the whole idea of this new development.
Chuck Frey, 2309 East Lakeside, brought up the concern about the drainage at the last meeting. He
asked who is going to pay for the drainage improvements on the down wind side of all of this, He use to
live in a PUD in Corona and sold it. Eighty percent of those homes were sold to investors. That
development today has gang graffiti and the homes are trashed. He would hate to see that happen in
Orange.
Bob Bennyhoff. 10642 Morada Drive. Orange Park Acres, cleared up some misconceptions regarding the
School District. The School District has no outstanding bonded indebtedness. When Proposition 13 was
passed, that was the end of the school bonds. Before the State gives the School District money for
school construction, they require 30% of the schools be multi-track/year round. Last fall OUSD put
six schools on year round. And, in about two or three weeks, they will put five more schools on. The
District now qualifies for State school construction money. But they are at the bottom of the list. The
likelihood
Planning Commission Minutes December 15,1997
of OUSD getting this money is nil. They have plans to open Katella,in 1999. It's hard to say whose fault
it is and now there is a real problem with a shortage of schools. \\
Applicant's response
Mr. Mickelson thought a lot of the issues were brought up and addressed in previous hearings. The
drainage issue keeps coming up and they keep saying there may be a problem in the existing tract and
this new project has not contributed to it nor is it part of it. There will have to be a hydrology study, an
analysis of how the drainage will be handled, a capacity study and it will have to be submitted to the Cityforplancheckandapproval. In the event there are inadequacies in that drainage system down stream, it
will have to be corrected. It's clear there are people who do not like this type of development. They do
like their project and feel it is a very high quality development that offers a high quality of life. He didn't
know how to respond to the proposal presented to the Commission for the R-1-8 lots. He
glanced at the map very briefly and could see that some of the lots do not meet the R-1-8
standards. Some of the lots would require a variance. They cannot make 20 or 21 lots work economically on
the site because of the constraints with the freeway, power lines, access, etc. They are sympathetic to
the fact the School District has a problem in meeting its housing needs. But, they don't agree
that their numbers are accurate. They will be talking to the School District again. Something needs to be
worked out on an overall basis with the City Council to solve that problem and it shouldn't be
resolved
with this particular proposal.Chairman Bosch said the basis for the revised proposal which led them to withdraw
the zone change and general plan amendment with regard to density is that the developer has acquired
more land from Edison than previously. (Mr. Mickelson responded yes.) The drainage is a critical issue. Is it their understanding that they are responsible for down stream impacts and drainage run off increasescausedbytheirproject.Yes.) There was also a concern about some construction work already underwayonEdison's property.Were they aware of this? (No, the developer is not doing any
work on the site.)Commissioner Romero asked how the existing property drains and where
does it drain to.Mr. Mickelson said it basically drains to the southwest corner, but he asked that
his Civil Engineer address that from an engineering standpoint. The Civil Engineer, Surender Dewan,
explained the current drainage pattern. There will be no water flowing from Taft Avenue into thenewdevelopment'
s proposed drainage system.The
public hearing was closed.Chairman Bosch referred to the Assistant City Engineer with regard to the
ordinance and conditions of approval relative to drainage on this parcel of land, and also with regard tothe situationinf\
le existing Morningside tract. \Mr, Hohnbaum thought Mr. Mickelson's portrayal of the approval process is
correct. Staff will not approve this project for any grading until those submittals have been madeandtheyareapproved.Further, they will ensure that all rainfall that falls on the property will be collected
and kept on the property and conveyed to the proper drainage system. Any connections into
existing drains, whether it be the larger diameter pipe or the existing channel, would have to be analyzed before
it is allowed. The intent is to collect the drainage which falls on the property in a more organized fashion,
convey it to the drainage system and improve the existing drainage systems as necessary, As
far as Morningside is concerned, looking at the video he was not sure what the intensity of therainfall was,
but tv.Pically the streets are designed for a 25-year flood. The water should not top the curb, or if it does,
it is?right to the top of the curb. That rainfall and the street condition was normal. Once the
rain stops, it subsides and goes into the drain and the streets are clear again. Whether or not thereisaproblemonMorningsideremainstobeanalyzed. And, staff will look into that. They will review the
plans that were submitted as part of the original tract and will also do a site visit. The residents can contact
his office with their concerns.Chairman Bosch said the next concern is the entire issue of the actionbeforetheCommissionwithregardtothenegativedeclaration, conditions of approval, fees andspecifically, the potential school impact mitigation. He looked to the
City Attorney for legal advice,Mr. Reynolds pointed out the application has changed this evening. The
School District is here because this was primarily a legislative action that was going to betaken. Most of the
leQ\
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1997
taken off the table. The only legislative approval that remains is the general plan amendment with
respect to the open space. It appears that the School District's request to impose those additi~nal
mitigation measures in the form of additional fees has also been taken off the table. He did not believetheCommissionhastheabilitytoimposeadditionalfeesunlesstheCityCouncilwentthroughanadditionalprocesstoenactanordinancethatadoptsthefeestheSchoolDistrictisseeking. From a I~galstandpointhebelievesthenegativedeclarationisappropriatebecauseCEOAanalyzesphY~lcalimpacts. If the over crowding was such an impact that it would result in the need to construct additionalschoolfacilities, then the negative declaration would have to analyze that impact. The number of studentsthataregoingtobegeneratedbythisdevelopment, in the estimation of staff, is not significant enoughtotriggerthatkindofadditionalphysicalimpact.
Commissioner Pruett heard comments about Edison paying property taxes in that the assessor's officedoesnotshowanyrecordoftaxesbeingpaidfortheproperty. Utility property taxes are handleddifferentlythanpropertytaxesforthehomeowners. Utility property is taxed by the State Board ofEqualizationandthosetaxesarepaidtotheCounty. Then, the County distributes those dollars out tothejurisdictionsorbeneficiariesofthosetaxes. It is not assigned to any particular property, but is doneonaformulathatisproratedouttothedifferentcitiesandotherauthorities. All utilities pay propertytaxes. There was a question as to why Edison couldn't donate this property for a park. It's important tounderstandthereareotheragenciesinvolvedinthissuchasthePublicUtilitiesCommission. Just asEdisonispreventedfromcreatingthisareaasopenspace, Edison would probably also be restricted onthepartoftheCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommissionofgivingthispropertytotheCityortootherprivatepartiesbecauseitispublicpropertythatispaidbytheratepayersanditwouldnotbenefittherate
payers in general, but just a small group. He appreciated the issues of the lot sizes on the proposedmap, but there are other issues if it were put forward with the trail that is between the twodevelopments. The property owners would become very concerned about the safety issues. In termsofMr. Bennyhoff's comments of who is at fault, he was not looking to place fault with the School District.He was trying to get to how they can look at this issue and come to a reasonable solution. He washearingthequestionofmitigatingtheimpacttothe19studentswiththeconstructionofnewschools. Theclaimisthattherewillneedtobenewschoolsfor19students, On the other hand, there was testimonythatwhatishappeningisthattheDistrictisre-opening some of their existing schools. The issuetowithdrawtherequestofre-zoning and to retain the existing zoning of R-1-Sisanappropriatestrategy.Because of the site and the way it is laid out, it does present some developmentproblemsthata
PUD can deal with.Commissioner Carlton said the probability of any builder building 22 lots economicallyonthissite, would result in 2,600 to 3,000 square foot, 2-story houses and it would not work cost wiseforabuyer. She did not think the proposed map by the
neighbors was a viable alternative.Chairman Bosch hoped they were turning a corner with regard to buildingapartnershipforteambuildingbetweentheSchoolDistrictandCity. He was looking for fairness and itshouldbeappliedinreturn.With regard to the property, he would not be in favor of anything on thepropertythatwouldchangethezonefromR-1-S. He was pleased that the applicant has found awaybybuyingmorelandfromEdisontoarriveatawaytheybelievecaneconomicallyallowdevelopmenttooccurthatstillfitswithintheR-1-8 zoning. Nothing can happen on this land otherthansomethingthatfitswithinthatzoningwithoutcomingbacktothePlanningCommissionandCityCouncil. There canbenocommercialuseofanykindonthisproperty. He was concerned about the drainage, but was comfortable that not only is the developer required by City ordinance and the conditions of approvalonthisprojecttomitigateallimpactsofthedrainage. There is an existing problem in the Morningside tract, but he did not know what it is. This developer does not bear the burden of that problem; they bear the burden of not doing anything that makes it any worse. With regard to different typesofdevelopmentontheland, the basic issue is nothing should be developed just because itpenciledoutforthedeveloper. Obviously, nothing will be developed if it doesn't pencil out to thedeveloper. The majority of the planned unit developments in the City of Orange that are establishingfree-standing single family homes on individual lots with shared open space and private streets are those that haveavarietyofbenefitstotheCitywhentheyareappropriatelybuiltandprotectedbytheconditionsofapproval. The creation of the smaller lots in a planned unit development is that the specific lot issmaller, although the acreage is the same as a brand new development. That allows theaccumulationoftheprivateparkandrecreationarea, which is maintained by the people who buy and ownwithinthedevelopment. He felt the project was laid out appropriately given the constraints of the freeway and powerlines. He would like to see a park or trail on the site, but again they must look at trailsandopenspacethatfunctionandthatareproperlylocated.This property won't stay vacant and he was
concerned
Planning Commission Minutes December 15,1997
it that will have a far greater impact on the neighbors than this project will. Planned unit development~ areabsolutelynotintendedtosolveproblemsofpotentialblightortakecareofdecliningareasoftheCity.
Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the CityCounciltoapproveNegativeDeclaration1534-97 finding that there is no substantial evidence thattheprojectwillhaveasignificantimpactontheenvironmentorwildliferesources. There will be an increaseof19studentsasaresultofthisdevelopmentandinlightoftestimony, there is an effort by theSchoolDistricttoworkinconcertwiththeCityonfeeimpactsandtherearesomeschoolsintheprocess0.1re-opening; therefore, there is a question as to the environmental impact that is represented by the
proJect.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett,
Romero
None Commissioner Smith MOTION
CARRIED Mr, Jones explained the general plan amendment will no longer include a change from low density tolow-medium high density. However, the City had previously done a master plan of trails and the trailhasalreadybeenrelocated. Action is needed to clean up the land use element to reflect an action theCityhadpreviouslytakenwithregardtothespecificlocationoftheopenspaceandrelocationofthetrailsystem. The zone change has been dropped. The other action is the conditional use permittoimplementtheplannedunit
development.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to recommend to theCityCounciltoapproveGeneralPlanAmendment2-97 which conforms to the previous actions oftheCityCouncilwithregardtothespecificlocationoftheopenspaceandrelocationofthetrailsystem. This is consistent with the
General
Plan.
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton,
Pruett,
Romero None Commissioner Smith
MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to recommend totheCityCounciltoapproveConditionalUsePermit2191-97, with conditions 1-24, foraplannedunitdevelopment.The project conforms to the General Plan in regards to land use designation anddensity, and the project utilizes creativity and imaginative planning with design features to create aqualitylivingenvironmentequaltoorbetterthanwhatmightbeaccomplishedundertheR-1-8 zoning classification. This meets the requirement of the R-1-8 zoning andtheprojectpreservestheuniquephysicalandenvironmentalfeatureswhereapplicable. This is granted under soundlanduseprinciplesandinresponsetoservicesrequiredbythecommunity. The project will notcausedeteriorationtoborderinglanduseswiththeconditionsofapprovalandtheuseoftheplannedunitdevelopment. When considered in relationship to its effect on the community and neighboring land uses, it isabeneficialsitedevelopmentanditisgrantedandisnecessary
to
preserve
the
general welfare of the community.
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Pruett, secondedbyCommissionerRomero, to recommend to the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 15546, dated November 28, 1997, with the conditions of approval, finding that it
is
consistent
with
the City's General Plan.
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Carlton,
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1997
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the ~ity Council,
with regard to the apparent socio-economic impacts upon the public school system that are Imp?sedbyresidentialprojectscomingbeforetheCity, given the current state of fundin~ in scho~ls a.nd th~ Impa~
ts that appear to be demonstrated by the School District. That the City Council engage In dISCU~SI?nswiththeOrangeUnifiedSchoolDistricttoreviewtheconsiderablevolumeofworkthattheScho<?' DistricthasundertakentoidentifyactualphysicalplantimpactsofnewresidentialdevelopmentInthe
school,apparently over and above those covered by current methods of funding for capital improvem~nts. That the City assign appropriate staff and individual citizens to study in a timely manner those ImpactstovalidatethemandtoconsideradoptinganordinancewhichestablishesanimpactfeetomitigatethelevelofeconomicimpactonSchoolDistrictcapitalfacilitiesoverandabovethatwhichiscoveredbytheexistinglegislativeceilingfor
funding.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett,
Romero
None Commissioner Smith MOTION
CARRIED Commissioner Pruett hoped that this group could also look at and begin to explore the conceptoflookingtoallofthetaxpayersintheSchoolDistricttofind, through some bond program, anassessmentthatwouldbasicallyplacethatburdenonallofthecitizensratherthanjustonnew
developments.RECESS - The Chair declared a short recess at 9:45 p,m.
RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 10:00 p.m.Commissioner
Smith returned to the meeting.3.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-97 - CITY OF ORANGE A
proposal to amend City sign regulations, specifically Orange Municipal Code Section 17,36.060(A);SignProgram" guidelines. The ordinance amendment would allow sign programs for large commercial developments (Of 25 acres or more) to propose criteria that differ from limitations contained within the Citysigncode, if a conditional use permit is approved by the Planning Commission.This
item has been continued from the May 5, June 16, August 18. and October 20, 1997 hearings.) .There
was no opposition to this item.The
public hearing was opened.Jim
Donovan, Associate Planner, reported this was the fourth hearing on revisions that are proposed to thesigncodeforoutdooradvertisingformajorshoppingcenters, which specifically would be limited to thesizeof25acresormore, and further limited to the commercial zones such as CTR, C-2. C-3andCoR. Staff has not done much more except that they are trying to encourage at least someconversationaboutsomeoftheprovisions. They have been working with one interested party on the extent towhichtheserevisionsmayoccurandoneofthequestionsfortheCommissioniswhetherwallsignsmaybetreateddifferentlythanwhatispresentlyregulatedundertheMunicipalCodewherethereisaformulaofonesquarefootperlinearfootofbuildingfrontage. There has been concern with staff that they wanttoaccommodatecentersiftheyarefarenoughbackfromthestreet (200 to 300 feet back). An exhibithasbeenincludedthatshowswhatwallsignswouldlooklikeatascaleoftwosquarefeetperlinearfootofbuildingfrontageandthreesquarefeet. Also, as an extension of the last hearing it was discussedtheextentbywhichawallsignmayprojectabovetherooflineofthebuildingbeforestaffwouldbeconcernedwithcallingitaroofsign. There were comments at the last meeting that 25% was toomuch.Drawings have been provided that show extensions of 20%, at 10% of the 5% (attachment 2). Staff added language, as a result of the discussion about on-site directional signs. The directionalsignsaremorenarrowlydefinedasaidinginthecirculationoflargeparkingareas, Also, specificationsthatthedisplayshouldbelimitedtosimpleinstructionsandgraphics, section titles, left and rightturnarrows,tenant names, using uniform and consistent size and style text. Staff is not in a hurry to reachafinaldecisionunlesstheCommissionissatisfiedwiththewordingoftheordinance
as
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1997
Commissioner Pruett referred to the attachment with the wall signs. There is a sign that is 7x50, w~ich is
375 square feet. Up to 360 square feet would be okay. Is it suggested that sOf'!leone coul~ come In and
put in a sign that is 10 feet high and 35 feet long. Is there a restriction on the height of the sign.
Mr. Donovan replied there is a restriction, but 10 feet would be allowed under the presen~ r.eQulationsbecausetheheightofthewallsignislimitedtoaratiooftwo-thirds of whatever flat su~a~e It IS
Installed upon. If it is a 32 foot high wall, it could be over 20 feet high if very narrow. The exhlbl.ts .do ~otshowthatthedistanceisincreasedwherethebulkofthesignwouldbediminishedasthebUildingISplaced200or300feetbackonapieceofproperty. In the beginning, staff considered giving a developercreditinonelocationofthemalltotransfersquarefootagefromonesectiontoanother. But, he re~alledtheCommissionwasnotcomfortablewiththatapproach. This is another alternative that can bediscussed;staff is not advocating that it be adopted in this
manner.Commissioner Pruett would be concerned about what they would be setting for future projectsanddevelopmentsintermsof
signage.Chairman Bosch asked for clarification on Page 2, Section 3. c. at the end of the first paragraph ofthestaffreport, It stated, "or permitted to increase by the following ratio:" He wondered if it shouldn'tbetothefollowingratio:" By indicates to him an addition to a base ordinance. Isn't the intent oftheproposaltostatethatatgreatdistancestheywouldallowthebasicratiotoincrease, not addedto.Yes.) On Page 3, sub paragraph f. states "A singular roof sign may be permitted if constructed asasingulararchitecturalelementwhichdisplaysonlythenameofadevelopment." The intent is that "a development" means the major commercial development under which this type of sign programisallowed. (Correct.) The Chairman wanted to make this ordinance amendment as clear as
possible.The public hearing was
opened.Those speaking in
favor:JerryEn\jen. One City Blvd. West #1700, thanked the Commission for allowing him to participate in
the hearings and work closely with staff in developing some language that will work for these largescaleprojectsandnotcreateaprobleminthefutureforotherprojects. They will be responsible in thewaytheymanagetheirsignprogram. In order to craft language that would promote the creativity
that everyone is looking for, yet keeps control on it, is quite complicated. He suggested they couldpreparesomegraphicstohelpshowthatkindoflanguagecouldbeimplemented. In the packet it showshowtheycandealwiththesitesignageandhebelievedthatthelanguageasitisproposedforsitedirectionalsignageworkswell. The projects they use as examples are significantly larger projects than whatiscurrentlyproposedatTheCitysite. So, the signs will be in context with that and the ordinance, as proposed. As it relates to the wall signage and the roof signage, he would like to take more timeandworkwithstafftodevelopsometypeofgraphicprogramthatwouldshowtheCommissionhowthatkindofprogramcouldbeimplementedsoasnottobeconcernedwiththeamountofvolumeofsquarefootage, or how it would project above the roof line. The graphics staff prepared gives an idea oftheoverallsizeandquantity, but doesn't address how it can be implemented in an architectural format. There is probably some language that could be added that would help clarify that. The first step would betodevelopsomegraphicsthattheCommissioncouldlook
at.Commissioner Pruett appreciated Mr. Engen's offer because it would help them to work throughtheissues, He wanted to know where the Grapevine Mills project was located. (In
Texas.)Commissioner Smith was going to ask what steps would be taken to ensure that those signs, especially the large ones, would be safe in terms of bad weather, such as the Santa Ana
winds.Mr. Engen explained as part of the building permit process, one of the requirements is thatengineeringstudiesbedonetodealwithseismicrelatedloadsandalsowindloads. Any time an element is putup,whether it be a building, architectural element or sign, in a location subject to seismic or wind loads, there must be an analysis that shows the sign will remain
intact.The public hearing was
closed.
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1997
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Ordina!1ce Amendment1-97 - "Sign Program" - to January 19, 1998 in order for staff to work out some of the Issues .t~at were discussedandtobringbackadditionalinformationrelativetoseismic, wind and weather condItIons and graphicsforwallandroofsignage. Wording in the proposed ordinance amendment needs to be consistentandthevagueareasneedtobeclarifiedpertainingtoroofsignagedisplays.AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners
Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None
MOTION CARRIED IN
RE: NEW HEARINGS 4.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2192-97 - TWIN DRAGON (TRIPLE DELIGHT, INC.)A
proposal to sell beer and wine in conjunction with a new restaurant located within the Century Promenadecomplex. The site is addressed 1631 West Katella Avenue, Building "A", Suite "0".NOTE:
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.There
was no opposition to this item and the full staff report was not presented.Mr.
Jones informed the Commission condition 6 currently does not reflect the discussion in the staff reportinthatthesalesandserviceofalcoholicbeveragesshallbelimitedtoceaseonehourbeforeclosingtime. The restaurant's hours are typically until 11 :00 p.m. and therefore, condition 6 should be modifiedtoshowthatthesalesandserviceofalcoholicbeveragesshouldonlybealloweduntil10:00 p.m., and add that sales and service of alcoholic beverages shall cease one hour before closing.The
public hearing was opened.Apolicant.
James Sun. 113 East 23rd Street. Costa Mesa, said this will be a very nice restaurant and will beinasafeenvironment. They shall comply with all the conditions, including ceasing the sale and service ofalcoholicbeveragesonehourpriortoclosing.Chairman
Bosch asked if his restaurant had an enclosed or semi-enclosed outdoor eating area. And, wasithisunderstandingtheywouldnotbeservingorsellingalcoholicbeveragesforconsumptionoutsidetheirpremises.
Mr. Sun will only serve alcoholic beverages inside the restaurant. They do not have an enclosed patioarea.
Commissioner Pruett said the only drawing they had that shows the layout of the proposeddevelopmentisonethatisindicatedforFireDepartmentuseonlyanditisnottoscale. It doesn't givetheCommissionanopportunitytolookatthediningarea. There are table and chairs on each side of thediningroomanditshowsthattheywouldonlybeabletoaccommodatefourguests. He thought theCommissionneededsomethingmoredefinitiveintermsofthescaleoftheprojectthatshowsthediningarea, room and number of guests.
Mr. Sun believed they could accommodate 12 to 14 people and he would put up a sign regardingalcoholicbeveragesstayinginsidetherestaurant. He will provide the Commission with a detaileddrawing. He consented to a continuance to the next meeting.
Commissioner Smith asked about the operating hours in that the applicant is proposing to close earlierthantheotherestablishments. She encouraged him to look at his hours of operation, which he will do.
The public hearing was closed.
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue Conditional UsePermit2192-97 - Twin Dragon - to the meeting of January 5, 1998, with the applicant's concurrence.AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners
Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None
MOTION CARRIED 12
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1997
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2198-97 - ALLEGRO RISTORANTE
A proposal to sell beer and wine in conjunction with an existing rest$urant. The site is located within theVillageCenter (addressed 1160 North Tustin Street).
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
There was no opposition to this item and the full reading of the staff report was waived.
Mr, Jones referred to condition 6 in which the statement about sales and service of alcoholic beveragesshallceaseonehourpriortoclosingwasomittedandneedstobeaddedattheendofthecondition.
The public hearing was opened.
Applicant. Mario Petillo. 1160 North Tustin Avenue, is proposing a white table cloth, upper scale, Italianrestaurantandheisrequestingtosellbeerandwine. The restaurant will be closed on Sunday. Hehopestoprovidefoodserviceonhispatio. The gates are for emergency access only. The entrance andexittothepatiowillbethroughtherestaurant. People cannot access the patio from the street.
The public hearing was closed.
The project is categorically exempt from CEQA review.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Permit2198-97, with the conditions of approval listed in the staff report, amending condition 6 to includewordingthatsalesandserviceofalcoholicbeveragesshallceaseonehourpriortoclosing. It is noted on thefloorplan, the gates shown on the fence patio are for emergency exit only and patrons shall enter thepatioareathroughtherestaurant. This permit is granted upon the sound principles of land use in responsetoservicesrequiredinthecommunity. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or createspecialproblemsforthearea. The permit has been considered in relationship to its effect on the communityandnoadverseconditionsarenoted. This conditional use permit will be granted to preserve thegeneralwelfare, not the individual welfare, of the
applicant.
AYES:
NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero,
Smith None MOTION
CARRIED 6. ZONE CHANGE 1193-97; PARCEL MAP 97-185; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 21~1.-97; AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 46-97 -
ACUTE REHAB HOSPITAL ,A proposal to construct a one-story acute care facility behind the existingchurchbuildings. The proposal includes subdividing the site into three parcels, and to allow shared parkingandaccessbetweentheproposedcarefacilityandthechurch. The site is addressed
395 South Tustin Street.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1543-97 has been prepared toevaluatethe
environmental impacts of this project.There was no opposition to this item and
thepublichearingwasopened.l Aoplicant. Geoffrey Farnsworth. architect for the
proiect. TheFarnsworthGroup. Ltd.. 28331 Lakewood Drive. La9una Ni9uel, represented the owner, Chatham Health, LLC. This is a 4.6acresitethatisbeingsubdividedintothreeparcels. The hospital will occupy the 1.6 acre parcel; the balanceofthesitewillbesubdividedwitharoadwaywhichleadsbacktothenewhospitalsite. There isanexistingchurchthatwillremainandanewparkinglotwillbebuiltonthefrontportionofthesite. On the northerly front portion adjoining Tustin there is a vacant site that will be developed forfuturecommercialandresidentialuse.However, this is not part of their application. There are a couple ofchangesthatweresuggestedandincorporatedintotheirplans, There was a small accessory enclosure for atransformerandtrashalongtheeasterlypropertylineandithasbeenrelocatedbackontotheirsite, Theyalsorelocatedasidewalkthatisonthevacantcommercialsite
over
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1997
Commissioner Smith noted on Page 6 that the Staff Review Committee's recommendation was to omit
the fountain in the middle of the turnaround in front of the proposed building. She was sorry to see that
omitted.
Mr. Farnsworth said they would put in a fountain somewhere on the property at a later time, but not in the
roadway.
Commissioner Carlton was curious about the retaining wall along the creek.
Mr. Farnsworth explained the site slopes off gradually toward the creek. The site is about three feet I~w
in that corner where it slopes towards the creek. They are proposing to raise it up to be level and bUild
a three foot retaining wall to also provide extra protection against flooding.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Smith asked staff about the fountain. It's so rare they see a distinctive architectural feature
with a building. She has seen the trash trucks negotiate the alleys that are many times smaller than this
proposed turnaround.
Mr. Hohnbaum stated the design factor at that location was the fire access. The Fire Department will
place a template on all turning movements to ensure that their trucks can move through and not be
impacted. Because of the lack of space in the overall turnaround, that was the reason for the relocation of
the fountain.
Commissioner Smith hoped in the design of the project, that features such as a fountain, in the future, will
be able to be worked in by working with staff to place it in an appropriate location on the property. She
was also concerned if this particular facility were to be used in the future for a higher medical use, the
parking may not be adequate,
Mr. Carnes responded there is a condition of approval that restricts this use to a care facility. The parkingordinancerequires35parkingspacesforthistypeoffacilityandtheywillhavesharedparkingwiththe
church. If it were to convert to a clinic type facility, open to the public, it would require five parking spaces
per 1,000 or 85 parking spaces. In order to do that, they would have to add additional parkingsomewhereonthesite. Additional review by the Commission would be required. There is no room on
the parcel that the care facility is being built on, but as part of this application, there is the request for
shared parking between the church and the third parcel. If the project was converted to another use, the
parking could be provided on the vacant parcel. The ultimate problem would be if the vacant parcel is
developed and at some future date, the care facility was converted, it could not be approved without the
parking.
Chairman Bosch did not have difficulty with this issue. It is a very specialized use and because of the
type of facility, it is very difficult to intensify the use. Since the parking ordinance is driven by the number
of beds, they would have to come to the Commission if it were converted to a higher intensity use. This
need is overwhelmingly required in the community to allow acute rehab patients to have good care near
their homes. This represents a less intense use for the site than the earlier proposals that have come
before the Commission.
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council
to approve Negative Declaration 1543.97 with the finding that the project will not have a significantadverseimpactontheenvironment.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council
to approve Zone Change 1193-97. based upon the proposed zone change being in conformancewiththeintentoftheGeneral
Plan.
AYES:
NOES:Commissioners Bosch, i-:;arlton, Pruett, Romero,
Smith None MOTION
CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes December 15,1997
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the C.ity CounciltoapproveParcelMap97-185, Conditional Use Permit 2197-97 and Minor Site PlanReview46-97,in~luding. conditions 1-20 in the staff report, with the findings that the project will no~ caus~ dete~ior~tion of nelghbonng land uses. It conforms to the City's development standards andspecialdesigngUidelines ?r specific plan requirements. It will not cause significant negative environmental impactsasdemonstrat~d In the approved CEQA documentation. That on- and off-site circulation isadequatetosupporttheproJect.City and other public services are available and adequate to serve theprojectandtheprojectiscompatiblewithcommunityaesthetics. It meets sound principles of land useandisinresponsetoservicesrequiredbythecommunity. It will not cause deterioration ofborderinglandusesor .create special problems for the area. It has been considered in relationship to itseffectonthecommunityandneighborhoodplansforthearea, and is subject to conditions necessarytopreservethegeneralwelfare,not the
individual
welfare
of the applicant.AYES:NOES:Commissioners
Bosch, Carlton, Pruett,
Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 7. TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 14359 - CALIFORNIA QUARTET A proposal to create 245 lots and develop 226 units on approximately 172 acresinthePeraltaHills,pursuant to the
Serrano Heights Specific Plan.Subject property is located within the Serrano Heights Specific Plan area, whichislocatednorthofSantiagoOaksRegionalPark, east of the Southern California EdisonSerranoSubstation, south of Anaheim Hills, and west
of Nohl Ranch Road.NOTE:The project's environmental impacts have been addressedbyFinalEnvironmentalImpactReport954andSupplementalEIR1305andAddendum (dated January21, 1997), which have been certified by the City Council in conjunction with approval of
the Serrano Heights Project.Chairman Bosch excused himself from the meeting due to a potentialconflictofinterest. Vice-
Chair Smith conducted the hearing.Mr. Jones stated there are some revised conditions of approval: #2, #17, #26, #42, #54 and #65 and they have
been reviewed with the applicant.Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, presented the full staffreportbecausetherewasopposition.. to this item. This is a project with a long history of review by the City of Orange. In1987, the City approved a General Plan Amendment that allocated development of various residentialdensitiesinPeraltaHills. The City and property owner entered into a Development Agreement in1988wherebytheCitygrantedapprovalof1,800 dwelling units on 727 acres. and the applicantwasrequiredtoconstructSerranoAvenue, from Nohl Ranch Road to Orange Park Acres in the City ofOrange. The City has also approved Serrano Heights Specific Plan and each of these approvals weremadewiththecertificationofanenvironmentalimpactreport. The environmental impact reports were954andaSupplementalEIR1305, In addition to that, the environmental documentation was amended onFebruary19. 1997 when the Development Agreement was also amended by the Planning CommissionandCityCouncil. This project pertains to the subdivision of approximately 223 residential lots andtwolargerparcelsforfurtherdevelopment. There are a number of amenities that were approved throughtheSpecificPlanandthemapisconsistentwiththoserequirements, including the constructionofrecreationaltrails. The applicant has also created a maintenance district to fund the upkeep of allpublicparkwaysandcommunityopenspace, and will dedicate and construct a 4.4 acre public park. The development includes three areas where there will be single family detached homes. Those areas have a minimum lotsizeof6,000 square feet. There is also an allocation that allows the pad sizes to be somewhatsmaller. This project has been reviewed by staff and is consistent with all the requirements contained intheSpecificPlan. The applicant is proposing that Serrano Avenue be constructed midway from Orange ParkAcrestoNohlRanchRoad.There will only be one lane in each direction until other north-south arterialssuchasJamboreeRoadortheEasternTransportationCorridorisopenedfirst. The only concern staff has is thatitisunclearhowthefuelmodificationrequirementswillbeaddressed. There are a varietyofpossiblealternativestoaddressthefuelmodificationissueandanappropriatesolutionwillbedeterminedtothemutualsatisfactionoftheCityanddeveloperatalaterdate. There are numerous conditions ofapprovalthatareattachedtothestaffreport. There are also 75 mitigation measures attached
to
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1997
many other conditions of approval related to the Specific Plan and Development Agreement that pertaintothisproject.
Commissioner Carlton was curious about the developer moving six million cubic yards of earth and
wanted to know if that was major or minor surgery. She was also confused about the fuel modification
because the County states they will not agree to any modification of the land that is County property or
park land.
Mr. Donovan replied he thought it was major. It was an impact that was discussed in the initial
environmental documentation for the extensive grading that would occur in the hills. There are mitigation
measures in place to attempt to control that to every extent possible. A conceptual grading plan was
included with the Specific Plan and this proposal has been compared to that and found to be consistent.
Relative to fuel modification, it was unclear to staff whether the County is cognizant of the fact the City has
its own fuel modification standards and an ordinance that pertains to the development. The County maybeassumingthatthereisrealestateinvolvedoffsitethatmustbeusedtosatisfythoserequirements.There is a horizontal distance required as a thinning zone and wet zone where the property is landscapedandirrigated. That is the preferred standard, but there are other measures such as masonry block walls.
They have talked to the Fire Department about different levels of protection that would apply to
buildings such as protecting the eave overhangs with stucco to a certain depth so that there is no
exposed wood. There are also fire sprinklers and irrigation requirements to satisfy the standards.
Commissioner Carlton referred to condition 41 in that a speed of 50 M.P.H. is suggested. She has
driven up Serrano many times and it's 35 M.P.H, coming down Taft through Villa Park. She envisioned
that as a similar roadway, If 50 M,P.H. were posted, people will go 60, She questioned the speed limit
being too excessive.
Mr. Hohnbaum said the key word on condition 41 is "design" speed, That pertains to the vertical and
horizontal geometries of the roadway, but what it will actually be posted at will be something lower in the
range Commissioner Carlton suggested.
Commissioner Romero asked why Serrano is being improved to only two lanes with additional lanes
later.
Mr. Donovan explained that evolved out of a legal settlement the City signed in 1991. The local
community desired to restrict the flow of traffic and restrict the capacity so that there would be perhaps alowerrateofspeedandalsojustlessvehiclescomingthroughperday. That concern was based on thefactthatSerranowasgoingtobecompletedinasegmentconnectingOrangetoAnaheimHills. With the
revision to the Development Agreement approved last February, it would only be the first segmentcompletednow.
Commissioner Smith referred to Page 3 of the staff report in which it notes the tentative map includes a
4.4 acre park site. On Page 5 under Evaluation, it mentions that the terrain of this particular site is rugged,ranging in elevation from approximately 500 to 900 feet above sea level, characterized by steep slopesplustheridges, canyons and hilltops. She asked if the park site were flat for usable recreation area or ifitismoreofaruggedhikingtypearea, She also wanted to know what a Community Facilities District is,
which has been created to finance public improvements.
Mr. Donovan stated the park site will be graded level except there will be a slight incline for drainage to
flow onto the public street. The elevation varies by only six feet across the entire parcel.
Mr. Jones explained that a Community Facilities District is a legislative financing mechanism whereby a
City can finance major infrastructure via agreements or a vote of the property owners. In this case, it is a
single propertr owner who has agreed to place this burden against the property in order to finance theconstruction0SerranoAvenue. It can be used for schools and other kinds of major infrastructure.
Mr. Reynolds said this is commonly known as a Mello Roos District, but when they are enacted they arecalledaCommunityFacilitiesDistrict.
Commissioner Smith said the staff report referred to the fuel modification situation and she wanted tohearwhatthefutureplansareinmitigatingthissituationwhentheCountyownsthepropertynextdoor
16
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1997
and they have flat out said there is nothing that can be done. She thought it would be dangerous to
move forward if there were no assurances.
Mr. Jones said the map was previously approved roughly on this same area in 1991. There was a similar
issue and a condition was applied to the property which does require satisfaction for. safety reasons of a
fuel modification zone or agreement between the Fire Department and whatever IS developed there.
The City also approved a development next door, Standard Pacific, which ha~ a similar kind ~f agreeme~t
whereby they will need the approval of the County in order to develop certain lots. Otherwise, they Will
not be able to develop it. Staff is satisfied, even though the fuel modification issue has not been fullyresolvedyet, there are mechanisms to resolve it and there are conditions to ensure everyone's safetyandotherissuestheCitywouldbeconcernedaboutwouldberesolvedpriortoanydevelopment
occurring. An example would be the Crawford Hills in that some portions of that development has some
deviation from that particular standard based upon certain circumstances.
Mr. Donovan said the Parkridge Development is now getting to the eastern portion of their propertywheretheywillneedtoaddressthat. They have a phasing plan from which they are working from Cannon
Street to the eastern property boundary.
Commissioner Smith wondered if this were the time to bring up the modifications to the six conditions
that were proposed.
Mr. Jones stated the applicant brought the proposed revisions to staff's attention. In most cases, theyarereallyclarificationsoftheintentandstaffisinagreementwithalloftheconditions. Condition 2 had a
specific mitigation measure called out in the original approval. Staff attempted to summarize that and the
applicant correctly pointed out that the mitigation measure is probably best served by being shown
verbatim. Condition 17 relates to the design, dedication and construction of Serrano Avenue, accordingtotheplannedcrosssectionshownonthetentativetractmap. Staff added some basic language that
notes it shall be consistent with the Settlement Agreement between the developer, the City and Peralta
Hills Alliance. This was further clarification of what the intent is. Condition 26 deals with slope ratios. The
project has a couple of slope areas that would be greater than a slope ratio of 2:1. This states that all fill
slopes greater than 2:1 would require the installation of a soil stabilization geo-grid, as required by
the geologist. Condition 42 references the landscape median that is required for Serrano Avenue per
the Settlement Agreement between Woodcrest, Mabury Ranch Homeowners Association, and the City
of Orange. Whatever the solution is, it needs to be in conformance with the SettlementAgreement.Condition 54 addresses the park site issue. The Specific Plan and Development Agreement alsodiscusstheparksiteandpaymentoffees, and any potential park fees. The City had negotiated with
the developer to provide a park site and a specific amount of improvement costs in lieu of fees, and
this language clarifies that. Condition 65 notes that prior to the approval of a final tract map, a conceptual
fuel modification plan shall be approved by the Fire Chief. This is consistent with condition
1.Commissioner Carlton said in regard to the conditions imposed in 1991, one of them was to enclose
the openings in the existing Mabury Ranch perimeter wall. Does that mean the sections that are wrought
iron are going to be all block wall. She did not understand what enclosing the openings means. She
was sensitive to the rates imposed by Mello Roos legislation and wondered what rate is going to be
added on to the base tax rate to cover the assessment on this
project.Mr. Jones would like the applicant to respond to these
questions.The public hearing was
opened.Applicant. Frank Elfend. Elfend and Associates. 610 NewDort Center Drive. NewDort Beach. said
this was a project that has been around for quite awhile. He started out on this project in 1987. During
that time a lot has happened. It's important for the Commission to appreciate the project has beenthroughasubstantialamountofreviewbytheCity, County, consultants, the School District and by thecommunity.There has been many approvals: a Specific Plan, litigation over the approval of the Specific Plan,
a Settlement Agreement with the Mabury Ranch, as well as some residents in Anaheim called the
Peralta Hills Alliance. A part of that resolution and compromise involved preservation of the ridge lines. Grading today is substantially less than what it was under the earlier plan. When doing the Specific Plan
and General Plan Amendment process, that grading was consolidated and the ridge lines werepreserved.But there were also additional concessions that were provided, including the proviSion to enclose
those walls along Serrano for noise mitigation purposes. That has not been done yet. There was also
a
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1997
provision for a $110,000 mitigation fund, which they agreed to and it will be paid by them upon initiation of
the project. They came before the Commission several months ago to amend the DevelopmentAgreementforvariousactionsandtheymetwiththecommunitywhoendorsedthisplan. The reason whytheyarebackbeforetheCommissionisbecausetheirphaseonetentativemapwasapprovedandthat
map is almost identical to what is being requested at this hearing. They were able to resolve and answer
most of the questions that were raised by the staff. Regarding Mello Roos, only the maximum rates
have been established. The actual rate has not been established, but the City has already initiated the
process. They are dealing with the issue of fuel modification with the County for quite awhile. They feelconfidenttheIssuecanberesolvedeitheronoroffsite, depending on which one is chosen. It will be
resolved before they pursue the project. He hopes grading can occur early next year.
Commissioner Carlton wanted to follow through on the Mello Roos. She asked if there was a maximumallowedbylawthatcanbeimposed.
Mr. Elfend believed the maximum tax rate in their Development Agreement was 2% combined.
Commissioner Romero asked if he anticipated the Mello Roos to be lower than 2%.
Mr, Elfend thought maybe it would be lower than 2%, based upon the analysis they had preparedpreviously. As the project moves forward, those numbers will be finalized with the City.
Commissioner Smith questioned condition 51 and it probably applies to all projects. It refers to theplantingofthetreesonslopesadjacenttoorabuttingarterialstreets. Who maintains those initialplantings. Is there a replacement factor built in.
Mr. Elfend said the responsibility of the trees and irrigation will be the homeowners association. Treeswillbemonitoredandreplacedasnecessarybasedonthelandscapingcontrolsthatwillbeprovidedas
part of the development.
Commissioner Smith asked for comment on the recreation trails, to which Mr. Elfend explained during theSpecificPlanprocesstheyworkedcloselywiththeOrangeParkAcresHomeownersAssociationtohaveatrailsystemthatwillbeinplaceintermsoftheultimateimplementationoftheprojectassetforthintheconditionsofapproval.
Public Comments
Bob Bennyhoff. 10642 Morada Drive. Oran\je Park Acres, didn't like this plan, but he thought it was the
best thing that can be done with this particular piece of property. A recreational park will be provided.He was not especially happy with the fuel modification, but he asked staff to please notify him on behalfoftheOrangeParkAcresAssociationwhenthisgoesbeforetheStaffReviewCommittee. He wouldliketositinonthatmeeting, The lawsuit took care of most of the objections to this plan. There havebeensomerealbattlesoverthisdevelopment, but Frank Elfend has kept his word.
Daniel Green. 5501 Crater Lake. did not like the development, but could not stop it so he will make the
best of it. He offered some constructive criticism. A few things happened during the Park ridgedevelopmentthathewouldliketoseenotre-occur. He wanted to know if there were plans andcontrolsestablishedtomonitortheconstructionnoiseandtrafficonCannonandSerranoadjacenttoMaburyRanch. It has been terrible in their neighborhood with the construction trucks and traffic driving in and
out along with the trash that follows. During the Parkridge subdivision, all the construction traffic wasdiverteddownSerranoandupintotheconstructionarea. They were not allowed to go through theirownsubdivision. It was his understanding that construction traffic would go through and off of Loma, which
is now Cannon. What are the plans and schedule to limit the development of the original clearance toonlysinglefamilydwellings. In this piece meal approval process, the good parts are approved first andthenthelastsectionisjammedinwherehighdensityhousingandapartmentsareconstructed. The increaseinthenumberofunitswasbothersometohim. What are the plans to control the natural ridge lines. What other outlets besides Serrano have been established for this development in the near future. He didn't believe the Eastern Transportation Corridor will relieve the traffic in this area. He suggested that thelastsectionofSerranonotbeapproveduntilthereisaplanputforwardonthecompletionofJamboreeconnectingfromitscurrentterminusattheIrvineParkovertothe91
Freeway.
18 mace Inal1ne OTUVrUUlt:= WUUIUut:: OCI'Q'IV allY VgIIlIVII, ru'V L1lyl.... ~11."""'ln....'v IV'""~",.,V Y'IU 11'""\001 I10<
Planning Commission Minutes December 15,1997
Apolicant's response ,
Mr. Elfend insists that Mr. Bennyhoff be involved with the fuel modNication process. He reminded the
Commission there was a lawsuit by the Mabury Ranch Homeowners Association on be~alf of th,e
residents. That lawsuit provided well over a half dozen mitigation measures which ~opefully.m part will
address some of the concerns that were raised at this meeting. It is their intent to Sit down with Mabury
Ranch when the project is started and discuss with them the construction routes, dust control, etc. There
are mitigation measures to that extent in the EtR and they will follow through with them. In terms of land
use, they are approved for 1,800 homes and they plan to build that many homes. There is attached
housing and that is part of the Development Agreement. They will be evaluating multi-family housi~g
in the context of moving forward with the remainder of the property. They have preserved the
promment ridge lines in exchange for being able to develop in the areas they have. Serrano Avenue is
very important to the people of Mabury Ranch and they did not want to have it initially in place with four
lanes until the Eastern Transportation Corridor is completed. With the ETC in place, it should reduce the
traffic on Serrano once it is connected, as well as Lorna. The open space areas will be maintained and
handled in an appropriate fashion. Hopefully they can move forward with their project and return to the City
with their phase 2 maps for
review.Commissioner Carlton said Mr. Elfend referred to continuing Serrano up to Nohl Ranch Road,
She thought she read that would be joined as soon as either Jamboree or the ETC was
completed.Mr. Elfend said in their agreement and conditions, the road will be constructed with one lane in
each direction until the ETC was in place. They subsequently came back and amended that
Development Agreement, which allowed them to build approximately half of the property and then move
forward.Although, the amendment also gave them the right to initiate construction at both ends
concurrently.Commissioner Carlton said then Serrano might not actually go through all the
way.Mr, Elfend said there will be 1,000 units built and then that roadway has to be connected. In October
of next year the ETC should be open as they are ahead of schedule. The ETC should be open
before they get into phase
2.Commissioner Romero asked about the foliage outside of the median. Will that be maintained by
an underground sprinkler system or by a water
truck.Mr. Elfend said there would be a variety of foliage within the development area and along the slopes
and they will be maintained and irrigated as required by an
entity.Commissioner Smith was a little uncomfortable with hearing that an "entity" will be maintainiri~ the
plant materials. She asked staff to clarify what was meant by
that. \Mr. Jones knew the Settlement Agreement deals with the median. There is some potential for ~
variety of other mechanisms that can be used to maintain the slope areas. Typically, the homeowners
association maintains the slope areas. There might be some areas that might have native plant materials that don'
t require permanent irrigation. As the process moves forward, there w~1 be a requirement that
landscape plans be submitted and that they be consistent with the Specific Plan and Development Agreement,
and that there be mechanisms to ensure that the vegetation is maintained, replaced and irrigated
as necessary. All landscape plans will be reviewed by the Design Review
Board.Commissioner Smith asked about the process that is put in place and required by law to ~ontrol
the noise and dust during the grading
phase. 'Mr. Hohnbaum explained City ordinances require a certain adherence to airborne dust, and watering
of areas that are under construction -- the same thin~ goes for noise. The ordinance has a working period in
which there is a certain allowance for a level of nOise, both inside and outside. As construction goes on, it
will be inspected by the City inspectors and it is their intent to enforce those ordinances. If there are
problems. the residents can call Public Works and they will immediately take care of the problem,
Commissioner Smith wanted staff to address the traffic situation on Serrano. The observation has been
made that the only route would be Serrano and Cannon. Are there alternate routes and has Public Works
looked at how that would be defined for the construction process. \
19
T'
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1997
Mr. Hohnbaum said they have not seen an actual circulation plan, but he thought, as stated, Serrano is the
only ingress and egress to the project site. There are no other locations which they can take access .to.
They will be coming down Cannon from one direction or another, going on to Serrano and on t~ the site.
The concern he heard was there was some circumvention making the actual travel along public streets
longer than it needed to be for the Parkridge development. Staff will work to ensure that will not happen
with Serrano.
Commissioner Pruett heard too that there were issues related to the construction traffic and related to
debris that may not be managed or taken care of. There needs to be some measure or some attention
given to the fact that it needs to be managed on the part of the construction crew.
Mr. Hohnbaum replied as with any other public street that has previously been dedicated, they. will
continue to street sweep. If there is spillage or an unusual amount of accumulation due to anyone given
source, staff will take action on that as well. It's understood if you have this type of construction traffic
entering this area in a very concentrated mode, there will most likely be dust and a certain amount of
debris. Staff will monitor that and check into all complaints received, and have the developer mitigate as
necessary.
Commissioner Smith stated off site grading was included in the conditions of approval and a very formal
process goes forth on all construction projects to address grading, hauling and traffic, It should be
monitored on a daily basis. If not, it should be brought to the attention of Public Works. She asked for
more clarification on how it works on a project like this where there are 1,800 units approved and this is the
first 200 to 300 homes. The request from Mr. Green was that the project be limited to single family units.
Mr. Jones explained there is a Specific Plan and Development Agreement that covers all of the
entitlement aspects of this plan, including the development areas, phasing, product types, whether it is
single or multiple family units. These were negotiated entitlements which are in place. The process really
doesn't allow the Commission to make those kind of modifications or changes, The scope of the project
is extensive. There are at least 10 different planning areas. Some of them are single family, some are
multi-
family.Commissioner Smith said a suggestion was made that the Commission not approve the completion
of Serrano until the end of the project. She was not sure she understood the implications of that
whole
process.Mr. Jones understood they were focusing on the completion of Jamboree and not Serrano. Serrano
is covered in the Development Agreement and it's got phasing. It's not part of the Commission's
purview to make any modifications to that at this point in time. Jamboree Road is way behind the
Transportation Corridor. Jamboree Road is on the City's master plan of arterial highways and is a study
area.Jamboree will someday parallel the Eastern Transportation Corridor and the argument is that the ETC
will not provide any relief. He was not certain if Jamboree would provide that much as
well.Mr. Hohnbaum said the land that the Jamboree extension would be up on is Irvine Company land.
And,as part of the East Orange and East Anaheim development, as the Irvine Company begins to
develop,that road will be conditioned to be built most likely in phases as well. The two cities will need
to cooperate with each other as far as the coordination of such a road. It is merely a conceptual
alignment right now and no one knows exactly where it is at. There is a lot of work to be done because of
the sensitive habitat areas. The timing for that construction is more predicated by the development by
the Irvine
Company.Commissioner Pruett said concern has been expressed of some issues that may occur during
construction and the area that is most impacted by this is the Mabury Ranch Homeowners Association. He
wondered if it wouldn't be beneficial for the homeowners association to have a number they can call, as the
project moves forward, to resolve the issues as quickly as possible. He didn't want the homeowners to
be frustrated and feel like they are caught up in a
bureaucracy.Mr. Elfend said there was a provision in the mitigation measures that requires them to prepare a
dust control mitigation plan. They have spoken to the Mabury Ranch Homeowners Association and
indicated to them they would provide them with a 24.hour hotline or some form of dialogue where they
could contact a representative of the company with
problems.
2J T'II
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1997
The public hearing was closed.
Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Romero, having determined that the
project is consistent with the City's General Plan, Serrano Heights Specific Plan, and DevelopmentAgreement. to recommend to the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 14359, with conditions 1-
76 as outlined in the staff report and incorporating the changes on the addendum dated December 15,
1997,relative to conditions #2, #17, #26, #42, #54 and #65. EIR 954 and Supplemental EIR 1305-
90 were previously prepared for the project, and certified by the City of Orange, and that
the environmental analysis was further amended February 19,1997. There will be a clear definition of how the
plantings on the slope areas and those areas not in private yards will be maintained and that the entity
that the applicant calls out is clearly defined as to who will be responsible for the maintenance of both
the native sage and scrub and plantings. There is extreme sensitivity to the matter of grading,
traffic, circulation,noise, dust and all those issues surrounding a large project. It was requested that City staffbeveryattentivetothisparticularprojectonceitisunderwaysothatasecondbadexperience
is not encountered. Also, the circulation plan be maintained as specified and the City Council be awareofanyfurtheritemsthatmightcomeupbetweenthetimeofthishearingandwhentheprojectisheardbytheCouncil. The fuel modification plan needs to be done to the satisfaction of the Fire
Department, in agreement with the developer, and that the safety of the residents be foremost in
all considerations.AYES: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett,
Romero, Smith
NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch
MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith noted for the record no one on the current Commission was present in 1991andtheCommissionappreciatedthestaffreportandinclusivenessanddetailthatwentinto
the reports.Commissioner Pruett felt communication between the developer and the residents ofMaburyRanchshouldmoveforwardandstaffshouldencouragethedevelopertosetthatupassoonastheproject
gets underway,IN
RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn to thenextregularlyscheduledPlanningCommissionMeeting. The meeting adjourned at 12:05
a.
m.
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton, Pruett,
Romero,
Smith None Commissioner Bosch
MOTION
CARRIED
sld 21