HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-1997 PC Minutesl
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
February 19, 1997
Wednesday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT:
Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett ABSENT:
Commissioners Romero. Smith STAFF
PRESENT:
Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Dave DeBerry,
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 2/3/97.Movedby
Commissioner Pruett. seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Consent Calendar.AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners
Bosch,
Carlton, Pruett None Commissioners
Romero,
Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE:
CONTINUED HEARING 2. CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 2170-97 - ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL The applicant
is requesting a permit to allow shared use of parking for three office buildings. If approved, individual
tenant spaces within any of the three office buildings could be converted from general office
to medical office use. The three properties are addressed 505 South Main Street, 1140 and 1120
West LaVeta Avenue.NOTE:This
project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (
CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(a).This item
was continued from the February 3,1997 Planning Commission Meeting.)Chairman Bosch
said he had a potential economic conflict of interest in that his firm has provided professional services
for St. Joseph's Hospital within the last year and would abstain from discussion or action on
this item, but would remain in the Chambers to assure a quorum. He turned the Chair over to Commissioner Pruett.
The full
reading of the staff report was waived as there was no opposition. The public hearing was opened.ADDlicant
Jim
Beam,
Beam & Associates, 3745 West Chapman Avenue, said they were the developers of the St.Joseph Medical
Plaza and were representin~ the hospital. They have worked several months with staff to come
up with a proposal which was satIsfactory to the City. They find it so and would urge the Commission to
approve their request.There were
no public comments. The public hearing was closed.1 n -. -
11'-[ --
l1r~
Planning Commission Meeting February 19,1997
Commissioner Pruett thought this issue was one that required some additional parking and given the uses
in the area, the CUP is consistent with the bordering land uses and does not represent any specialproblemsinthearea. There are two conditions recommended by staff in the way of tenant
improvements and directional signs indicating the location and availability of public parking In any of the
three parking garages. If the CUP is granted, it would not indicate any special privilege that benefits the
specifiC property owner or the applicant.
It was noted the project was categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15301(a) of
the CEQA Guidelines.
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Conditional Use
Permit 2170-97 with conditions 1 and 2. The Commission finds the CUP does not grant anyspecialprivilegesorspecialbenefittothepropertyownerthatisnotavailabletotheotherproperties. It
is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. It
will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it
is
located.AYES: Commissioners Carlton,
Pruett NOES:
None ABSTAINED: Commissioner
Bosch ABSENT: Commissioners Romero, Smith MOTION
CARRIED IN RE: NEW
HEARINGS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2167-97 - STUARrS
ROLLERWORLD The applicant is proposing permanent installation of the existinQ fabric covering over the rollerhockeyrink, with other improvements to control sound. The project site IS located at 2190 North Canal Street -
north side of Meats Avenue, west of Canal, at Peralta Junior High School.
NOTE: Negative Declaration 1511-97 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act, to address the potential environmentalimpactsofthis
project.Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, presented the full staff report. The Peralta school site isapproximately20acresandislocatedinthesinglefamilyresidentialdistrictwithaminimumlotsizeof8,000 squarefeet.The land use designation is PF - Public Facilities/Quasi Public (School). There was a prior conditional use
permit approved in 1984 that authorized the original redevelopment of the site, including demolition of
the school and construction of a golf practice range and different accessory sports uses, one of which hasbecomeStuart's Rollerworld. The proposal is to request permanent approval of the structure that is
already on the premises. It is a shade covering or cloth fabric structure over a metal frame that keeps the
roller hockey rink somewhat enclosed -- at least it keeps the sun off the playing surface and off of the players.
Staff has had over the past few months several complaints from neighbors about noise associated
with the project. The structure was not disclosed or reviewed as part of the original project;therefore, staff is bringing it back for discussion as to whether or not that structure may be permitted in place.
The staff report also includes an environmental analysis. Staff has received a telecopy of a letter fromStevenEdwards, which has been forwarded to the Commissioners for their review. The letter datedFebruary14, 1997) is also a part of the public record. Staff recommends several conditions of approval
should the Commission approve this request. One is a change in the operating hours to shut the
roller hockey games down at 9:00 p,m. instead of 10:00 p.m. Staff is also accepting the applicant's proposal
as one effort to mitigate some sounds to enclose the end and provide a door so that the playing
area is sealed shut. Hopefully, that will help mitigate some of the noise associated with the project.
The
public hearing was opened.Aoolicant
Ron
Hoesterey, 2190 Canal, represented the applicant. The overall purpose of this hearin~l is the cover that
is over the roller rink. In the past the roller hockey arena evolved over a periOd of time. It was first on
asphalt. Then, there was a plastic playing surface put in. However, there was a problem with sunlight 2
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 1997
the plastic playing surface is UV sensitive. As things progressed. there was a temporary permit given forashadecovering. The 100 mph winds took that away. A more permanent structure was put up to deal
with that. The main purpose of the coverinQ is to create a safe sporting area for the youth of the community.
The prior materials (asphalt) caused Injuries when the players fell. The new playing surface was
desi~ned that when participants fall, they slide. This has reduced injuries substantially. The dome also
prOVIdes relief from heat. During the summer months there was a problem of heat exhaustion. The cover
provides a shade basis. It will also help create an environment of where the floor will not deteriorate
and become hazardous. The second issue is noise. From the beginnin~, they have dealt with
noise issues. The dome, when completed, will reduce the noise that is currently In compliance, but will
further reduce it to levels that are far below what the City ordinances are. There have been three professional
sound analyses made on the facility. One, prior to the facility being there. The second,when
the dome was put in. And the third analysis, that also included recommendations of what the proposed
sound levels would be upon completion of the project. Those findings are in the report he submitted
to the Commission. In addition to those sound analyses. staff has also conducted independent
studies to show the project is in compliance with all of the operating conditions. When looking
at the building, a number of things need to be considered. From a construction standpoint, it is the
most !!ppropriate method of covering a large area. It is proper for the intended use of roller hockey'.Whenlookingatthelengthoftimethebuildingwillbeatthesite -- it is a leased facility and the lease Will be up
in 12 years -- economically it is the proper way to go forward in addressing the issue of maintaining the sports facility. for the youth. There has been a lot of discussion regarding the aesthetics of it. The entire building Will
be repainted and coated with a type of coating that win be much slicker than what is on there now. It
will almost self-clean itself; it will clean all the coloration out of the building. They agree with the recommendations
of the Design Review Board and staff to put in appropriate landscaping to mitigate the
line of sight from the adjacent street. The applicant is in accordance with all the conditions recommended by
staff with the exception of one. He referred to condition 3 on the operating hours. In the beginning
there were incidences that were addressed, but overall the project has been in substantial compliance with
the original conditions of approval and CUP since last summer. If the hours were reduced to
9:00 p.m. for this facility, the other activities on the site will still occur until 10:00 p.m. That would be
overly restrictive on this facility. The majority of participants are the youth. If the hours were reduced by
one hour, they would cut 25% of the youths using the facility. Most of the games start at approximately 6:
00 p.m. They requested the Commission remove condition 3. The original CUP and conditions are
still in place and can be revisited should any item become an issue. The project is a major step inmeetingthegoalsoftherecreationalelementoftheGeneralPlanfortheCItyofOrange. It provides a
tremendous recreational facility for the youth.Commissioner Carlton
asked about the proposed coating that will be applied to the building. Would it be a
clear coating or is it white? How long did the coating last?Mr. Hoesterey
replied it would be a white coating to make the building look new. It would not be clear because the
clear would let the staining show through. It was his understanding the coating would be for the life
of the project (12 years). It's more akin to a paint type process. He didn't know the process in which they
would apply the coating though.Commissioner Pruett
was concerned about the maintenance of keeping the cover clean.Mr. Hoesterey
said after it was painted, it would be like the maintenance for any other building. It would be a
situation where it could be hosed down. And, if needed, another coating would be applied to keep it lookingnew.Commissioner Pruett
said the painting issue was not listed in the conditions. He asked if the applicant were willingtoincludethatasacondition, unless it were included in the sound attenuation?Mr. Hoesterey
said it was not included in the sound attenuation, but it was included in their letter which was sent
to the Commission. As soon as they get the City's approval, and the north end is completed,that wouldbethenextstepoftheprocess. They have agreed to it in their permit request.Commissioner Pruett
spoke about the sound attenuation imrrovements. What the condition said was that all plans
and project operation shall remain in substantia conformance with the plans and conditions approved by
the Planning Commission. Sound attenuation improvements will be implemented as proposed by
the applicant, including foam backing on roller rink dasher boards and the fabnc enclosure at 3 iT
I
Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 1997
the north end of the building, and will remain effective so long as roller hockey activity continues. Is there
a target of the sound attenuation level that will be reached?
Mr. Hoesterey replied yes. He referred to their correspondence. They had made a sound comparisonofthesounddatafromthethreeprofessionalsoundlevelsthatweretakenoveraperiodoftime. Thefirstoneatthetopweremeasurementstakenpriortothesportsfacilitybeingthere. The second are the
current measurements with the dome in place, but with the end open. The third is a projection at 52 dBA
which would be the maximum at the property line after completion of the project. That accounts for a 72%
reduction in sound level. The property is in compliance now without that modification with the existingnoiseordinances.
Commissioner Pruett wanted to know what the line locations were: the L1.7%, L8.3%, L25% and L50%?
Did it represent distance?
Mr. Hoesterey explained it related to "amount of time". The L 1. 7% means that the sound cannot exceed
that decibel level for a period of one minute. L8.3% at 65 decibels for a period of 8 minutes. L25%
would mean that you could not exceed 60 decibels for a period of 15 minutes. And L50% would be an
excess of 55 decibels for 30 minutes. These are at the property lines.
Commissioner Pruett noted they took only one reading. There are property lines to the north, south,
east and west. Because of the configuration of the building being open at both ends, was this taken atthenorthendoftheproperty, to the south side of the property, or... The readings were taken on May 24
and May 26, 1996. How long had the facility been in operation at that time?
Mr. Hoesterey referred to Table 1 of their report where there were entire readings for the different sides
of the arena. With the ends open, they were in compliance with the noise ordinance. He didn't know
what particular days these readings were taken, but he did know it was taken during the "worst case noise
conditions". The dome was up since February. So these readings were taken after the cover was up.
Commissioner Pruett asked if the crowd activity was pretty much the same now as it was then? (Yes.)The crowds observing the activity, are they pretty much the same or have they grown? (They are
approximately the same.)
Mr. Hoesterey said the sound readings were also taken in October, which was the third report. It has
been tested over a period of time. He didn't know the dates when staff did their unannounced visits totaketheirownreadings. He referred the Commission to the paragraph on "Community Effect" on the
second page where it was put into decibels. The maximum noise level at the closest residence is 70dBAanditwillbereducedto52dBAwiththenorthendoftherinkenclosed. That would mean a 72%
reduction in loudness.
Commissioner Pruett referred to condition 2 and how they would implement the sound attenuation
improvements. The proposal is to get to a dB level of 52. He wanted to know if the Commission could
stipulate in the condition that is what the applicant would achieve? He wanted to hold the applicant to
that level.
Mr. Hoesterey replied no, he thought they needed to comply with the City ordinances and they will befarbelowthoselevels. He personally was not in a position to agree to that at this point. He didn't havethetotaltechnicalbackgroundtotelltheCommissionhecouldabsolutelymeetthatlevel. He would havetoconferwithotherindividuals. The fact of the matter is, they are below the ordinance requirements now,
even with the end being open.
Those soeakina in favor
Barry Aynn, address not provided, spoke as a 38 year resident and a former student of Peralta JuniorHighSchool. He favored this type of facility. People could either be pro-business andpro-community and work within the system in place and work together to come to an agreement that is
good for everyone. These programs should be encouraged throughout
the City.Jo Snyder, a Cumberland resident, supported the project and did not mind the noise. An un-signed flyer was left at their door step which addressed the nOise issues at the facility. She didnotknowwhatthe
noise
problems
Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 1997
Chad Evan Kirkwood is the Director at Stuart's Rollerworld and he runs the extreme skate park. He
favors the proposal because if they lose the cover, they would lose the hockey and skate park. He has
taken in over 5,000 people off the street since the park has opened. This is a positive environment for
the kids. He wrote letters to every neighbor inviting them to visit their facility. They are trying to rectifythenoiseproblems.
Those soeakina in oDoosition
Michael McKullicks, 1119 Cumberland Road, said if Mr. Aynn lived where he lives, he would not be pro-sports. He was an ex-coach of 25 years. He understands the need to take the kids off the streets;
he was 100% for that. Cumberland Road is a residential area. He would like to take Mr. Kirkwood
home with him in order for him to hear the noise they have to live with on Saturday and Sunday. The dome
is going to look like a circus; it's a tent. No one wants their property de-valued. The value of
their homes have depreciated because of what is
there today.Commissioner Carlton asked him in his opinion, was the noise worse on Saturday and Sunday,
day or evening, or during
the week?Mr. McKullicks replied it would probably have to be on the weekends, the most noise. The
facility does not close at 10:00 p.m. The games continue beyond the closing time. By closing at 9:00 p.m., maybe they will get out of there by 10:00
p.m.Monte Variakojis, 925 East Vista Del Gaviota, was concerned about his neighbors on
Cumberland Road.Just about everyone on Cumberland is thinking about moving or renting their house. Renters are
not real cool. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. He supported the sports center in the
way of the golfing, soccer and tennis. If he were to put a tent in his backyard and had it protruding
over the fence, his neighbors would complain. The tent at the sports center is ugly and it is the wrong
way of
doing things.Richard Elgas, 1032 Cumberland Road, said Kent Hawkins invited the nei~hbors to come tothegroundbreakingceremonyforthesportscenter. It was golf, golf, golf and the neIghbors would only beabletoheartheclickingofgolfballs. Roller hockey was never mentioned. There will be a green belt
with trees and all the other aesthetics to make sure the neighbors are happy. Sixty to 75 people
attended the ground breaking' ceremony. Since they opened for business, there have been cars and noise at
all hours of the day and night. Now, there is roller hockey, which comes with kids screaming. A letter wassenttothemaboutaproposaltoputupadome. In the letter it states if the dome were acceptable
to both parties after 180 days, then the owner would consider buying the dome and making it
permanent. With no vote from the residents or notification from the City, the dome construction started. He
objected to the screaming, noise and leaf blowers at all hours of the night and in the early morning
hours. The neighbors have had meetings with the City, but the City said they could not help them andtheyweredirectedtotheschoolboard. At one rOint, the City Manager ordered the dome betakendown.However, there was a last minute lega problem and the dome is still up. The youth are
the most valuable asset this Country has. He was a teacher - a band director - in Anaheim. He was in the youthbusiness. He did not object to roller hockey; it's a great sport for the kids, but not at this location. He's
asking the owners to be a good neighbor and not inflict themselves upon the neighborhood. The dome
is still sitting there without a permit.
Commissioner Pruett asked about the leaf blower noise at 6:30 a.m.? (Yes, it was documented with the
Police Department.) Is that happening every morning? (Since the last two weekends for sure, and evenbeforethat. Mr. Hawkins said it was a new manager.)
Steve Edwards, 1106 Cumberland Road, submitted a letter to Mr. Donovan on February 14. Many of
the issues addressed in the letter were addressed by the previous speakers. The dome is classified as
a temporary structure -- not a permanent structure. He pointed out Mr. Silver has a fine facility in the City ofFullerton, which is in a masonry brick building, which supports a roller hockey rink of the same size as the
one covered by the dome. There are ways to make these things work where they co-exist in anenvironmentinwhichitdoesnotcreateaproblem. Unfortunately, the dome is not of the same
construction nor is it the same quality and sound deadening you would obtain in a permanent building.He felt the sound ordinance may be inadequate for certain types of sounds. It may be true that it meets
the sound ordinance. A number of cities are beginning to put in place not only quantitative numbers for
noise, but also qualitative as well. Some of the research he has been doing reads very similar to the
5
rr-r
Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 1997
ground lease that is currently in effect the school board has governing the Peralta site. He believed theNegativeDeclarationdidnotfullyaddressalloftheIssuesthatneedtobeaddressed. The residentshavelivedwiththisdomeforayearandit's becoming a sore sport in the area. If something is not
properly done about this condition, and the negative impact is allowed to proceed, then he was
prepared to take legal action in order to make sure a full environmental impact report is performed and
generated regarding this issue. The neighbors have tried to work with Mr. Silver and have made him
aware of the problems. This only led to noise studies. He also believed the sound level should be5dBlowerthanwhatIsstated.
James Thomas, 1020 East Cumberland Road, obl'ected to the noise on weekends at 6:30 a.m. He has
not seen any landscaping for 1 1/2 years. He wa ked around the tent earlier today and noticed the ripsandtears. He was tired of looking at the filthy tent in his neighborhood.
lucy Elgas, 1032 Cumberland Road, said there was a petition signed by 36 families voicing their
opposition to the dome. It was submitted nine months ago and it was ignored by the City.
Rebuttal
Mr. Hoesterey addressed a couple of issues that dealt with the applicant and also that are outside the
application to clear up what is going on at the site. The first is a request for an ErR. This has beenstudiedtodeath. Staff has done a thorough job and has prepared a negative declaration. He didn't see
a benefit to proceeding with an EIR because all the data has been presented anyway. The operationalissuesshouldbeaddressedunderthepreviousapprovalbecauseitwasnotupfordiscussionatthishearing. However, he addressed some of them. The lights were on timers. Prior to taking this
assiQnment, he did his own spot visits. The lights turn off approximately four to five minutes prior to the
required turning off time. Security shows up at the site at 10:00 p.m. and checks the cars in the parkinglot. At 10:23 p.m. the gates are locked. In the past, he admitted those issues did exist. But there havebeenmeasuresputinplaceindealwiththoseissues. City staff has also witnessed the same type of
events. They don't agree the hours need to be reduced. This project meets all the required findings.They would be amicatile to review the painting and coating of the facility with the Design Review Board
to make sure the Commission's concerns were met. They were more than willing, upon closing the oneendofthedome, to provide for the Commission's review an analysis of what the sound is uponcompletion.
Commissioner Pruett did not a~ree with Mr. Hoesterey on the issue of the operations and whether that is
an issue to be dealt with at thiS point or whether that goes back to the original conditional use permit.Condition 3 raises questions that need to be addressed at this hearing as well. He was interested in
terms of the operation as it relates to the opening of the facility. People have indicated activity begins at6:30 a.m. What are the operating requirements currently in place for the roller rink?
Mr. Hoesterey replied the operations are not to start before 7:00 a.m. and playing needs to conclude by10:00 p.m. The parking lot is to be vacated and all lights are to be out by 10:30 p.m. A contracted
security team (minimum of two people) comes over and goes through the parking lot. The manager oftherinksuspendsplayat10:00 p.m. The guards make sure the cars vacate the parking lot and the irongatesarepadlockedby10:30 p.m. The parking lot lights (adjacent to the fence along Cumberland) are
on timers and automatically extinguish at 10:00 p.m. The lights at the facility go off automatically at about10:26 p.m. There is a staging of the lights bein9 turned off. Activity does not continue once the lights areturnedoff. Operational directives have been given to the staff and if it is not followed, termination could
oocur.
Commissioner Pruett asked when does maintenance activity take place?
Mr. Hoesterey did not know the schedule of the leaf blowers and general maintenance. That was handledbythemasterlease. They were not involved in the maintenance of the overall facility. That needs to beaddressedwiththepeoplewhocontractforthelandscapingandmaintenance.
Commissioner Pruett also heard the issue of amplified sound. How is that dealt with?
Mr. Hoesterey replied there was an incident where there was amplified sound and it was corrected aftertheincidentoccurred. There is no amplified sound anymore in the arena. The bull horn will not be used.They have to train the managers on dealing with those type of issues. Most of the time, it's an innocent
6
Tf
Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 1997
infraction of people that come that are not aware of the rules in place. It's an education process for the
particirants and their families and friends. If need be, the police will be called to assist if it gets out of
contro.
Commissioner Pruett asked how long had the dome been up?
Mr. Hoesterey replied since February of 1996. They had a 6-month operating permit apparently
issued through the Fire
Department.Commissioner Carlton asked how the facility happen to be arranged the way it is on the site? Didtheyconsiderputtingitatadifferentorientation, or further away from the property
line?Mr. Hoesterey explained if it were moved farther away from the property on Cumberland, thepracticefieldwouldbeencroached. Those areas would then be unusable. The original proposal had plans
for two roller hockey facilities. It goes back to where the original site planning was for the
facility.Commissioner Carlton asked if there were any complaints back then of noise when the roller hockey
was on the
asphalt?Mr. Hoesterey did not know as he was not involved with the project at that
time.Commissioner Carlton asked if they had considered constructing a permanent type
building?Mr. Hoesterey said it would be economically infeasible because the lease gives the provision the
site will be cleared when it is given back to the school district. An economic life of a building of
that construction would not work. Their building in Fullerton is approximately 60 or 70 years old. It
was originally built for Billy Barty who had a roller rink. It's across from the FuUerton City Hall, a block or
two down the street. It was not a new building, but was converted from other
uses.Commissioner Carlton would like to hear something from the Fire Department or PoliceDepartmentaboutthefrequencyofcallstothe
facility.Chairman Bosch was concerned about the lighting. It appeared the lights in the roller hockey rink
and perhaps the extreme skateboard area are on until about 10:30 p.m. It was also mentioned the
managers suspend games at 10:00 p.m. Are they sometimes in the middle of their
games?Mr. Hoesterey said the lights inside the arena are on timers and extinguish at 10:26 p.m. It would not
be a problem to put in a timer on the arena that would back up and shut the lights off. At the times he
has watched the games, they are stopped at 10:00 p.m. whether or not they have
concluded.Chairman Bosch's concern was what appreciable difference in addition to what was found in theoriginalsoundstudy, as well as the later two, has there been an attendance and operation for an intensity of
use since the structure went into place? He understood the original approval was for roller hockey.
There were barriers, but it did not include the
enclosure.Mr. Hoesterey did not have that answer. There was a limit based on the actual physical facility that
there could only be so many players at anyone time. They are limited by the capacity of the facility. The
dome would not change the capacity of their ability to play. There was one small row of bleachers across
the end and the plans were to have that encased on the
inside.Chairman Bosch stated the intent was to provide the fabric endosure at the open end of thefacility.What work went into identifying or studying what other relatively economical endosure might beplacedthere, particularly at the north end, which should have better sound reduction
qualities?Mr. Hoesterey had not done that, but will look into
that.Chairman Bosch understood the limitations and economics for making something economically
viable.Their concern is what is in the best interest of a sound planning doctrine and meets the needs of
the community, anddoesn't violate the precepts under which the original approval was granted. His
concern,too, was on aesthetics. The structure was not part of the original approval, but it does have a si~
nificant impact. What was looked at in addition to landscaping subject to the approval of the Design
ReView
7
Planning Commission Meeting February 19. 1997
Board after the fact, were there to be an approval. that would help mitigate the visual impact of the
structure? This is a radical change and an impact on the neighborhood visually.
Mr. Hoesterey said they were looking at the landscaping adjacent to the building and also looking at
landscaping on the penmeter of the property. There have been smaller trees planted by the master
lease holder along the street.
Commissioner Carlton asked how often do they survey the tent for rips and deterioration. and how often
do you repair or replace the sections that are tom?
Mr. Hoesterey replied the dome has been up for one year. He didn't know what the maintenance
schedule of that would be. They will address the maintenance of the facility at the time it is enclosed and
painted.
Commissioner Carlton suggested a condition be imposed to repair the covering within a certain amount
of time.
Mr. Hoesterey did not object to that type of condition.
Commissioner Carlton wanted to understand that he was the sub-lessee of Super Sports? (Yes.)
Is that a 12 year lease with options to extend? (The entire master lease has approximately 12 years
to where it reverts back to the school district. As a sub-lessee. their lease goes until the end of
the
master lease.)Commissioner Carlton asked staff about the history of complaints at this site? Were there
statistics kept on a monthly basis to show the average number
of calls?Mr. Donovan said the City Council has received some complaints about this project. As a result
of the presentations made during their meetings, the Police Department was asked to verify whether
or not there were problems. The police did have a great deal of many calls for service when this
project was first under construction and it was first operational. Staff believes there were misunderstandings
with Mr.Silver about his hours of operation. He was relying on partial information because he only
had the approving resolution from the Council meetings that stipulated when lights would be turned
off. He didn't understand what the approved hours of operation were under the oriQinal conditional
use permit.Over time. the police have been quite active in meeting with some of the neighbors and
park operators.He has also been out there with three officers and have contacted them recently to see if there
were any recurring problems. He was only able to contact two of three officers and in separate
discussions, they both saidthey haven't had many calls for service lately; that things have seemed to have
died down.There were no statistics for
this facility.Chairman Bosch built on that concern about the on-going maintenance activities which may be
part of the master lease. But. since that maintenance also includes sub-leased area. at least the
grounds, that was of interest too. They've heard testimony the leaf blowing operation is still continuing
before and after hours.What has been done in
response to those complaints?Mr. Donovan responded letters have been sent to the park operator,
Mr. Hawkins, regarding the limitations that are based on the noiseordinance; that there shouldn'tbeanymaintenanceoccurringbefore7:00 a.m. There have been cases where staff knows there have been
leaf blowers operating atearly hours. He wasn't aware until this evening, there were recent problems with
that. Staff will contact Mr. Hawkins to
straighten out the problems.Commissioner Carlton said the City Council was quoted as having said the dome
did not meet City standards. What are the City standards for a
dome of this type?Mr. Donovan was not able to find a document that included that statement.
This project has been reviewed by the Design Review Board before the Planning
Commission meeting. They are recommendmg if the project is approved, that there be landscaping to supplement
the site plan. but they had no concerns about the
aesthetics
of
the structure.8
Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 1997
may be necessary, if the existing structure does not meet the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the
City of Oran~e, then modifications would have to be made to the structure, upon securing the permit in
order to continue occupancy of the structure. Beyond the planning issues, there are building laws that do
apply.
Commissioner Pruett thought a building of this nature, of where it was going to be enclosed, would have
a problem of air circulation. He could see from the photos a row of fans at one end that is trying to move
air through the building. Apparently, it gets very hot under the structure. Has staff seen anything that
deals with the issue of air circulation or climate control in the building?
Mr. Donovan replied no. That would be a requirement of the building permit process. He mentioned
that to Mr. Silver and he acknowledged that would be an issue he would have to deal with.
Commissioner Pruett was getting uncomfortable In the area of complete plans. All the issues have not
been dealt with that need to be dealt with on this project. Will air Circulation require equipment outside
the building and where will that be positioned? There Is not sufficient Information to make a decision. He
remembers approving the original conditional use permit for the master lease proposal which included
the golf, soccer and maybe roller blades. He was not sure what issues are in the original CUP that was
approved. What the Commission is being asked to approve now, he wondered how that related to the
original CUP? He would have liked to have seen the original CUP and the conditions that were placed on
the property. Then, what the Commission is approving now and the impact it is goinQ to have on that.
What were some of the issues that went into the original CUP, that led to the deCision to have the
operating hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.? Did it include the other activities or just golf? The original
CUP should be made part of this application In order for the Commission to make a proper decision. It
was important to look at the master CUP and look at the issues to see how they relate. He was not sure
what the sound attenuation requirements were in that original conditional use permit. There are two things
that could have happened. It could have been set to where the sound attenuation was such and such at
the property line, and it may be less than what is City code. There may be a sound attenuation issue that
City code doesn't apply. They may have said it is subject to the requirements of the master lease they
have with the school district. The school district had reached an agreement with the neighbors. He didn't
have a lot of the information needed in which he could make a decision.
Mr. Donovan explained if staff thought there was any problem of compatibility or consistency with the
way they processed the previous application, they would have mentioned that in the staff report. They
did require as part of the environmental documentation a traffic study and noise analysis that was
conducted by an independent firm. Staff accepted what the applicant was proposing for the hours of
operation and the noise analysis that was prepared took that into consideration. Staff did not see a
substantial difference between the terms under which the original CUP was approved and this proposal.
Chairman Bosch asked if the original conditions of approval address the noise level at the property lines
that's less than that which Is covered in the ordinance? (No.) So, it's simply the ordinance being
enforced. Were there stipulations made in the proposal that would indicate they would be substantially
less than the ordinance, which may have led to the acceptance that there would be no danger? Were
there any conditions of approval when the original CUP was approved that addressed the operation or
intensity use of the roller hockey or skateboard area? The major focus was on the golf operation, as well
as community activities with regard to softball, football, and a daycare center. Were roller hockey and
skateboarding addressed specially in the original CUP?
Mr. Donovan replied no. He didn't think a whole lot of that was known at that time. Staff lost the
opportunity to really analyze it any further. Under the old City ordinance, before it was amended in 1995,
this was categorically the kind 0 conditional use permit for recreational use in any zone that could be
permitted with a CUP that required the review of both the Planning Commission and City Council. The
Planning Commission wanted to review the CUP again after the facility opened and to bring back those
issues that miQht be a problem in the neighborhood. The original developer was successful in getting
the City Council to rescind that condition, and staff was instructed not to take it back to a public hearing by
the Planning Commission unless problems became evident that couldn't be resolved under the
cooperation of both the staff and management. He didn't recall if the sound analysis really said there
would be lower noise impacts than what is being experienced now. There was a lot of discussion about
cars in the parking lot, people arriving at the early morning hours -- that was addressed along with the sound
of bells.:>rwhistlesbeing blown at athletic events.9
nr
I
Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 1997
Commissioner Carlton asked if the idea of security after hours was ever addressed in the original CUP?
Mr. Donovan stated yes. There was a condition that required the park manager to tum in a security plan
that would be reviewed and approved by the Police Department. There were many problems with that
because when they first opened, they only contracted with the Mall of Orange security company. Their
own on-site security was weak. Apparently, that has been upgraded. They now have their
own independent security that does have some sort of card verification system. When they check
the property, they scan a card into a counter to document when they were at the site. They have a
contract for at least five patrols each evening after the hours of
operation.The public hearing was
dosed.Commissioner Carlton agreed, there was a lot thrown at them and shedidn't know. On the one hand
she saw this as a tremendous facility that benefits the youth. She read recently the crime rate in Orange
was down 17%. Maybe that has something to do with all these young people playing roller hockey. Then,
on the other hand, all these issues were brought up. The CommiSSion needs to make sure that there
are some strict conditions that will ensure things will really happen, especially with the hours of operation
and landscaping. The application is to enclose the tent and make it permanent or eliminate it entirely.
By making It permanent, it would be more beneficial to the
community.Commissioner Pruett was appreciative of the fact the applicant is going to agree to a 52 dBA
sound level. That gives a target of being able to achieve it. If itdoesn't work, it will need to be corrected
and another engineering design would need to be put forward in order to achieve
it.Chairman Bosch did not know if the applicant stipulated to that
condition.Mr. Hoesterey personally could not agree to a condition of a 52 dBA sound level. He relied on
the report that was submitted and believed the consultant was right. But, for him to give the Commission
an absolute guarantee would be
inappropriate.Commissioner Pruett said that concemed him because there needs to be a target or threshold that
needs to be achieved. The other issue about the sound attenuation level is: he was not sure what 52
dBA was? What kind of sound does that represent? What is a level that is acceptable? He recognizes
the City code is one thing, but what they're talking about is putting together a structure that is going to try
and deal with the sound. It's an unusual situation with the surrounding properties and some effort should
be made to get below the sound attenuation requirement. It was important to him the time frames stay
in the conditions of approval. It would be appropriate for activities not to commence before 8:00 a.m.
on Saturdays, as well as on Sundays. The hours of operation is an issue that needs to be addressed.
The other thing that concerns him is the painting and maintenance of the facility. He was not sure just
painting the facility and setting forth a maintenance plan is going to address some of the issues. He
was concerned about what they were creating with a temporary-permanent structure. Will this set
a precedent for this type of facility as a permanent structure? He was not sure they really had a full set of
plans that would help him fully understand what is being set up. How will the air circulation and
sound attenuation be managed? Where will be the equipment be? He wanted to have the mitigating issues
dealt with,and other issues need to be considered. He could not move forward at
this point.Chairman Bosch reflected the original approval focused on golf. Hopefully, that has been a
benefit to the community. This application does not look at what prOblems may exist because of
everything else out there. That's part of the difficulty with the application before the Commission. They need
to be careful they are not tryinQ to judge what the applicant wants to do on the basis of how the rest of
it is working, unless what he IS proposing to do, adds to borderline or real problems; then it
becomes the City's problem too. Their purpose is to not revisit the operational problems from the previous
CUP if the conditions of approval and City ordinance are bein9. met. That's something that is not easytokeepclearandseparateatthishearingbecausethoseconditionsarenotavailableandthepolice
reports are not provided. He was not sure what the base line was regarding the noise when roller hockey
was not taking place. These guys are not the only ones on the site. Maybe 90% of the problems
are from everything else. Are they in fulfillment of the conditions of approval, or do they need to
have some mitigation talk with the master leaseholder to solve those problems? It's important for him to
know these things in terms of impacts on the neighbors. They also need to be mitigated in order for it
to be attractive and beneficial to the neighbors as well as the youth. The key concern is: What
is the management that is under the control of the applicant with regard to the operation of the arena
that
is
Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 1997
differentiated from that of the master lease? That needs to be identified so conditions can be attached
that are reasonable and relate to the operation proposed if it were to continue. That provides faimess to
everyone. Are sprinkling of the building might concem the applicant during the building permit process,but that is a matter of code. He heard the concem about additional noise if air conditioning were
r!KIuired. How would it impact the site? Are there other provisions that a preliminary review with
Building and Are, in terms of life safety, would disclose that it might impact the proposal before the
Commission? There may not be a win-win situation here. Aesthetics are also a part of this and this
must be judged whether it has a negative impact upon the neighborhood plan and the values of
the community. What is the preliminary landscape plan, regardless of the Design Review Board? He
wants to see the plan to see if the proposal will provide sufficient contextual relationships to the mass of
the building to downgrade its apparent size. It's big and sticks out. It may not be inappropriate, thou9h,
if handled correctly with regard to the building code requirements, landscaping, and how the paint
is applied. The Design Review Board is advisory to the Planning Commission on items that affect
the Commission's decisions with regard to land use. In this case, it impacts how he would react to
this proposal to see how the whole package comes together. He asked staff when it would beappropriatefortheCommissiontoseethebackgroundinformationthatsupportedtheacousticalfindingsandstudyforthepreviousapplication? And, also the report from the Police Department with regard to
the chronology and types of complaints, and how they have been
handled.Mr. Jones said that information could be provided to the
Commission.Chairman Bosch said there were concems that still needed to be addressed and asked the applicant if
he were willinQ to stipulate to a continuance? Concems included: extent of other building code related
work that might Impact the facility; concems about the coating, hours of operation, interface with the
master lease and what the applicant does control, concerns what is being done with the north wall thatmightrelievetheacousticalbaffle, lighting controls, security, and
landscaping.Mr. Hoesterey felt they could address all the concerns raised by the Commission. An operationalplancouldbebroughtbacktotheCommissionfortheirreview. He suggested continuing this item for
30
days.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue Conditional
Use Permit 2167-97 to the meeting of March 17, 1997 to allow additional information to be
brought
forward.
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Carlton,
Pruett None Commissioners Romero, Smith
MOTION CARRIED 4. AMENDMENT NO.1 TO THE SERRANO HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN (ZONE
CHANGE 1183-96);AMENDMENT NO.2 TO SERRANO HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT - CALIFORNIA QUARTET, A CALIFORNIA
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP A proposed amendment to the Development Agreement between the City of Orange
and California Quartet, Ltd., adopted in 1988. The r~uest is to amend several sections, pnmarily to allowtheflexibilityforSerranoAvenuetobeconstructedInincrementstiedtodevelopmentphases, and alsotoclean-up the document to reflect Municipal Code changes and/or clarify the intent of
an existing section.The applicant is also proposing to amend the Specific Plan, modifying those sections
relative to the timing and construction of Serrano Avenue, to make the Specific Plan consistent
with the Amended Development Agreement. Other sections amended would include clean-up of
the document to reflect municipal code Changes and/or clarify the intent
of an existing section.The project, commonly known as .Serrano Heights., is located on both sides of
the planned extension of Serrano Avenue (whiCh will connect those portions of Serrano Avenue in Orange,
east of Lorna Street,and in Anaheim, south
of
Nohl
Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 1997
NOTE:Environmental Impact Report (EIR) #954 and Supplemental EIR #1305 were previously
prepared and certified as complete. An addendum to the previous EIR's has been
prepared and is available for public review and comment.
Chairman Bosch abstained from discussion and voting on this item due to his principal residence is near
the property and he owns interest in Lot A of the Mabury Ranch Homeowner's Association, which is
contiguous to the boundaries of this development. He remained in the Chambers so that a quorum maybepresent. The chair was tumed over to Commissioner Pruett.
Mr. Jones presented the full staff report and gave a brief history of the project. Back in 1986-87 theCityadoptedaGeneralPlanAmendmentcoveringtheprojectsiteofapproximately730acres. The
General Plan Amendment allowed up to a maximum of 1800 units. It envisioned the connection of
Serrano Avenue through the site and provided a significant portion of the property to remain as open space.
In 1988 a Development Agreement was entered into for this property. It focused on assuring that
the timely construction of Serrano Avenue would occur. There were other provisions in thatAgreementdealingwiththeformationofaCommunityFacilitiesDistricttohelpfinancethisroadwayandthere
were time frames establishing key dates connected with the development of the property and theroadway,including a 7-year period in which the property owner had to complete the roadway. In 1990, the City approved a Specific Plan which took the General Plan and developed a lot more of the detailsofwhatthepropertywouldlooklike, what would be developed, specifically what the
development boundaries would be, and established a lot of development standards for the site. Essentially, the results
of that was that the development was clustered in the center of the property. A four acre park
was established as part of the plan. Certain ridge lines were preserved. There were other issues
addressing the setbacks from Santiago Oaks Ridge and the park. There was also a continuation of a number
of the regional trails that are in existence out there, as well recognition for the extension ofSerranoAvenue.Later in 1990, a suit was filed by some neighboring homeowner associations relative to the
Specific Plan and the accompanying environmental impact report. A settlement agreement was
reached between these homeowner associations, the property owner and the City in April, 1991. There were a
number of terms coming out of that Agreement, including such things as enhancements to Serrano
Avenue, a mitigation fund, density limitations, and further ridgeline preservations. The economic downturn
in the early 1990's prevented the property owner from moving forward with their plans and
ultimately the property owner, Wood crest Development, went through foreclosure andbankruptcyproceedings.California Quartet has emerged with new title to the property. In 1994, California Quartet was
granted a two year extension of the Development Agreement, and a three year extension ofthebeginningconstructiondateforSerranoAvenuetoallowforadditionaltimetopulltogethertheirdevelopmentplans. They are now interested and are able to move forward with their plans, and arerequestingsomerevisionstotheDevelopmentAgreementandcorrespondinglytotheSpecificAgreementrelative
to the timing of construction of
Serrano Avenue.Specifically, the staff report documents, beginning on Page 4, what the key proposed changes
to the Development Agreement and Specific Plan are. One, is that the beginning of construction date
of the project is proposed to be extended one year from November 30, 1997 to November 30,
1998. The second key point is that the proposed amendments would provide the property owner withtheflexibilitytophaseconstructionofSerranoAvenuewiththeproject. Currently, the requirement is thattheentireroadwaybebuiltattheverybeginningoftheproject. It also provides flexibility in terms ofwhetherornottheeastendofthepropertyorthewestendofthepropertycouldbeconstructed. If theeastendisconstructed, then a Special Services Agreement with the City of Anaheim would berequired. The completion of Serrano Avenue would be extended from November 10, 1998 to June 30,2004 aspartoftheproposedamendment. There are requirements that City staff has negotiated withthepropertyownerregardingpostingperformancebondstoensurethattheconstructionandmaintenanceofSerranoAvenueisprovidedfor. Street maintenance bonds are also included to make sure the streetisproperlymaintained. There is also a requirement for performance bond standards and an additionalsecurityof200,000 for default and performance by the property owner. Those are the key changesintheDevelopmentAgreement. The changes in the Specific Plan essentially mirror or reflect thosechangesinthe
Development Agreement.The public hearing
was
Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 1997
ADDlicant
Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates, 610 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, represented the
ap'plicant, California Quartet. He became involved with this project in 1985 and has survived three
different developers along the way. The staff report summarized their request; he thanked the
Community Development Department and Public Works for working closely with them on this request.
This is a project that has changed over the years. The market was considerably different when they
represented Woodcrest. The value of the property was considerably different at that time. They are not
asking that any of the development plans change. The densities, the land use, the housing product, the
grading, open space, and all the agreements remain as they are. They were not asking for any
modifications there. They were asking to phase the construction of the road, and are providing the City
with some additional financial guarantees. They have spoken to the people in the community, who
favored their request. They also met with the Mabury Ranch Homeowner's Association and Tom Brose.
California Quartet will comply with the Settlement Agreement, which also provides for not only
compensation in terms of ridgeline protection and other environmental benefits, but also provided for a
cash payment of approximately $80,000 to the homeowner's association, some of which was to deal with
their mitigation costs, as well as $30,000 to the Peralta Hills Alliance. The other group they've had
conversations with has been the Orange Park Acres Homeowners Association. They indicated they are
not opposed to the amendment. The other group he spoke with was the Anaheim Hills Citizens
Coalition -- another group of homeowners and individuals who have been involved with this project since its
inception who supported the Specific Plan Amendment request and supported the Phase 1 tentative maps,
as well as the Mabury Ranch Homeowner's Association and the Orange Park Acres Homeowner's Association.
As in the case of the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, they asked him to read into the public record
that the commitments made by the then property owner, Woodcrest, would be honored by Califomia
Quartet, which include, but is not limited to a $25,000 contribution towards a community center in the
City of Anaheim. He assured them those commitments would be made. He addressed one other item -
that of the Orange Unified School District. They submitted a letter this date to the City which reminded him
of a letter they submitted over eight years ago. They indicate they have some concerns regarding the
project and mentioned several items. He took the position, in general, that there is some confusion about
what they have and have not committed to, and also suggest that as a result of Proposition 13
and the 1987 developer fee law that somehow whatever agreements they may think they have, they
really don't. He handed the Commission a booklet summarizing the agreements they have with the
Orange .Unified School District. The letter OUSD provided is factually incorrect. There is a 1974 Exchange Agreement.
It was one of the first items discussed with the District. They acknowledged they would honor
the agreement simply because it was a settlement agreement for litigation and it provided for resolution
of all outstanding and future legal differences between the District and Texaco, Anaheim Hills and
the City of Anaheim. Back in 1974, the Serrano Heights property was in the sphere of influence of the
City of Anaheim. The agreement was complied with by, at that time, Texaco, Anaheim Hills. There are two
letters in the Commission's package. One was dated September 14 and one dated September 18, from
the Orange Unified School District. They requested a continuance because they needed more time. Now,
they are requestin~ a continuance because they need more time to review all the documents.He added,
they have met With the Orange Unified School District and provided them with all the information. They
failed to respond to them and that meeting took place over six months ago. In OUSD's
letter they mentioned the fact of a $60,000 commitment that was made by one of the particular landowners he
represented back then who owned the property. That check was paid to the District; a copy of
that check was included in the Commission's packet. The letter from the OUSD was factually incorrect andtheyrespectfullyrequestedtheCommissionnothonorOUSD's request.Commissioner Carlton
asked if the $80,000 has been paid to the Mabury Ranch Homeowner's Association? Has
the lawsuit been settled and paid for?Mr. Elfend
explained the way the Agreement was structured back then was that as soon as the grading of the property
commenced, payment would be made, in addition to the fulfillment of other obligations,including the
wrought iron wall being filled. There are many things that will occur when grading of the property is
initiated. They were informed by Mabury Ranch Homeowner's Association the fees for the lawsuit have
been paid.Commissioner Carlton
asked about the Peralta Hills Mitigation Fund. What do they have to mitigate in Peralta Hills?
In her mind, Peralta Hills is not anywhere near Serrano A'tenue.13
Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 1997
Mr. Elfend said that settlement was also in part proposed to reimburse some of their legal fees. He
understood from some of the members of Mabury Ranch they may have incurred some of those costs.
That mitigation primarily provided for additional landscaping or any other measures which the Alliance
found to be necessary in terms of a General Mitigation Fund. They attempted to address the most
specific issues in a technical fashion. Peralta Hills Alliance is a name that originated from four or five
homeowner associations in Anaheim Hills that are on the other side of the ridge.
Commissioner Carlton wanted to know if she understood Mr. Elfend to say the $25,000 is going to a
community center? Then, there was an additional $25,000 for attorneys fees?
Mr. Elfend responded that was provided to the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition towards the funding of a
community center. The attorneys fees have been paid.
Commissioner Pruett referred to condition 92 and the Orange Unified School District's letter from the
standpoint of how the City would like to deal with the issue. The developer shall participate in funding of
school facilities through either the existing school facility fee program or execution of some other
agreement. This agreement shall be complied with prior to Issuance of building permits.
Mr. Elfend accepted that condition.
Those soeakina in favor
Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, said their homeowner's association and Board
of Directors discussed this request at some length. They had no problems with it. They will not have to
contend with 30 to 35,000 cars a day coming down Serrano onto Loma. The longer they can put it off, the
better. He asked that one change be made to condition 50 b. - it says that only one lane of Serrano Avenue
will be open...he was sure it meant one lane in each direction. But, to be sure, it needs to be stated --
either two lanes or one lane in each direction.Mr. Jones
indicated the Development Agreement itself actually has that additional verbiage. That's not a problem.Those
soeakina
in oooosition Richard Chrystie,
6519 Smokey Avenue, recalled the road would be built first. He couldn't understandwhy it
was going to be changed and be built in phases. He would like to see Serrano built first just to show the
developers can do this. Otherwise, he doesn't wantit to start at all. He wants to make sure it's going to
take place.Pat Freeman,
a resident of Autumn Ridge, asked about the fire services in the area? Who will take care of the
fire protection in the area? She understood a fire station was to be built there. She heard it had even been
funded, but there weren't funds to staff it. Given the nature of all the bankruptcies of the developers, she
also would like to see the road completed. Isn't it tied to the Transportation Corridor?Mr. Jones
understood there is a reserve designated fire station site on Loma; there are funds available to put
either a temporary or permanent facility there. But, there are no funds available at this time to staff the
station. It was also his understanding the Rre Department can serve the area at this point in time without that
facility.Rebuttal Mr.
Elfend
explained the reasons for the change in economic circumstances on this property. When the new property
owner acquired the property, the economics of going out there and making the road from the lower
part of Orange, where the road is at one elevation to the higher elevation of Anaheim, is an extreme financial
hardship and they asked for the phasing of the road. Hopefully with the financing mechanism with
the City it will help to assure everyone a little more. They will not be allowed to occupy any homes
in their first phase at all until the performance bond be posted for the second phase of the road.Mr.
Jones
envisions that the road will be completed in two phases. Back in 1988 whtm the Development Agreement was
first put together both Loma and Serrano were seen as important links to the arterial 14
Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 1997
s~tem. Loma was not in at the time. It was envisioned then that Serrano would happen before Loma.
It s happened the reverse of that. It was his understanding that Serrano is still an important arterial for
the City, but the compelling urgency for it has been reduced somewhat by the fact that Loma is there.
Staff looked at this from the standpoint of what was reasonable and how they could assure Serrano
Avenue does move forward and get built in a timely fashion. The performance bond and street
maintenance bond and security for default of performance will help cover the concerns.
The public hearing was closed.
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, the Commission finds that Rnal
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) #954 and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report #1305 were
previously prepared and certified as adequate. An Addendum to the aforementioned environmental
Impact reports has been prepared for the subject project. Based upon the environmental analysis, the
Commission finds that the proposed amendments are within the scope of Rnal EIR #954, Supplemental
EIR #1305 and Addendum (dated 1/21197), and Rnal EIR #954, Supplemental EIR #1305 and Addendum
dated 1/21/97) adequately describe and address the environmental effects and feasible mitigation
measures associated with the project, and Rnal EIR #954, Supplemental EIR #1305 and Addendum
dated 1/21197) meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett
None
Commissioner Bosch
Commissioners Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, the Commission made the
required findings concerning the proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Serrano Height's Specific Plan is
found to be consistent with the general plan, and recommend to the City Council to approve Amendment
No. 1 to the Serrano Height's Specific Plan. Concerning the proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Serrano
Height's Development Agreement, the Commission finds it to be consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan or
redevelopment plan. It is compatible with the uses authorized in the district or planning area in which the
real property is located. It is in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare
and good land use practices. It will be beneficial to the health, safety and general welfare consistent with
the policy of the City with respect to development Agreements as provided in Section 17.44.200. And, it
will not adversely affect the orderly development of property in the City. The Commission recommends
to the City Council to approve Amendment No. 2 to the Serrano Height's Development Agreement, with
conditions 1 through 106 (with the approval of the recommended deletion of condition 8, the total number
of conditions are 105).
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett
None
Commissioner Bosch
Commissioners Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn at 10:15 p.m.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
sld
Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett
None
Commissioners Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIED
15