Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/20/1983 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California June 20, 1983 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; PJorvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bernie Dennis, Traffic Engineer; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IPJ RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 1983 Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Master to approve the minutes of June 6, 1983, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez P10TIOPJ CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: PRELIMINARY BUILDING PLAN REVIEW - ZONE CHANGE 993 - ANACONDA- ERICKSON C/0 LE BLANC AND ASSOCIATES: A request to approve building plans preparatory to reading the resolution to rezone property from the R-D-6 (Residential Duplex) District to R-M-7 (Residential Multiple Family) District and permit the construction of a 54-unit condominium Planned Unit Development on land located on the south side of Palm Avenue approximately 535 feet easterly of the centerline of Batavia Street. ~~ir. Murphy explained that Staff has reviewed the precise building plans which have been submitted and finds they generally conform to those submitted and approved in the original processing, there- fore finding it appropriate to recommend that the zoning ordinance be read for this project. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to recommend approval of preliminary building plans and that the zoning ordinance be read for this project, for reasons as stated by Staff. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Plaster, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez P~IOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: TENTATIVE TRACT 11988, CONDITIOPlAL USE PERMIT 1290 - HERITAGE HOMES, INC.: A request for approval to construct an 8-lot, single-family Planned Unit Development subdivision and to create lots without frontage on a public street on land located on the south side of Walnut Avenue between Lincoln Street and Shattuck Place. (NOTE: PJegative Declaration 847 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1983 Page Two By consensus of the Commission members, no presentation was given. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Robert Sfredo, 17961 Cowan,. Irvine, representing Heritage Homes, Inc., the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He explained that they have minimal objections to the Staff Report. However, he wished to discuss the parking. He explained that the initial site plan had a design with a 20 ft. driveway and they were hoping that this would be applied to the parking requirement. He pointed out that the site plan required 2.5 spaces per unit and they intend to park vehicles in the garages, giving garage door openers to the residents. They would like to have just four parking spaces on the project. Chairman Hart asked Mr. Murphy to explain the change requested from the site plan and he stated that the Police Department was concerned for any pedestrian access to the east of the property to Lincoln Street and, therefore, have asked that the previously shown pedestrian access to Lincoln be eliminated and that Shattuck be used rather than Lincoln. With that area blocked off, Staff was concerned about guest parking at that end of the project and if there was not available parking on the site within the project, a visitor to the project would have to park on Lincoln Street, outside of the project and walk in from the outside. Therefore, Staff has suggested that two additional open parking spaces be placed in the east end of the private drive, which would serve the eight single family houses. Commissioner Mickelson asked why the Police Department is concerned about such a small pedestrian access and Mr. Murphy explained that the Police Department has found that this kind of access has been found to be an easy way within an area for the wrong type of person to go through. He cited the recent burglary and shooting at the Bank of America as an example. Commissioner Mickelson then asked if he was proposing that the access be closed off and Mr. Murphy explained that they are asking that this access be walled off and eliminated. P1r. Sfredo explained that by placing additional parking spaces in the area in question, it presents some problems for them. They would like to work with Staff to come up with a solution that is agreeable to all. He then explained how they would like to place two more spaces and this was pointed out on the map. Commissioner Mickelson felt that the condition could be worded to allow for either of the alternatives which have been suggested by the applicant. Ran Fraser, 1425 E. Walnut, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he found some men digging test holes on the property in question and was told by them that the soil was too sandy and the property was to be condemned. h1r. Sfredo spoke to this comment, stating that they have not requested a soil sample yet. Once they go through the Planning Commission, they will then get a soil sample. They will not purchase the property if the soil is not right. He said that it was not their people who were digging this soil sample. Dick Meadows, 444 N. Shattuck, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that it was his understanding that these will be eight two-story units. He wondered what the square footage of these units would be and was told they would be about 2200 square feet. It was also ex- plained that the garage would be one story. One other room would be single story and the rest would be two-story. Mr. Meadows asked if these units would overlook neighboring property and was shown the plans in the possession of the Commissioners. Planning Commission R1inutes June 20, 1983 Page Three P-lr. Sfredo responded that the design for the project is entirely two-story homes. However, the living room and dining room are to have cathedral ceilings. There is~ one window in the back, over- looking neighboring property and it is an opaque bathroom window. He explained that this particular house was voted the best house in 1982 in 14 western states. Their objective is to produce a house for approximately $160,000 to $165,000, which he felt is very marketable. There being noone else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Pickelson to recommend approval of Tentative Tract N1ap 11988 and Conditional Use Permit 1290, for the reasons stated by Staff and subject to the conditions set forth in the Staff Report, with modification to special Condition #l: two additional 9 x 20 foot guest parking spaces to be provided, with specific details to be worked out with Staff. Moved by Commissioner Plaster, seconded by accept the findings of the Environmental Negative Declaration 847. AYES: Commissioners Hart, P•1aster, Mickelson fJOES: Commissioners none ABSEfJT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez Commissioner Mickelson to Review Board to file MOTIOPJ CARRIED AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez MOTIOIJ CARRIED PRE-ZONE CHANGE 1003 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposed rezone from County R-20 (Two-family Residential) District and County R-2-1800 (Group Dwelling) District and City of Orange R-M-7 (Multiple Family Residential) District on 25 parcels of land located on the north side of Heim Avenue between Bourbon Street and Canal Street. (PJOTE: This project is exempt from environmental review.) Jere h1urphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property consists of 25 parcels containing 4.876± acres of land located on the north side of Heim Avenue between Bourbon Street and Canal Street. 12 parcels located on Bourbon Street are all developed as single-story duplexes and the 13 parcels on Canal Street are all developed as two-story apartment units. Mr. Murphy pointed out that, as of this time, all property owners are expected to consent to annexation to the City of Orange, with the expectation that the 12 parcels located on Bourbon will be rezoned to R-D-6 (Two-Family Residential) District and the 13 parcels located on Canal Street will be rezoned to R-P•1-7 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. He explained that the General Plan designates the area for medium density residential (6-15 dwelling units per acre) land use. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and has no Staff feels that all existing uses will remain future and will be complementary to surrounding Staff recommends approval of pre-zone to R-D-6 Bourbon Street and R-M-7 for the 13 parcels on reasons: concerns at this time. for the foreseeable ~ land uses, therefore, for the 12 parcels on Canal Street for two Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1983 Page Four 1. The pre-zone proposals are compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. The pre-zone proposals are consistent with the city's General Plan. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Anthony Fazio, 8952 Canal Street, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he owns and lives in one of the duplexes on Canal Street. He wondered if another apartment could be allowed to be built in that area by zoning it properly. Mr. Murphy explained that the Commission has the prerogative of zoning the property to a higher zone than is in use. However, Staff has not received any request for rezoning of Canal Street to a higher zone. If the Commission wished to do this, they must readvertise and start the hearing over again. If this is the wish of the property owners, this can be considered. Mr. Fazio thought there could be another meeting with the property owners in order to consider rezoning. Commissioner Master asked if there is a time restriction on this action and Mr. Murphy did not believe there is any particular timing restriction on the annexation, although the property owners who re- quested annexation would like to see it take place as soon as possible. Commissioner Mickelson asked what the density factor is for R-D-6 and was told that this is basically a duplex zone and allows up to about 10 units to the acre with a planning and development concept. R-M-7 is required to go to an apartment type of development, or 16 units per acre planned unit development. Commissioner Mickelson felt that this is a valid request and should be considered. There was further discussion among the Commissioners and Staff with regard to the possible redevelopment of this property and how it could come about. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the R-D-6 zone provides a reasonable buffer between the multiple family residential zone and the single-family housing. Chairman Hart explained his question with regard to whether the existing duplexes would accept another unit on the land, because of open space requirements, additional parking, and additional garaging. He said that the director told him that this probably would not work because of existing zonings on the parcel. Therefore, a zone change would probably not do any good to Mr. Fazio as a property owner, other than allowing him to tear down his building and build a triplex. Mr. Fazio felt that there was sufficient parking because of the fact that some of the duplexes had dual parking plus a garage. It was explained to him that it would appear to the Commissioners that they would be trying to place too much footage on the lot and it would be too crowded. It was suggested to Mr. Fazio that he check with the Planning Department to see if it is possible to do what he wishes to do before he proceeds to ask for a hearing. Commissioner Mickelson thought that perhaps if this zone change is initiated by Staff to facilitate the annexation of this property, if the Commission were to continue this far consideration of upgrading the zoning, a situation could be created which would cause jeopardy. He thought that perhaps a better way to handle it would be to follow Staff's recommendation and let the annexation proceed. If a group of property owners were to come in at a later date, requesting a zone change, they would certainly be heard. Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1983 Page Five There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Mickel son, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of Pre-Zone Change 1003 for the reasons given by Staff. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED GENERAL PLAN Ah1ENDMENT - CIRCULATION ELEMENT 1-83 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposal to consider the improvement, deletion of retention of the classification of arterial designations in the Circulation Element of City General Plan for the following streets: Cambridge Street Tustin Street Chapman Avenue Loma Street n Wanda Road Main Street Weir Canyon Road NOTE: Negative Declaration 849 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Joe E. Foust, consulting traffic engineer with JEF Engineering, addressed the Commission, explaining that he had been retained by the City of Orange to conduct a highway analysis for the city. He pointed out that the Master Plan of Highways analysis has been pre- sented before to the Commission and, therefore, he wished to summarize what has gone on before. Mr. Foust explained that approixmately a year ago the city undertook a study of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, precipitated primarily by the Save Our Streets Committee, who had asked the city to delete Cambridge and Walnuts Streets from the Master Plan. The City Council then requested that not only that issue be looked at, but the entire master plan for the city be looked at in terms of any modifications and deletions that might be appropriate. He pointed out that among the things they looked at about a year agq, there was an inpetus toward development and redevelopment in the Town and Country and Fashion Square area and the city was a joint participant in a transportation system improvement study. Basically the findings of that study have been incorporated into this revision. He then pointed out that another participant in the study has been the County of Orange and he told the Commission that the County of Orange and the cities participate in the financing and improvements of arterial highways basically through the Arterial Highway Financing Program. In order to be eligible for that financing program, which is quite substantial and amounts to about half of the cost for maintenance and rehabilitation of the arterial system, the master plan of the County and the city must be in concert. Mr. Foust then addressed the subject of Walnut Avenue specifically, since he felt that most of the people in the audience were there to address that point. He pointed out that Cambridge could be downgraded to a commuter street, which is a two-lane road just like the street is at this time. In order to do that, however, it would have an impact on Tustin Avenue and if Wanda is reduced, the capacity must be picked up somewhere else, which would be Tustin Avenue. He explained that there is a recommendation in the study that Tustin be upgraded to a modified major arterial, which means it would not be widened, but all parking would be removed with some intersection enhancement. However, the finding of the study was that Walnut will continue to have in- creasing traffic, particularly as the East Orange area develops. Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1983 Page Six Walnut currently serves the location circulation needs of a significant portion of the residents of Orange and will, in the future, be required to provide a portion of the east/west capacity needed to balance demand. Minor traffic engineering enhancement supplied at critical intersections can enable the street to accommodate double the present traffic volume without the need for widening. This could postpone ultimate improve- ment of Walnut Avenue for several years but eventually a four-lane street section will be needed. Traffic projections on Walnut Avenue are growing at a rate of 6 percent per year, which is consistent with many of the streets in our city an d, as such, it is estimated that it would be 15 to 20 years before traffic would grow on Walnut Avenue to a point that the street would need widening to a full two lanes in each direction. h1r. Foust indicated that over time, as traffic in- creased, minor traffic engineering enhancements at heavily traveled intersections could involve some parking removal, the addition of turn pockets, and perhaps the creation of vision zones. Mr. Foust then said that he would be available for questions on the matter. He stated that in the past several months they have held four workshops and sent out notices to all citizens to attend these workshops. There have been a number of public meetings and this is another public meeting in the continuing process. It is a snail's pace process. However, what they are doing is looking at and revising a master plan. There is no eminent construction in the near future. As far as 4Jalnut is concerned, at the present rate of growth it would be basically 15 to 18 years before widening would be necessary. Bernie Dennis, Traffic Engineer for the City of Orange, addressed the Commission, speaking with regard to the recommendation on Cambridge, between Meats Avenue and the south city limits. He explained that Cambridge is presently designated as a secondary arterial highway. It is recommended that the street, within the designated limits just mentioned be reclassified to a commuter roadway. He said that this particular designation would maintain the residential integrity of the street and allow for the continued use of the HFP funding for maintenance purposes. However, the reclassification would result in a north-south capacity deficiency, due to the loss of two north-south lanes. He pointed out that this deficiency could be compensated for by modifying the designation of Tustin Street. He then spoke to the Traffic Department's recommendation of redesignating Tustin Street from Lincoln to Fairhaven from a primary arterial highway to a modified major highway. This designation will require no parking on Tustin in order to provide a third travel lane in each direction. There would be additional widths and lanes at the intersections of Lincoln, Meats, Katella and Chapman. This would involve an additional 24 feet of right-of-way on each side of the street at these locations to be used primarily for the installation of turn lanes Mr. Dennis explained that the third recommendation would involve Chapman Avenue from Tustin Street to Prospect Street. Chapman is presently designated as a primary arterial highway and it is recom- mended that Chapman, within these limits, be redesignated to a modified major highway, with on-street parking removed and a third travel lane being installed. They would ask that Prospect Street be enhanced. He also spoke to the fact that eventually a modification of the Chapman Avenue/55 Freeway interchange would require a fourth westbound travel lane and possibly a fourth eastbound travel lane on Chapman between Yorba and the freeway itself. ~- He then said that the fourth consideration deals with Weir Canyon Road, explaining that Weir Canyon is presently classified as a primary highway on the County and City Map for Plan of Arterial ;Streets. He stated that although the Staff generally concurs with the study findings that the primary designation could very possibly be insufficient to accommodate the ultimate traffic demands on this very important segment of roadway, they do not feel that a recommendation for reclassification can be made at this time. They have several reasons: first, there are a variety of studies going on in East Orange right now, mainly the Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1983 Page Seven Upper Peters Canyon study, the various Weir Canyon alignment studies, and the Eastern Corridor study. He pointed out the discussion being had as to whether Weir Canyon and the Eastern Corridor will be one and the same or separate streets. They think it will be separate streets, but would prefer that the input of the abovenamed studies is complete before making a recommendation for reclassification of the roadway. Mr. Dennis spoke to the 5th recommendation which was Wanda Road between Collins and Prospect, stating that this is a new roadway with a proposed designation of modified arterial highway. This would be a two-lane facility, starting at Collins at the termination of Wanda, going southerly, make a curve, and align with Prospect Street approximately at Spring Street. This would include a bridge crossing of Santiago Creek and would also possibly include, in the future, an extension of Walnut Avenue to the bJanda extension. The next recommendation pertained to Main Street between La Veta and Chapman Avenues. He explained that Main Street is presently designated as a modified primary arterial highway, meaning that it is presently constructed to a secondary highway standard, with four travel lanes and one left turn lane. It is recommended that the street within the subject limits be reclassified to a modified major highway. This designation would require both additional right-of-way, 50 ft. as opposed to the existing 40 ft., and additional width, 84 ft. as opposed to the present 64 ft. The seventh recommendatio n pertained to Loma Street, generally from the north city limits to Santiago Canyon Road. Mr. Dennis explained that Loma Street is presently designated as a primary arterial highway and it is recommended that this street, within the aforementioned limits be redesignated to a modified major highway. Mr. Dennis then discussed two other streets, in view of the great amount of public interest. He spoke with regard to LJaI nut between Main and Spring Streets, explaining that Walnut is currently designated as a secondary arterial highway and has been designated as such since the Master Plan was adopted in 1961. He said that the JEF study has clearly indicated that we need to retain Walnut in its present classifi- cation to provide for the east-west capacity and related local intra- city circulation. He pointed out that the study indicated further that sometime in the future the street may need to be w idened to four lanes. Staff concurs with JEF's recommendations and conclusions. He reassured the people that there are absolutely no plans, nor is it possible within the dictates of freeway design, to construct any type of a ramp configura- tion at Walnut and the 55 Freeway. He pointed out that this would be too close to the Chapman Avenue interchange. He then pointed out another misconception, that 4Jalnut is being held on the Master Plan at its classification to provide access to the Anaheim Stadium and the Anaheim Stadium Industrial Complex. He pointed out the valid reasons why this street could never be used in this manner, He felt that i t wil l always be a means for circulation wi thi n the city of Orange. He brought out the fact that the Master Plan has indicated for 20 years that Walnut will cross Santiago Creek but before this can be done, it will require extensive public hearings and extensive environmental documentation, as will the Wanda extension. Nothing could be done "overnight" or in the immediate future. Mr. Dennis then turned his discussion to Orange Park Boulevard between Serrano and Santiago Canyon Road. He said that this roadway was initially envisioned to provide direct access from Serrano to Chapman Avenue. However, with the completion of Loma from the north city 1 imi is down to Chapman, this street will provide the circulation that was looked for in this particular area and it is Staff's opinion that if Loma becomes a reality, there is certainly no reason to retain Orange Park Boulevard between Serrano and Santiago Canyon Road on the Master Plan. Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1983 Page Eight He pointed out that the County had removed that section of road from the Master Plan sometime ago. Therefore, Staff would have no objection if the Commission wished to delete that. He then said that he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Mickel son asked, in the best layman terms that they could give, assuming that Cambridge can be reduced in classification and :cut back to two lanes from what has, for many years, been a four lane designation, why cannot Walnut be cut back to the same or similar designation as Cambridge an d why cannot the traffic overflow be transferred to Collins and Chapman Avenues? Mr. Foust explained that the existing traffic on 41a1 nut is about 7,000 cars per day. Current traffic on Cambridge is about 6,000 cars per day. Projected traffic for Cambridge is about 9-10,000 cars per day, where the projected growth on Walnut is between 15,000 and 18,000 cars per day. This would surpass the capacity of a two-lane roadway. He explained that the report goes on to say that through intersection treatments and perhaps elimination of parking and restri pi ng, i t could carry about double the capacity on the street now, or about 14,000 cars per day, without the need for widening of the street. Some of the traffic can certainly be transferred to Coll ins and the Wanda extension and improvement on the east side of the 57 Freeway will allow traffic to access Collins. The intent is to distribute the traffic to Collins and to Chapman. Commissioner Mickelson said that if we close our eyes to reality and refuse to widen Walnut some of the traffic will transfer to Collins and to Chapman, but the growth of traffic on Walnut will congest that street because it is the desired route. He then asked if and when Walnut is to be widened, is there a modified cross section that could be used other than a normal, rather wide parkway, etc., which would bring the sidewalks back closer to the existing structures? Mr. Foust answered that there are al ter_~native cross sections that could be used, explaining some of the things that could be done. Commissioner Master brought out that it is stated several times in the report that the data we are using is from 1981 and projecting to the year 2000. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Mary Westerlund, 600 E. Walnut, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that she was concerned with the idea of Walnut being opened up as a four-lane highway with a higher speed limit. There are small children walking to and from school daily and the whole idea of a major highway is ludicrous. To place this kind of a highway in a residential area is silly. This will lower property values and cause problems with the safety of the children. Janet O'Neal, 612 E. Walnut, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating basically the same concerns as Mrs. Westerlund. She explained that the present speed limit is 25 mph. However, it is not always observed. She felt that there is no need to widen Walnut. Barney Klipa, 2409 E. ldalnut, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that Walnut runs east and west an d approximately four blocks to the north is Collins, which is a four-lane street. Collins has more commercial buildings along it and he wondered why this street couldn't be taken into consid eration to make a highway instead of Walnut. He explained that they had fought hard for a 25 mph speed 1 imi t on 4Ja1 nut. He was not i n favor of widening Walnut Street. Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1983 Page Nine L~ Chairman Hart mentioned that the Commission has received three letters from interested parties to this hearing, all in protest of the various street proposals. One letter came from Mr. Quinn and two from hlr. Pezzetti . Gregory Pezzetti, 1045 E. Walnut, addressed the Commission, stating his concern about the school which are situated along Walnut. He said that he has collected 52 studies of an environmental nature indicating that as noise polution rises academic excellence diminishes. He then demonstrated what is going on in classrooms along streets like Walnut at this time, i.e. Cambridge School and Orange High School. Trucks going along this street are creating so much noise that teachers cannot be heard. He felt that the noise element has risen so much in America in recent years it is causing much damage in the learning experience. Verdon Craig, 825 E. Barkley, Orange, Chairman of the Save Our Streets Committee, addressed the Commission, stating that she found it interesting that Walnut is not listed on the agenda for discussion at this meeting. This was of great concern to her. She felt that the Commission must look at this whole plan on a bigger scope than just the widening of ~lalnut. Her committee has done much research with regard to the Orange Master Plan of Highways and they get a different picture than what has been presented here. She pointed out that Orange is unique because it is surrounded by four freeways, with four interchanges. She also pointed out that peak traffic is getting longer and longer because of the amount of traffic on the freeways. She explained that, looking at the bridge which is proposed over Santiago Creek at the conjunction of Wanda and Prospect, one must go back to the 91 Freeway and look at the other side of the 41eir Canyon route. Weir Canyon Road travels parallel to the 91 Freeway, becomes Santa Ana Canyon Road, then be- coming a four-lane highway, continues to Villa Park and becomes Wanda Road. If the bridge is built over Santiago Creek, it will proceed on Prospect, also a four-lane roadway, except for the section between Katella and Collins, and continues on to 17th Street, where it makes a small detour and then goes on to First Street in Tustin. She pointed out that by building that bridge, it is a beautiful alternative to the 91 and 55 freeways. You will get the projected 17,000 cars per day on Walnut from the traffic generated by travelers getting off of the freeway in order to cross over to the 57 Freeway because they are going to work in the new complex which is being developed in the Anaheim Stadium parking lot. By opening up our arterials, we are accommodating the businesses. Mrs. Craig said that she realized that it is very expensive to widen freeways and much property would have to be acquired in order to do so. However, this bridge is a detriment to the people of Orange. About 4500 students will be affected directly by this road widening, let alone the people on Walnut east and west of Tustin, who will have streets and sidewalks taking up most of their front yard. She also saw Walnut being developed as an alternative to Chapman in the core area. The Traffic Department has recommended that Chapman be upgraded from Tustin Avenue to Prospect, which will again fill in that Wanda-Prospect area and she explained how easy it would be for people to cut over and go right down to the 55 Freeway. Mrs. Craig felt that, in the overall picture, we are accommodating commuters outside of the City of Orange. She said that the City Planning Departments and the City Council has a tremendous responsibility not to sacrifice the residents of this community for the freeways, for the state, for the county. The residents of Orange are of primary importance. We should look at the overall ramifications rather than just considering building a bridge over the creek and connecting Walnut and Collins. Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1983 Page Ten This will not accommodate the citizens of Orange - it will mainly accommodate the people wanting to bypass our already overcongested freeways to get from one point to another. Carrie Bedord, 1025 Tularosa, Orange, addressed the Commission, expressing her concern over the circulation element in the Orange residential areas where streets are being widened or proposed to be widened now or in the future. She explained that she had worked for the city of Orange from 19T'8 to 1981 and she is presently employed with the city of Riverside for the past two years. Her job is to upgrade the residentual areas which have deteriorated. She said that based upon her experience, widening the streets will move the traffic through the city, but that will also put into work a gradual decline of those stable residential neighborhoods. These residential streets will be opened to people who have no business being there and will be encouraging them to come into the homes of the Orange residents. They will be made very vulnerable to vandalism, burglary, rape, child molestation, and property deterioration, which is the least of these problems. Mrs. Bedord invited anyone who was interested to come to the city of Riverside and she would give them a tour of streets where this has happened. She then gave a detailed explanation of streets in Riverside where extreme deterioration has occurred and spilled over from the street which was widened to streets on either side of it. She then described two incidents in the city of Orange where, because of the widening of residential streets, crimes have been committed. She then explained that she has lived in the city of Orange for 16 years and chose the city because of its charming, small town atmosphere. She considers: where she lives a very stable, safe area for her children to be raised. The neighbors watch out for each other and her point was that when residential streets are widened, it is almost impossible for the people in that area to know who belongs there and who does not. She expressed happiness over the fact that Cambridge is going to be downgraded and hoped that this would happen to the other residential streets also. Mrs. Bedord stated that Orange has been quite fortunate so far, in that their Old Town has not deteriorated as have cities like Santa Ana and Riverside and they have the benefit of these other cities' experience where they took the advice of their consdltants and widened streets, thus beginning the gradual deterioration of the core of the city. She felt that the Commission and Council need to listen to the residents who live in the areas to be affected. She wished to see the old neighbor- hoods of Orange preserved and Orange's good reputation kept. Corky Snider, 1501 E. Maple Avenue, Orange, addressed the Commission, claiming that he, as a high school student, is the future of Orange. He said that he likes this area and wants to keep it the way it is. He would not want to move away from here. He said that he attends Orange High School and when he drives to school in the morning, if he is late, he must parka long way from the school. If Walnut is widened, parking will be even worse. He pointed out that in the classrooms on the Walnut side of the school there is a real problem hearing the teachers. George Snider, 1501 E. Maple Avenue, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he moved to Orange from Santa Ana because of its pleasant atmosphere. He was opposed to the widening of residential streets. When streets are widened and bridges are built, there is a change in tax revenues and this should be thought about carefully. He also wondered just where the 15-20,000 people will be coming from. He found it hard to believe that they will come from Orange, because Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1983 Page Eleven that area is already built up. If that bridge is built, that is where the traffic will come from. Mr. Jurczyk, 505 N. Wakefield, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he purchased his home when 4Jalnut was just a tiny street. His children all grew up here in Orange and attended Chapman College. If this street is widened, where will the children go with their bicycles? He lives on the corner of 4Jalnut and Wakefield and it took him 15 years to get a slumps tone wall on his property in order to protect it from cars traveling in that area at high speeds. He has had a pole on the front of his house split twice by cars speeding by. He said that he worried about the children with the traffic speeding by. He is against the widening of Walnut. Betty C. Roberts, 1752 N. Morningside, and owning property at 2222 E. Walnut, addressed the Commission, stating that she noticed that a traffic plan was adopted in May of 1978 and she wondered why. In order to widen Walnut, property will have to be taken away from the property owners. She explained that she and her family have lived in Orange for quite a few years and they own several pieces of property. She wondered why the freeways are not improved to handle the extensive amount of traffic traveling on them. Why have freeways been proposed and in the making for 10 to 14 years and yet have not been developed? She felt that this is where the money should be used. She did not think it was right to take away the citizens' environment and affect thousands of people in the upcoming future. She pointed out how side roads are used in the El Toro area to avoid using the crowded freeways and could see that happening if Walnut were widened and the bridge were bui 1 t. She said that peopl e are 1 i ke water, they wi 11 take the easiest flow of traffic. Mrs. Roberts pointed out that she lives a few houses off of Taft. She understood from the report that Taft is a secondary street and is 80 feet wide. She explained that two of her children have been hit by cars while walking to school along Taft. Her understanding of the report is that the same thing that was done to Taft is being proposed for Walnut and she opposes this because of the residential nature of the street. She also pointed out how many schools are placed along Walnut street and the children would be endangered by the increased traffic along the widened street. ~~, Phyllis Pace, 1319 W. Walnut, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that she has children who must walk to school and it is already pathetic that they must cross Main Street because of the great amount of traffic. She is very concerned about Walnut being widened to an arterial highway, as she cannot afford to move. She felt that the Commissioners do not care about the people of Orange and felt that many of the streets should be closed for the safety of the children. G. E. Crammer, 1923 E. Walnut, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he has lived in Orange a long time and is not questioning the traffic study. However, he does question where it comes from. The figures do not seem to be correct, as Collins seems to be busier than bJalnut. Walnut has six schools on it between Main and Tustin. It also has three churches. This could create a high traffic count, but should be taken into consideration when making a traffic count. It should also be a good reason for not widening the street since these are Orange residents using the street. Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1983 Page Twelve Fred Peters, 706 E. Walnut, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he wondered if any traffic calculations have been done during the summer months when high school is not in session. He felt that this would be of value. There seems to be a conflict of interest, as far as he is concerned. Everyone who has spoken is in opposition to the widening of Walnut and he has not heard anyone speak in favor of widening it. He feels that the job of the Commissioners is to make those value judgements to protect the interest of the city and the interests of its citizens, not based on what outsiders want. The people who live on the street are not complaining and will continue to use the road the way it is. He felt that the citizens are suggesting that the road be kept as a two-lane road and make whatever improvements that are needed to improve its function. This should include some improvements to keep the speed down. He pointed out that the police cannot control the speed limit now and if the street is widened there will be even less control of it. Mr. Peters challenged the Commissioners that if they made the decision to widen Walnut, would they promise to move onto Walnut and live there. Jim Hohlfeld, 916 E. Mayfair, Orange, addressed the Commission, explaining that what the people are saying tonight is that they want the Commission to reject the Master Plan as far as 4Jalnut is concerned. They would like to see Walnut and Cambridge deleted from the Master Plan and want Orange to remain the same. He said that he would not be lulled by promises of 15-20 years status quo. He explained that he is the father of four children and his children walk either along or across Walnut on a daily basis during the school year. He felt that people can be persudded or dissuaded from using specific routes of travel, depending upon how the city fathers route that traffic. He did not think that statistics should be just accepted. There is some- thing much more important at stake and that is the quality of life. That is a first priority. Mr. Hohlfeld pointed out that 40,000 questionnaires were sent out with regard to the traffic study and 5,000 came back with only 15-20 from the Walnut area. Most of the responses came from the rest of the city and most of them said do not widen Walnut. The people of Orange do not want Walnut widened - ever. Ken Fournier, 4144 Del Valle, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that his home backs up to 4Jalnut. He has only lived in Orange for a little over a month and spoke as a new resident of Orange, as opposed to all the people who have spoken, having lived in Orange for many years. The reason he purchased his home where he did is because Orange is way it is. He did not wish to see more noise, crime, pollution, etc. be brought into the city because of the widening of Walnut. People out- side of Orange look at the city as being a quiet city with a low crime rate. That is why people wish to live here. B. A. Skipper, 2905 E. 4Jalnut, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he has lived in the city for 14 years and works for the city. He said that he wished to address the accident situation in Orange. As it appears to date, Walnut had 67 accidents on it from January 1 to the present, with Collins having 46 or 47. .With the widening of Walnut, it would eliminate both the bike lanes and parking lanes which create a buffer zone for backing out of residences into traffic. He saw an increased rate of accidents, due to residential backing, plus children being run over and this is not addressed in the study. He also addressed the fact that the Traffic Division is being modified to where several units ;a re being eliminated, which will create even more problems, as far as protection and traffic control are concerned. If the bridge is built and the street is widened, he saw the 6,000 children going to schools on that street placed into more jeopardy. Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1983 Page Thirteen Kenneth Cowan, 516 N. Handy, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he lives on the corner of Handy and Walnut and has lived there for many years. He worked for Caltrans for 32 years, working on the freeways, and has seen a lot of traffic in all those years. He felt that when you open Walnut up by widening it, there will be untold problems. He thought that at the present time traffic cannot be controlled. There is much speeding on that street now and he wondered how this will be controlled if the street is widened to a four lane roadway. He wondered if there would be parking signs put up - would there be more police patrolling of the street? If this master plan is approved with these recommendations for Walnut, what proof do they get that the widening won't be done right away? If Collins and Chapman would be able to pick up the flow that is anticipated, why go ahead with Walnut? He has yet to run into one person who is in favor of widening Walnut. He-felt that we should keep the streets as safe as we possibly can. Don O'Neal, 612 E. Walnut, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that this proposed plan has been going on for about two or three years, and he was concerned over the fact that so many people have not been notified of what has been going on. He showed his neighbor, who has lived in her house for 50 years, the notice which he received and asked if she had received one also, and was told no. He wondered why so many residents of Walnut have not received notices of meetings, projects going on, etc. when he, as a renter, has received such notices. He explained that he is a truck driver, who .has traveled through at least 48 states and traveles routes to Palm Springs, San Diego, etc. He likened traffic to a stream, with tributaries flowing into it, stop lights, but nothing stops it except for short periods of time. He felt that cars someday will be a thing of the past. Transportation will be totally different, because people will not go anywhere. Machines will take over many jobs. He quoted "I had a dream, but someone busted it". That dream is right here and people's dream will be taken away if Walnut is widened and their frontage is taken away. He thought that projects undertaken by the city should be economically feasible and add to the city - not take something away from it. Larry Finniello, 2841 E. Rose, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he had moved to Orange because of its atmosphere. He said that his work is installing traffic signals and monitoring traffic on freeways. He asked if it was correct in the study that Wanda Road was to come down and join with Prospect Avenue and was told that it was. He explained that the only people who are serviced by the road in that area would the people who own homes which back up to the creek. Anything east of Wanda Road would be rentals and mobile home units, plus Conrock. He did not understand why, if the bridge is not built, the projected rate of traffic would jump from 6,000 at the present time up to 15,000 cars per day, since the only people who would use that road would be the people who live in that area - approximately 800 homes. He then said that if Wanda meets with Prospect and there is further development, why cannot developers make new streets? Why must they use Walnut? There is absolutely no reason in any traffic study that he has seen why a bridge should be built to connect the streets, when there is another street to handle the traffic. Jim Jensen addressed the Commission, stating that he had been brought up in Orange, but does not live here anymore. However, his mother lives on Spring Street. He explained that Orange Park Acres is on the other side and is growing at a great rate. They need access out there. He does not believe the traffic from out that way should be on the city streets. He feels a freeway should be built for that traffic. If the bridge goes from Wanda to Prospect it will be a clear access road to get to Orange Park Acres. They will not go across Chapman - they will use Spring Street. Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1983 Page Fourteen Martha Jett, 2919 Hamilton, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that her home backs up to Walnut and that area suffers from many things - noise, not only from 6~alnut, but from the freeway, helicopters from the Marine base, airplanes coming into John Wayne Airport, etc. She cannot see that the Master Plan will be of benefit to the city of Orange. A lot of the projected growth for Orange is not happening. A lot of the travelers coming through the Orange area are coming from outside of the city. We should consider opening up arterials back in the area where there is open land, rather than widening a street such as Walnut. Walnut is a fine street and there is much concern for the fast traffic there. She explained that they live in Orange because they like it - it is a quiet life style. Charlie Ward, 2627 E. Walnut, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he is a Marine helicopter pilot and graduate of Annapolis. He wondered how the traffic engineer could sit here and tell him that the actual traffic count in the core element for Tustin Avenue is 27,000 vehicles per day. In the year 2000, he is going to put 75% of that number on Walnut Avenue, as per what is printed in the traffic study. He pointed out that they cannot do that unless the people allow it to happen. He felt that the statistics are totally invalid. Dick Jett, 2919 E. Hamilton, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that the original 4Janda extension was a railroad right-of-way. He brought up the figure of 23,000 cars a day to be channeled from Wanda back up to Walnut. He pointed out that the Wanda extension is not even on the map. He felt that the people on 6•Jal nut are having this dumped on their front porch and he is having it dumped in his back yard. He pointed out that the bridge over Santiago Creek would involve Conrock property and wondered what the future plans are for Conrock. He also. pointed out that we have a 50 ft. right-of-way and he was sure there would sidewalks planned. There is no opening into that area from Collins to the bridge. He felt that it takes a lot of faith on the part of the people because everything is not pinned down and this worries him. Mason Pearce, 2430 E. Walnut, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that everything said tonight boils down to the fact that the people on Walnut and around it do not want the street widened and do not want the city of Orange changed. It is up to the Planning Commission to ~ vote to keep Orange as it is. James E. Roberts, 1712 Morningside, Orange, and also owning property at 2222 E. Walnut, Orange, addressed the Commission and asked why the freeways can't be improved or enlarged around the city of Orange. He pointed out that we are all paying taxes i.o improve the freeways but the money is being spent on public transportation rather than improving the freeways. Why widen t•Jalnut when we already have Collins which is already widened and contains shopping centers, etc. He said that he lives in Orange because of its tranquillity and does not like all the changes which have been made. He suggested that a letter be written to the governor, asking where our monies are going when they should be spent to improve our freeways. Commissioners Mickelson and Hart explained how little control the city officials have over the state. They also explained that the traffic engineers did the job they were requested to do. They have done their best job in a professional analysis. It is the Planning Commission's job now to decide what is best for the people overall in the city of Orange, not just the residents of Walnut. Betty Jensen, 3721 Spring Street, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that our housing is moving east and there must be a way to move traffic east. She wondered if the Garden Grove Freeway could be extended east to take up this traffic. Commissioner Hart explained that there are plans for some major highways to run north and south to relieve some of the traffic in the east part of Orange. Those are being studied at this time. However, there will be arguments from the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club in this regard. Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1983 Page Fifteen It is hoped that when those north and south highways are built that they will take some of the burden of traffic off of this area. Betty Roberts again addressed the Commission, asking if it is possible that Weir Canyon Road will be built and the Garden Grove Freeway extended and when this would all come about. She was told that this has been discussed but nothing is concrete. Chairman Hart explained that all of this is under discussion and the holdups are usually due to lack of money. Don Armstrong, 490 N. Clinton, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he has lived in the city of Orange longer than Chairma n Hart (Chairman Hart having stated earlier that he has probably lived in the city of Orange longer than anyone in the room). Lloyd Mim, 2243 E. Walnut, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he believed everything that has been stated is the truth and what we are looking at is to add a few lines to the survey and declare ~ that, along with Cambridge, Walnut should be reduced to a commuter street rather than an arterial highway. Chairman Hart asked that answers to questions asked this evening be put into writing so that they might be available to anyone who wants them. He thought a continuance would be feasible so that the Commission can read all of the comments which have been made tonight. Commissioner Mickelson also favored taking some time to digest the information given this evening and also to converse with Mr. Dennis regarding the alternatives. There being no one else to speak for or against this subject, the Chairman closed the public hearing. There was further discussion among the Commissioners as to the best time fora continuance, it being agreed upon that a special meeting would be feasible. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to continue this hearing to Wednesday, July 13, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Vasquez P10TION CARRIED Question was asked whether a special bulletin will be sent to the people who gave addresses this evening for the special meeting. The answer was in the negative. Commissioner Mickelson suggested that Chairman Hart sit down with the traffic consultant and traffic engineer and sort out the pertinent questions which will be brought to the special meeting on the 13th. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Wednesday, July 6, 1983, at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California; and thence to a special meeting on Wednesday, July 13, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.