Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/18/1984 - Minutes PCPLANNING COP~IMISSION MINUTES ~~ City of Orange Orange, California ,o June 18, 1984 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, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Jack McGee, Associate Planner;. John Lane, Administrator of Advance Planning; Jim Reichart, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney;-Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 1984 Moved.by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the minutes of June 4, 1984 be approved as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Hart, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Vasquez IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS Greek, Mason, Master MOTION CARRLED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-83,_LTEM "A" & ZONE CHANGE 1008 - CITY OF ORANGE AND CONROCK: The project area consists of two (2) parcels totaling 110 acres. Parcel "A" consists of 10 acres bounded by Walnut Avenue on the north and Santiago Creek on the east. Proposed is a redesignation of the Land Use Element from Low Density Residential (2-6 du/ac) to Medium Density Residential (6-15 du/ac), and a zone change from R-1-6 to R-M-7. Parcel "B" consists of approximately 100 acres generally. bounded by Collins on the north, Santiago Creek on the west, Spring on the south, and Prospect on 'the east. Proposed is a redesignation of the Land Use Element and .Open Space/Conservation Element from Park to Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential, and a zone change from S-G (Sand and Gravel) to R-1-6, R-M-7, and MH (Mobile Home). NOTE: Environmental Impact Report No. 861 has been prepared for this project. This item was continued from the February 6 and 22, 1984 meetings. `~ Planning Commission Minutes .June 18, 1984 Page Two • Jim Reichert presented a brief update of this proposal to the Commission, stating that this item was continued from February 22, 1984 in order ~' to allow the County an opportunity to view the property for possible acquisition and incorporation into the Santiago Oaks Regional Park network. He explained that upon review by the County Harbor., Beaches & Parks Commission, the. County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution stating that the County would be willing to accept the developer's offer of a l2 acre parcel site, a 25-ft. wide bicycle trail and a lu cre rest stop for addition to the regional park facilities. Mr.:':~eichert. pointed out that these proposed facilities was consistent with what was .emerging as a revised regional park concept along the Santiago Creek greenbelt corridor, He said that the greenbelt concept as originally envisioned by the county now appears unrealistic in light of the county's inability to acquire large parcels of land for park purposes. He explained that the concept now appears to be to acquire selected pieces of land along the creek for park development and linking them together with a series of trails. Mr. Rei.cher.t told the Commission that the applicant has submitted a letter to the city which confirms their commitment to dedicate these lands to the county. Mr. Reic.hert° then addressed the proposed residential.. uses on the site, stating that the staff. felt that the proposed zoning: classifications and various densities on the site are compatible with those of the surrounding area. Coupled with the proposed park land dedication, staff felt that the proposal provides a realistic balance of uses for the site. They therefore recommend approval of the general plan amenctnent, the zone change and additional actions as outlined in the staff report. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Joseph Lecroix, 3724 El Carmen, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of the proposal, stating that most of the people in the_neighbor- hood are fairly happy with the proposal. However, he had two questions: the first one concerning cul de saci.ng Old Prospect instead of ..bringing it into New Prospect and Bond.. He wondered if this-was definite or was not definite. It was explained to him that this question would be dealt with by the Conrock representative later in the hearing. The second question h1r. Lecroix brought up was that after the property is divided up, will Conrock develop this personally or will it be sold off in parcels. He wondered if there would be a condition of sale. that the buyers would be held to the density already placed on the property, as they did not want to see a higher density come in of ter the fact. He stated that Conrock had agreed earlier that this would be a condition of sale. However, the people in the neighborhood need assurance of this. Chairman Hart pointed out that anyone who has the price of the filing fee can request a zoning change. Mr. Lecroix felt that if Conrock places this condition in the sale terms and it is in the minutes that it is agreed that the density should go no higher, then perhaps it would be more difficult to get a zone change should there be such a request. Planning Commission Minutes June 18, 1984 Page Three Loren Gunther, 586 N, Prospect, Orange, addres-sed the. Commission, stating that this development could create a problem fpr him as h-is cesspool is right next to the fence and if a sewer comes into this development he wondered if he could connect on to it. Chairman Hart explained that the Conrock representative could address this,. Gary Johnson explained that. he was not familiar with the. configurations within the proposed General Plan Amendment, however, he thought that it was possible that Mr. Gunther could do this. Mr. Gunther explained that as long as there was no building going on now there was no need for him to hook to any proposed sewer line. However, he wanted a promise that the city would allow him. to hook up to sewer lines when this development went in. He was told to come in to the city offices and-talk this over with Mr. Johnson and his staff. Dick Ramella, representing the Planning Center, 240 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, the consultants for Conrock, addressed the. Commission, explaining that there were statements in the ELR that he wished to clarify. He pointed to Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on the map before the Com- missioners,-stating that #1 represents the asphalt plant. This plant is operating on a month to month. basis at this time because the property is for sale. He explained that Conrock does not have control over wfien the plant operates, as it is only a minority holder in the company which produces the asphalt. #2 is the batch plant and Mr. Ramella explained that this plant is winding down in .its operation. Tt will probably cease to operate before the end of the year, #3 is the rock crushing plant and he pointed out that this has been dis- mantled and is gone. Mr. Ramella then addressed the questions regarding the cul-de-sacing of Prospect, explaining that the proposal before the Commission at this time does not contain specific details regarding arterial highway improvements, although he thought this was one of the recommendations of the staff that hearings be held in this regard. He said that the future. plan is to reroute Prospect because it presently makes several sharp right hand turns. They felt that it would be in the best interests of the City of Orange and the people living in that area to make one con- tinuous connection between existing Prospect and Collins through the property and take the arterial highway off the little two-lane road. They recognize that this will cause a strange intersection with Bond and suggest the cul-de-sacing of Propspect as an alternative instead of punching it through to Bond would be in the best interests of the people living along Prospect and the people who will use Bond and connect to Prospect. He then responded to the question with regard to density for this property by saying that it was his belief that there was a condition stating that the density not exceed more than 8 units per acre. He pointed out that at the present time the development has a density of 6 units per acre and he felt that this is compatible with the surrounding land use. ' Planning Commission Minutes June 18, 1984 Page Four ' Commissioner Mason referred to page 3 under Flood Control where it !"'" states that additional studies will be required, asking who will be ~ making those studies. Mr. Ramella replied that it would probably be a qualified civil engineer who had been selected by the property owners. He explained that- the standards for the improvement of the channel would have to be approved by the Orange County Flood Control District. In addition, Conrock would try to insure that whatever is proposed would be consistent with the evolving studies of the Corps of Engineers. He said that they have provided what they judge will be more than suf- ficient right-of-way there for flood control improvement. Gene Block, Vice-President. of Conrock, addressed the Commission, pointing out that regarding development of the property no decision has been made as to whether. they will develop it themselves or whether it will be sold. He explained that they have been contacted by a number of developers. However, they have a wholly owned subsidiary, Conrock Development Company, who are in the development business and have been involved in the planning of this project. Regarding Mr. Gunther's questions about connecting up to any proposed sewer line, he assured the Commission that they will work with. him and solve his problem with regard to sewers. He then requested that the Commission .consider one minor modification to Condition #2 in the Staff Report. This-condition suggests that new Prospect Avenue be dedicated and improved when construction commences on Phase 2 and they would like to have the flexibility to work with Mr. Johnson to change this to: "...prior to any occupancy of Phase 2. That would allow construction up to the release of Phase 2. Shirley Grindle, 19051 Glen Arran, Orange, addressed the Commission and thanked them for forwarding this proposa to the Harbors & Parks Commission for study.. She strongly urged the Commission to do this whenever park designated property is involved. Under the circumstances, she was satisfied with what they got for park property. She also thanked Conrock for offering the property. Ms. Grindle said that she did have some. concerns and realized that many will be answered as the property is developed. However, she wished to high light them. She wondered if the developers of the property would be required to construe t a flood control.. works as property is developed in the event that the Corps of Engineers has not done so. She felt that there is a major. traffic problem in East Orange and this development would just be a part of-same. She wondered what the City of Orange plans to do about all the traffic they are putting on Chapman and Tustin and the mitigations measures that were stated in the EIR would involve improvement of various intersections that are not on their property, but intersections on Chapman Avenue, Handy, Tustin, Yorba, etc. She felt that in order for these projects to work without impact those improvements must be made. She felt that the city is committed, in a way, to doing this, because if they do not do this, then the impacts are negative. Ms. Grindle called attention to a section of the EIR wherein alternatives are mentioned but not described. She felt that this was hard to follow.. She also wondered if the Walnut Avenue drains would be handled before Planning Commission Minutes June 18, 1984 Page Five this project is done. She said that she wished to recommend that the City Council or the Planning Commission do several things. She would like to see, as development plans come in, that the applicant be required to grade and improve the park area, the bicycle trails, on Collins and along the creek, and the rest stop at the time that the sketch is being done. These are listed as being mitigation measures in the ETR, measures that reduce the impact of vehicular traffic and provide a habitat for wildlife and she would hope that the applicant could see fit to do this as they develop the property. She also strongly urged Conrock to develop this property themselves because in doing that they are avoiding having to pass on a higher purchase price to future home buyers. She explained in further detail why she thought Conrock should develop the property themselves. Ms. Grind1e then told the Commission she hoped they would not make the same mistake that was made with the Jones Ranch, This is a piece of property that could be sold off in individual parcels at various times and she did not-want the last developer to be stuck with having to dedicate all of the open space and trails, etc. as had happened with the Jones Ranch. This is very unfair to everyone involved. There being no one else to speak for or against t-his proposal, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Mason, to recommend that the City Council certify ETR 861 and all pertinent supple.- mentary information as having been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and Local guide- lines for implementation of CEQA, and that the City Council find that the mitigation measures outlined in the EIR will reduce to acceptable levels or eliminate any adverse environmental impacts associated with the project. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Plason, Plaster, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners None r10TI0N CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to recom- mend that the City,Council approve an amendment to the 'General Plan Land Use Element on Parcel "A" from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, and an amendment to the Land Use Element and Open Space Conservation Element on Parcel "B", with the exception of the 12 acre park site, 25 foot wide trail, and one acre rest stop, from Park to Low Density Residential and. Medium Density Residential. Further, recommend that development on both parcels shall. not exceed a density of 8 dwelling units/gross acre in order to be compatible with surround- ing residential uses. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend that the City Council approve Zone Change 1008 on Parcel "A" from R-1-6 to R-M-7, and on Parcel "B" from S-G to R-1-6, R-M-7, MH and R-0 in a manner consistent with the Land Use Element designa- tions. Planning Commission Minutes June 18, 1984 ' Page Six It was brought to Commissioner Greek's attention that the staff had requested two additional recommendations and, upon reviewing these, he agreed to include Recommendation #1, but did not wish to include ~,,,,,, Recommendation #2 at this time. Commissioner Master requested that ,. this recommendation be picked up when the Tentative Tract Map comes before the Commission. Mr. Lane explained that the continuity of the project, the alignment of Prospect cannot be taken from this proposal. It must be done at the same time. He pointed out that the property owner understands the condition as it is written and does not have any problem with it. After questions by Commissioners and responses by the staff, Com- missioner Greek then amended his motion, seconded by Commissioner Master, as follows: Recommend that. the City Council approve Zone Change 1008 on Parcel "A" from R-1-6 to R-M-7, and on Parcel "B" from S-G to R-1-6, R-M-7, MH and R-0 in a manner consistent with the Land Use Element designations. Commissioners also recommend that the City Council direct staff to set a public hearing to amend the Circulation Element to show the realignment of Prospect Street as generally indicated on Exhibit 6, page 16 in the ETR. Commissioners also recommended that the City Council direct the property owner to enter into a written agreement with the City of Orange to dedicate and improve Prospect Street in a manner meeting with the approval of the Public Works Director. The agreement shall provide that Prospect Street shall be dedicated to the City of Orange and improved from Collins Street south to the present intersection. of Prospect Street .and Spring Street when construction commences on Phase TI, as indicated on Exhibit 7, page 18 in the EIR. The agree- ment shall be reviewed and found acceptable by the City Attorney prior to the final reading of the ordinance to change the zoning on the property and shall be executed at that time. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners None MOTION CARRIED UPPER PETERS CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 2-84-A (CPA 2-84-A): Consideration of a Specific Plan on 230 acres situated at the south- east corner of Chapman Avenue nd Newport Boulevard. Also considera- tion of an amendment to the Ge eral Plan Land Use Element on the easterly 60 acres of the Speci is Plan area to reallocate Medium and High Density Residential u es, and allow for a 15 acre Mixed Use area. NOTE: Environmental Impact Report No. 868 has been prepared for this project. This item was continued from the June ll, 1984. meeting. John Lane presented this proposal to the Commission, stating that this proposal had been continued from the June 11, 1984 meeting so that Staff and consultant could prepare the necessary responses to the comments that-were made with regard to the EIR. The EIR public .Planning Commission Minutes ' June 18, 1984 Page Seven .review period ended last week and the written responses were dis- tributed to all of those people who either had commented verbally at the public hearing or sent in a written comment to the Planning Com- mission during the public review period. He reported that it was the staff's recommendation that the Commission take action to approve the Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendment, and certify the EIR. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Moraga, Orange .Park Acres, addressed the Commission, asking two questions. He questioned the 4500 sq. f t. lots, of which he can find none of that footage in the City of Orange and this is not covered anywhere in the city building codes. He wondered what is being planned - more open space by providing 4500 sq. f t. lots. He also wanted to know about the 60 f t. height building limitation, since he didn't know of any other 60 f t. buildings in the area. He also commented that what is done in this project will set .the tone for the entire development of that area. He pointed out that the density here is from 10 to 24 times more than what is surrounding that land. Al Bender, 1659 N.S~ymkhar~a,, Orange, addressed the Commission, ref erring to the 240 acres mentioned, in the staff report for the drainage problem. He pointed out that there is more than 240 acres involved, there is more than 1,000 acres. That means that the runoff is much more than what is contained in the study ..and all of that runoff will go into Orange. Park Acres. He also commented on the fire protection, especially for the schoo] areas, explaining that he had been. in the last fire up in that area where 12 houses were lost within a 22 mile area. He went on to explain further how the fires in that area are wind fires and how devastating they can be, with the wind blowing smoke and flame around at 60 to 80 miles per hour. He was concerned. about putting high density housing there. He said that he did not think the fire protection being proposed was adequate. Bob Walters, President of Orange Park Association, Inc., 20012 Grey Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission, pointing out that the city was in a unique position of dealing with .one single owner of a very large piece of property and by absolving .The Lrvine Company of infra- structure requirements for .the entire project the City of Orange would fall into the same trap it previously experienced. with the Jones Ranch development. He said that he hoped the city would benefit from its previous mistakes but felt that they were setting themselves up for future liability when allowing piecemeal development with a large developer. He felt that the city. could save itself by turning down and/or modifying the current plan under consideration, in order to force The Irvine Company come to terms with the overall problems of transportation, traffic flow and the impact on equestrian.. trails. He felt that this needs to be addressed right now. Only by looking at the entire development as part of a 19,000 acre future .development and not as a simple 240 acre project can the city come to terms with the problems entailed. He then handed out copies of a letter from the association to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes June 18, 1984 Page Eight Pat Seman, representing the Municipal Advisory Council, addressed the Commission, referring them to page 82 of the EIR. She stated that the Municipal Advisory Council recorr~nends disappr~uafi ~of'°the~ EIR and she asked that the Commission recommend disapproval. She addressed the question of arterial highways, pointing out that this is a county plan, not a city plan. She pointed out the impaction upon Tustin A~~enu~~ and explained that the developer is-not asking for a primary arterial, but a major arterial, as the average daily trips will be over the 30-35,000 trips per day which is called for on a primary arterial highway. She pointed out that .given the amount of pro- jected traffic on Chapman Avenue, the average drive will avoid traveling on that street, placing a traffic burden on other resi- dentia1 streets in Orange. She gave figures of traffic volume on the streets of Orange with and without the Loma extension. She pointed out that Newport Avenue is a primary arterial at this time and the North Tustin residents are not too happy with that fact. However, she did not think they would accept Newport Avenue being enlarged from a primary arterial to-a major arterial. She pointed out that they have asked questions as to the striping of Newport Avenue and have been given no answers. She said that they found no fault with the design of the development - it is a beautiful development - what they would call a textbook enclave. However, the type of incremental building that has occurred over the past 15 years has impacted the residents of East Orange and north Tustin severely and they do not want any more incremental building until a road is built to accommodate that area. She figured that Weir Canyon Road would 6e the one, since Proposition A did not pass in the most recent election. That road should intersect at the Santa Ana Canyon area and would take some of the pressure of traffic from that area. Richard Siebert, 13838 Kennymead, City of Orange, addressed the Commission, speaking to the benefits of the project as opposed to the environmental risks. He felt that there were several items that have not been adequately addressed by the Irvine Company or the City of Orange. He called attention to a letter written by the Orange Park Acres Association asking questions regarding this project and the responses given, especially the answers given with regard to the traffic impact on the area. He also called attention to the comments made with regard to equestrian traffic, which he felt is essential to their area. Then he read various sections of the response sheet,. which spoke to .the equestrian trail which would be provided in the .Canyon View area. He pointed. out to the Commission that what is being done here is to effectively cut off the .trail getting to the recreational area in the hills of East Orange, which will decrease the enjoyment of the people in that area of a natural resource. Mr. Siebert went on to say that the Irv ine Company must realize that they are building a development in an already populated. area and thus will impact that area severely. He felt that the responses to their letter do not address the problem of the East Orange area, Orange Park Acres on north Tustin and they find the attitudes of the Irvine Company unacceptable. Planning Commission Minutes June 18, 1984 Page Nine Philip Schwartz, representing the company who prepared .the environ- mental document which is before the Commissioners, addressed the ared to respond to any questions re that he was Commission statin p p g which the Commission might have, as well as .the responses brought up at this hearing. He felt that the comments made this evening were being addressed to a plan which has yet to be prepared. We are talking. at this time about concepts - concrete plans are not yet available. The next phase which the developer would get into would be to design detailed plans of what is being proposed. He used as an example the fact that where you are allowed to put up to 24 units per acre, exactly how many units would be placed there realistically speaking. That isn't known at this time. Therefore, they must look at worst case situations and go from there. The EIR was written using worst case situations, however, this doesn't mean that is the way it will be. . He addressed the 60 f t. building height, saying that they have.re- quested this so that they could look at the impact. it would have, but they will not necessarily be building to those specifications. He called attention to the response they made in their report in this regard. He then addressed the Orange Park have made to their questions and questions and comments made this until the time when a detailed pl for them to give accurate answers felt that he could not respond to Acres letter and the responses they comments. He felt that many of the evening have been very .valid, but an is.presented, it is impossible to many of the questions. He also the questions which had been brought up regarding fire protection in the area in question. He hoped that perhaps members of the city staff could answer this. He pointed out in their report where they had given mitigation measures for many of the concerns which have been voiced. Chairman Hart referred to page 2-2 of the Specific Plan. and voiced a concern about the last sentence of that paragraph, .. high density residential uses. are also permitted..." He said that it was his under- standing and his hope that there would be some income producing properties in that phase of-development in that 15 acres and this statement caused him to believe that not even that 15 acres was. sacred. Mr. Schwartz explained that what is being determined in the Specific Plan is that the uses are undetermined at this time for a variety of factors, not the least of which is the Eastern Corridor which would go through there. With the controls contained in the Specific Plan and the approval which they. must go through. coming to .the Commission and Council, he felt that any variety of uses can be applied for. It would be at the discretion of the City to approve them. There being no one else to speak for or against. this proposal, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vasquez asked a question of Mr. Johnson, with regard to page 83 of the EIR, dealing with mitigations. measures as to the traffic impact in that area and-what the feasibili:ties are for those measures. Mr. Johnson responded in detail as to how these mitigations measures could handle the problems. He spoke in great detail of how~restriping Planning Commission Minutes June 18, 1984 Page Ten ' would be handled and what the final results would be, and also mentioned that there would be more hearings in this regard. He also spoke of the complications which would be involved in this matter of relocating Chapman Ave.- He explained about the realignment of the road and the fact that this .would be a joint project between the City of Orange and The Irvine Company. He said that the project has not been submitted as an FAU project but that he thought there was a good possibility that we could get funds to help with it. Commissioner Vasquez voiced his concern with regard to the fact that the mitigation measures hinge on fiscal capabilities or the ability to secure cooperation, or the ability to gain support of other jurisdictions. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recom- mend that the City Council certify ELR 868 and all pertinent appendices and supplemental information as having been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and Local guide- lines for implementation of CEQA, and that the City Council find that the mitigation measures outlined in the EIR will reduce or eliminate any adverse environmental impacts associated with the project. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Master, Vasquez NOES: Comissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Mason stated that she was abstaining from voting because she had not been in attendance at the original hearing last week. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2-84-A. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Greek voiced his concerns. with regard to the uses in the mixed use area. He agreed with Chairman Hart that he did not wish to see high density in the mixed use area. He explained that he would like to leave the issue of the equestrian trail open until the first Tenta- tive Tract Map along Canyon View Avenue is voted upon. He felt that the type of housing provided here is compatible with our life style; but a line should be drawn somewhere, and he felt it should be at Chapman Avenue. He said that he was making these statements as a personal statement as a citizen of Orange. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recom- mend that the City Council approve the Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan,. with an amendment to delete the permitted residential use as a permitted use in the mixed use area and reserving the right to make final deter- mination of the location of the Canyon View Avenue equestrian trail at the time of the first Tentative Tract Map approval, or prior thereto. Planning Commission Minutes June 18, 1984 Page Eleven AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Master, Vasquez NOES: Corronissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED Dr. Podolak addr-essed the Commission, requesting that the Orange Park Acres Association be notified when any meetings are held in regard to the Tentative Tract Map. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS. ZONE CHANGE 1004, TENTATIVE TRACT 12082 - SOUTHRIDGE DEVELOPMENT: Request to rezone from A-l, R-1-6, and R-1-8 to the PC (Planned Community). District, and to subdivide into 408 lots, the 240± acre area on the east side of Meats Avenue, north of the Edison easement in the Anaheim Hills area. NOTE: EIR 854 has been prepared for this project. Jack McGee presented this application to the Commission, stating that this site is 240± acres in size, located on the east side of Meats Avenue, north of and ,including-a portion of the. Edison easement in the Anaheim Hills area. This property extends approximately one mile east of Meats Avenue, to the proposed Loma Street/Imper.ial Highway location. The site has approximately 3700 feet of frontage on Meats Avenue and 1400 feet of frontage on future Loma Street/ Imperial Highway.. At present, the site is an undeveloped ridge and canyon area ranging in elevation from 560 feet to 940 feet. The southerly edge of the site is traversed by Edison Company power lines. He explained that this area was annexed to the city about 8 years ago. A General Plan Amendment was done on the entire Southridge area, to- gether with Anaheim Hills holdings and some additional areas, with General P]an designations being applied at that time. These were Low Density &Medium Density Resident~ia7.designations. A parcel map -was approved by the city late last year, which divided this 240 acre piece off from-.the rest of the Southridge holdings of the Anaheim Hi71s Texaco Company. Mr. McGee explained that the request being made this evening is a zone change from the A-1 zone, R-1-6 zone and R-1-8 zone to the PC ( Planned CotTmuni ty) District. He pointed out that as part of the request for the PC zone, there is a development plan which indicates what the specific uses for the various areas would be within the area. He pointed out the exhibit in place on the wall, which indicated in color what those different areas will allow. He explained that the yellow area indicates basically a single-family type of .use which would be in that portion; the orange-colored area showed a duplex, or slightly higher density use; the tan outlined in darker color indicated a multi-family development, with again a little higher density. The green area showed an Edison Company easement area which .would retain uses which are allowed in the city's A-l zone, these being agricultural type uses of a non-developmental nature. Mr. McGee further explained that what is being proposed. in the yellow area are 300 single-family residences, with some special use type lots, with the larger one shown on the map being an open space lot. He also Planning Commission Minutes. June 18, 1984. Page Twelve pointed out a water reservoir site on the map, together with a radio tower site, explaining that the radio tower already exists on the property at this time and will be relocated. This is a commercial radio tower for one of the local radio stations, with an antenna of about 170 feet in height. Staff recommends that the EIR be certified by the City Council as having been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and Local guidelines for implementa- tion of CEQA; and that the City Council find that with .the implementa- tion of recommended mitigation measures contained in the document the adverse effects would be reduc ed to acceptable levels. Staff also recommends that the City Council adopt Zone Change 1004, zoning the site PC (Planned Community) and incorporating the Development Plan and Map as part. of the enacting ordinance. Staff further. recommends that the City Council approve Tentative Tract ]2082, subject. to the 43 conditions ]fisted in the Staff Report. He then pointed out. that there had been a revision on Condition #5, changing it to :read from: "...being issued on .Lots 401, 402 and 403," to "...being issued on the second ,500 units". And from "...and Loma Street/Imperial Highway shall be constructed from Serrano Avenue to Via Escolla." to: "...and Loma shall be constructed two lanes in width providing access to arterial highways within the City of Orange." He then explained that this revision attempts to ensure that all traffic from the entire tract, once it is developed, would .not focussed on one street, out onto Meats Avenue, but that there would be other accessways within the area. Mr. McGee then. read to the Commission several conditions which would be considered unique and unusual, those being Conditions #13, 20, 25, 26 and 41. Commissioner Master referred to page 5 of the staff report with regard to comments on fiscal impact, asking for clarification as to which municipality will be collecting the sales tax generated from this tract. He brought out that there .had been much discussion in this regard some years back. He stated strong feelings about this and asked fora discussion among. the Commissioners with regard to their feelings in this regard.. He pointed out that probably road projects and other improvements will have to be subsidized by other Orange residents. Chairman Hart agreed with Commissioner Master's thinking in this matter. Commissioner Master asked for input from the staff as to where they think this revenue will come from. Jere Murphy responded that the cost revenue study has been completed basically by the consultant for the applicant. Staff has indicated that they differ with the philosophy behind the analysis and that the retail sales tax and business license fees, together with the commercial Q property tax are related to the purchasing power of the occupants of the tract. It is felt that this money would basically come back to .the City of Orange whether the tract is built in the City of Orange or the City of Anaheim... The jurisdictional difference of the tract development would probably not change the buying habit of occupants .Planning Commission Minutes June 18, 1984 Page Thirteen p of those residential units. He explained that the discussions with the applicants have not included possible mitigation measures for what the staff considers to be a deficit of approximately $150,000 per year i~n costs vs . revenue from the tract. He .thought that if the Commission found this deficit to be significant enough, they should direct the staff to meet with the applicant to investigate alternative of covering that deficit. Some of those alternatives could include special districts. Chairman-Hart opened the public hearing. Bob Micke]son, 3823 E. Cassell Ave., Orange, representing the Tracy Development Company, the applicant,. gave a brief presentation of this project to the Commi sion. He stated that the plan before the Com- missioners was designed in accordance with the. General Plan which was adopted sometime-ago, based on studies done at that time by Texaco and Anaheim Hills, which strives to implement that General Plan in terms. of land use and density, traffic-circulation, air space, etc. He pointed out that there have been many meetings with. the city staff to work out all of these details. He then explained that about 210. units would be placed in the R-1-6 area, with the. remainder in the higher density area, the entire area being developed with a graduated density. He said that the market will to some extent dictate in what sequence these units wi71 be built. Mr. Mickelson then explained that they have developed the zoning along with. the site plan and the development plan, also to implement the General Plan.. He then went into greater detail as to exactly how the entire project was being designed. He told about how the Com- mission would have the option. of approving the tract which they are applying for tonight, or later on they could apply for a conditional use permit for a planned .development, while ma intaining that same density. He also pointed out that the condominium units planned for the higher density area would require a conditional use permit.. also. He explained that they have applied the R-M-7 site-development standards in the text of the. zone in which this. was written. However, they hav e also added the condition. that the conditional use. permit must be .added for any type of development, .which he felt was a unique concept, ex- plaining what purposes were. had in mind when this was. done. He went on to explain in the two-family zone there is site planning as well as in the higher density area. The Commission would either .approve this. tract or approve a later conditional use .permit. With the way the zoning has been written, the Commission will have a site plan for the entire area 20 as it develops. Mr. Mickelson then reviewed the landscape .design for the project,. stating that the landscape architect had developed a landscaping plan. for this project which is specifically designed for this location. Among its major features: is the fact that it is designed within the residential portions to soften the- effect of the: development on the hill, with the view ]ots having filtered views through many trees. Planning Commission Minutes June 18, 1984 Page Fourteen C He felt that it is important to have a softened hilltop effect, which this landscaping will give. He explained that lot A is one that is visible from many areas of the city and it will- be necessary to put some drainage structures there, plus manmade slopes and benches. Therefore, the landscaping must be placed to soften the manmade slopes and. hide the benches from the view of those below. He said that they have spent. much time. going over the conditions with the staff. They are not 100% satisfied, but they do accept them. Chairman Hart referred. to .a letter received by the city from attorneys fof~ an-adjacent tract in regar-d•~to ground water problems. ~He was .concerned that this development might have some problems in this .area. Mr. Mickelson referred this concern to Mr. Johnson, who stated that their feeling is that there will be ground water and it is a matter of doing as good a soil inv~stigation!.and soil eval,uatiorr as possible. In every development of this type there have been sub-drains and mitigating measures. 4Jhat invariably happens if these drains are not installed, is .that once the. tract gets in and. is completed. with landscaping in and growth beginning, that is when ground water problems hit. This is the nature of this type of soil. and once development goes in there are usually ground water problems. Their experience is that this is a problem to be concerned about. It must be resolved, called out, and specifically discussed in the final. soil geological investigation. Bart Striker, geological engineer, addressed the Commission, stating that he concurred with Mr. Johnson`s statements regarding ground water and that a geological report will address this problem at the time of final design. Commissioner Master. expressed concern about the financial aspect of the development. Mr. Mickelson responded that Mr.Gobar's .position is that it doesn't matter much where tax dol.1ars are assigned, it will come from the same people. Their estimate is that about 60% of these people's money will be spent in the City of :Orange. There will definitely be a deficit. Bob Bennyhoff addressed the Commission, asking how this project can be voted upon until .such time as the law suit. is settled against Texaco. Mr. Minshew responded that there could not be a final action on this project at this. time. This development is-part of a parcel map which is being contested. It was his understanding that there could not be a final action at this time. Mr. Murphy called attention to Condition #22, which reads: "That all conditions of Parcel Map.#83-765 be complied with prior to the issuance of any grading or constru ction permits." Stewart Simons, 5501 Crater Lake, Orange, addressed the Commission, wondering if this development is tied to both the completion of Via Escolla and the completion of Loma. Mr. McGee responded that a condition is being placed that before-ultimate development there will be a second access road from this project to connect it to the rest of the arterial system.. htr. Simons then asked if this implies that Loma must be connected all the way down south to Imperial before Planning Commission Minutes June 18, 1984 Page Fifteen this project can be built. Mr. McGee replied that this has been worded in such a way that if there are other alternates that are devised between now and the time that that may be necessary there is alternate design or alternate locations of an arterial street could suffice and meet that condition rather than specifically saying Loma must be that route. However, on the current Master Plan of Arterial Highways the route is Loma.. Therefore, the implication is that if the Loma/Imperial connection is not built, this project cannot be completed. Ed Sutzer, 5330 Tewesbury,Anahe~m, addressed. the Commission, stating that he had two .concerns with regard to the proposed project. His first concern was with the density proposed for .the. tan area on the map. He explained that he had enjoyed the natural terrain above him. since he had purchased his residence. He had no illusions about it staying that way forever, However, he had moved into a single-family complex where the neighborhood h.as approximately two dwelling units per acre. He personally lives on one acre of land and most of hi.s neighbors are on similar sized parcels of property. If the proposed projects is placed in that area, there would be 14 condominiums per acre, which clearly is not compatible with what is already there. He recommended two actions: (1) reduce the allowed density in Planning Unit E; or (2) provide. for a substantial green belt along the boundary immediately between Planning Unit E and the adjoining development... He explained.that he was only stressing Planning Unit E because the other units either have lesser density or are not immediately adjacent to currently developed land. Mr. Sutzer's second concern was with the drainage of Planning Unit E. If he understood correctly, the Planning Staff had recommended Condition #20, which was designed to address. the.. drainage to the south of the development. However, he had not heard of any conditions to protect the development to the north. He pointed out that during the heavy rains of a year and a half ago, their development incurred damage of about $180,000 in slippage from water. He knows that he will be getting a substantial amount of water from this proposed development and would appreciate a condition protecting him from this kind of thing. Gaylord Robles., 5370 Tewesbury, Anaheim, addressed the Commission, stating that he had all the same concerns as those of the previous speaker. He further pointed out on the map where the slippage occurs from the above hillsides. He w.as .also concerned vrith the dwelling unit density. He wondered about landscaping for the north side of the tract, as well as the south side which was mentioned by Mr. Mickel son. He wondered if the Anaheim Master Association could make any comment about the blending from .Anaheim into Orange. Ed Stillman, 1814 Mt. McKinley, Orange, addressed the Commission, asking about Commissioner Master's concern about a deficit, would the deficit be occurring due to building the connection of Loma to Imperial. Chairman Hart explained that the deficit would be in providing services to the development, i.e. fire, police, street, etc. Mr. Stillman explained that he lived south of Loma and felt that .the 60% deficit figure was low, because he felt it was more • Planning Commission Minutes- June 18,'i984 Page Sixteen convenient for residents of that area to go to Anahim to do their shopping than it was to go to Orange. Ed Nice,. 5502 Crater Lake, Orange, addressed. the Commission, asking a question with regard to the amount of traffic which would come out of that project on a daily basis. Mr. McGee responded that there is a traffic count within the EIR, stating 1740 trips per day onto Loma from this project, 1.300. north on Imperial, about 2600 on Meats and about 3000 up to Nohl Ranch Road. Mr. Nice was also. interested in knowing if these developments will be having the roofs. The answer to him was that there is a condition on this tract that-there must be a Class B roof on these dwellings. Commissioner Master read the condition regarding roof material. Commissioner Greek commented. that there is an ordinance requiring certain roofing material to be used in high fire danger areas. Mr. Minshew agreed that there is an ordinance to this effect. It was agreed that Class B roofing material is fire-resistant material but not necessarily tile. Mr. Minshew explained in greater detail with regard to Condition #22, that the Commission could take a final action on the TT map and then insist that the matter of grading must be resolved before going ahead with the project. Mr. Simons again addressed the Commission, asking if this is the total development being considered tonight. He was told that this is only the first phase. 240 acres are being considered out of 1000 acres.. Ne then asked where the balance of the project will be built and was told that it would go east of Loma/Imperial. Mr. Simons then asked if the issue of Via Escolla continuing to the east had been resolved. and where-would it eventually go. Mr. Johnson explained that there have already been developments approved in Anaheim in that area and certain of those tracts have shown an extension. of that road. He further explained that this road i.s shown as a commuter road, not an arterial. He said that the alignment of the road has not been too precise and it could 6e .very circuitous. It is his understanding that this would be a ridgeline road. However, this depends upon the precise alignment which is finally decided upon. Mr. Simons said that it was his understanding that the County would be voting upon this road as a secondary arterial. Mr. Johnson did not believe that the County was planning for this road to go beyond Loma. Mr. Mickelson again addressed the Commission in rebuttal. He stressed Mr. Minshews statements, stating that they are well aware that the project is contingent-upon .the final resolution of the parcel map. Regarding the questions asked about a possible reduced density or greenbelt area for Planning Unit E, he explained that because of the topography on the north side tk~ere will naturally be a rather substantial greenbelt in that area, which will be a natural slope. He further explained on the map exactly what is proposed to be done in that area. There will be no additional drainage taken from that slope, it will remain a natural slope, enhanced somewhat with landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes June 18,1984 Page Seventeen There being no-one else. to speak .for or against this proposal, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Greek asked a question of Mr. Johnson, pointing out that at the study session they had looked at this map, but had not had much discussion other than the large number of cul de sacs in excess of 600 feet. He wondered if anything has been changed since that time. Mr. Johnson explained that .they have done what they could to mitigate the 600 f t. requirement. He felt that probably the most .critical area was the duplex area in Orange, which has one major access point, with several cul de sac complexes. There is an emergency fire access road which wi]1 go off to the east at the end of the most northeasterly cul de sac and this was thought by the fire department to be adequate to serve the area for fire protection. They approved of this as a mitigating measure. He pointed out two more cul de sacs in the south- west corner of the project, one of .which is the 600 ft. minimum and the other ranging around 700 to 800 feet.. He thought there was a maximum of 20 units on each cul de sac. It was determined that due to the limited terrain and the fact that there were a limited number of units taking access that it met the criteria that the fire department had tried to establish. Commissioner Greek asked about whether the- reduced width streets were 44 ft. and was told that al l of these streets conform to the city's hillside standards. Mr, Johnson went into further detail as to how these streets were set up for two way traffic and parking. Commissioner Vasquez commented in relation to any other projects in the city, he was concerned about the multi-family units in this project. He wondered if there were any other projects of this size or magnitude in the city which have-this kind of configuration in terms of access, circulation, etc. He was rather concerned about ingress and egress going in off of Via Esco]la and being able to .function in a police situation, as opposed to afire situation. Mr. Johnson thought that there were similar .situations, citing one or two other projects-with similar numbers of cul de sacs .and limited access. However, he did not think the city has anything exactly like this at this point in time. The problem here is that the terrain is somewhat limited. Mr. Sutzer again approached the Commission, asking fora point of clarification. He wondered where the northernmost construction would take place in Plarining Unit E. Mr. Mickelson showed him where this would take place on the map. Question was then asked as to what Loma connected .with and. the answer was that nothing was buil t down to Loma. Mr. Mickelson approached the map and explained to the Commission what he had explained. to Mr. Sutzer. He then responded in greater detail. to Commissioner Vasquez's concern. He explained that a condition has been imposed whereby an emergency access mustbe provided. He pointed this out on the map before the Commissioners. Planning Commission Minutes June 18, 1984 Page Eighteen Moved by Commissioner Mason, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend that the City Council certify that EIR 854 has been com leted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA~ and the State and Local guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and that the City Council find that with the implementation of recommended mitigation measures contained in the document the adverse effects would be reduced to .acceptable levels. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED -Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mason, to recommend that the City Council adopt Zone Change`1004, zoning the site PC (Planned Community) and incorporating the Development Plan and Map as part of the enacting ordinance, fo1^'the reasons that the proposed zoning and development plan are consistent with the adopted General Plan for the area; and the proposed land uses are compatible with the surrounding areas. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTLON CARRIED Commissioner Master stated that before a motion was made with regard to the Tentative Tract, which would be subject to the 43 conditions set forth in the staff report, he wished to add another condition: 44. Prior to City Council review, that applicant and staff investigate and resolve a method to eliminate the annual deficit. Commissioner Greek asked fora postponement of action on the Tentative Tract Map, in order to allow for more input in the areas of concern brought up this evening. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to continue Tentative Tract 12082 to July 2, 7984, in order to address the concerns of the Commissioners, i.e. access egress and .ingress of mu lti-family area and in sing le-family areas, as outlined 6y Commissioners Greek and Vasquez; and the financial deficit. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master., Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1343 - CHANTRY Request to construct a two-story building within the RD6 (RCD) .District on the west-side of'Center Street, north of Palmyra Avenue (352 S. Center). NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review. By consensus of the Commissioners, no presentation was presented. Planning Commission Minutes June 18, 1984. Page Nineteen Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Joel Chantry, 3284 N. Swidler Street, Orange, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He pointed out that the setbacks and turn radius were changed by one foot to meet the City Code. He stated that he concurred with the staff report and accepted the conditions set forth in same. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1343, subject to the seven conditions set forth in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1346 - EPISCOPAL SERVICE ..ALLIANCE: Request to provide a shelter for homeless women in the C-1 zone on the east side of Glassell Street, north of Palmyra Avenue. NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review. By consensus of the Commissioners, no presentation was made. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Dennis White, Executive Director of the Episcopal Service Alliance, 26446 Evergreen Road, San Juan Capistrano, the applicant, addressed the Commission-in favor of this application. He stated that he had nothing to add to the staff report and concurred with what was con- . tained therein. There being no one else to speak to thTS issue, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Vasquez asked how long they have been in Santa Ana and was told that they .have been there for one year. The reason for moving is that they need larger facilities. Also, the e;ty of Santa Ana will not allow any shelters such as this. Commissioner. Vasquez then asked how they deal with the issue of_children when women arrive at the facility. Mr. Wh ite explained that their shelter is only for homeless single women. They do not take children, but are in contact. with other community facili-ties who will take families. Commissioner Vasquez asked what the criteria is for accepting these women and was. told that these women must be homeless. They do not deal with alcohol, drugs, etc. This is an interim type of facility. Commissioner Vasquez'commen ed with regard to this ..type of facility by saying that'he-has never been against extending a helping hand to people in need and perhaps-there is a need for a facility of this type in the City of Orange. However, he was concerned because he felt that the city has been inundated in recent .years with a variety of facilities to assist people who are in transit, or. going through a re-entry program, who are coming back into the community that have needs. -He cited several of these types of facilities which are located in the City of Orange. Planning.. Commission Minutes June 16, 1964. Page Twenty He felt that what he ha seen in some of these facilities is extremely distressing-and disappointing. His concern with this particular facility was that it can become a problem for local law enforcement because of the types of people who sometimes gravitate to these kinds of facilities. He pointed out that directly across the street from this proposed facility is a pre-school, with another pre-school just half a block down the street,-with many children in the vicinity and numerous churches in the vicinity. Therefore, he had serious reserva- tions about such. a facility being placed. in such a compact building in this type of neighborhood. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Greek, to deny Conditional Use Permit 1346, for the reasons outlined by Commissioner Vasquez. Commissioner Master proposed an alternative that a fif th condition be placed on the CUP, that the application be reviewed after six months to see how it is working in the community. Commissioner Vasquez responded that the Commission has done this before and it has come to .a negotiation or compromise, with problems not being solved down the road. TENTATIVE TRACT 11200, CONDITIONAL USE PERMLT 1347 - BASIC SHELTER: Request to develop a 7-unit planned unit development in the RM-7 zone on the east side of Glassell Street, south of Collins .Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 907 is prepared for this project. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners. ABSENT: Commissioners Greek., Mason, Vasquez .Hart, Master none MOTION CARRIED By consensus of the Commissioners, no presentation was made. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Jim Natum, representing Basic Shelter, 9492 Santos Circle, Villa Park, addressed the. Commission, stating that he had nothing to add to the staff report and concurred with all recommendations of staff. .7 Commissioner Mason asked he`staff if .there is any concern about street par king .along. Glassell, wondering if there was any possibility that this parking would eventually be eliminated. .She felt that this could be a potential problem. Mr. Johnson responded that there was always a chance that. parking would be eliminated there. However, th.e ultimate plan for Glassell would not indicate that. par king would be eliminated. As an alternative, of course., to the widening of :the street, then the parking might be removed, He did nv t think this would be something that the staff would recommend, because there are so many units now along Glassell which need the parking on-street. Planning Commission Minutes June 18, 1984 Page Twenty-One Toner Greek seconded b Commissioner Mason, to Moved by Commiss , Y accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 907. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez Moved 6y Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Tentative Tract 11200 and Conditional Use Permit 1347, for the reasons as stated by staff and subject to the conditions specified in the staff. report. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 70::55 p.m., to be reconvened at a regular meeting on Monday, July 2, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers,,300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. ^~