Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/11/1984 - Minutes PC` PLANNING COMMISSION ` MINUTES `` City of Orange - Orange, California June 11, 1984 Monday, 7:30 p.m. A special meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of a public hearing on the Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment 2-84-A and Environmental Impact Report #868. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Mason STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; and Toba V. Wheeler, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Staff presentation was made by John Lane, Administrator of Advance Planning. He said the 230-acre specific plan under consideration is a follow-up on the general plan efforts in 1978 and 1979 in connection with the preparation of the general plan amendment for the 1600 acres to the east of the City of Orange, at which time an amendment to the general plan was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council and adopted. About two years ago a multi-interest steering committee was formed, which was responsible for the review process which resulted in the selection of a planning consultant to prepare the specific plan. During the past year and a half the steering committee met at least twelve times to monitor the progress of the specific plan, joint study sessions were held between the Planning Commission and the City Council, and numerous discussions were held with service groups, community organizations, realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, and concerned individuals. On April 25, 1984, after a presentation by the consultant, the steering committee recommended to the City Council that a public hearing should be held, and the City Council directed Staff to set this public hearing before the Planning Commission. The property is scheduled for annexation consideration by the Orange County Local Agency Formation Committee on August 1. City Staff supports the planning effort and will recommend after the public hearings that the Planning Commission take the necessary action to approve the specific plan and so recommend to the City Council, and also take action to certify the Environmental Impact Report and to amend the general plan. However, since some letters on this matter have been received that have not yet been reviewed, and since the requirements of the EIR are that comments relative to it be responded to, the recommendation to approve and certify presumes that there won`t be any action taken at this meeting, although the recommendation still holds. Staff requests that it be given at least a week to respond to comments and correspondence. r Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1984 Page Two Philip Schwartz, planning consultant with the firm of Philli s p Brandt Reddick, which prepared the specific plan and the EIR, addressed the Planning Commission on the background of how the planning study came together and the purpose of the .specific plan and the EIR. He said the adoption of the general plan by the City for the 1600 acres which are a portion of The Irvine Company land in Upper Peters Canyon was the preliminary step to eventual annex- ation and development, and that this specific plan and EIR is another step down the road but certainly some way from ultimate approval. The joint committee concept was agreed to by the City and The Irvine Company and the County of Orange was invited to participate due to some regional issues in the area. Mr.. Schwartz said the purpose of the specific plan and the EIR is to establish a more detailed land use area and development standards than are in the general plan. The Irvine Company is not only seeking annex- ation but also early cancellation of the agricultural preserve, which is allowed by state law for a proposed development adjacent to an existing urban area. Although the County is participating in the study, the approval of the general plan ar~endment, the adoption of the specific plan, the certification of the EIR, the annexation, and-the agricultural preserve cancellation are all future City actions with which the Planning Commission will be faced. The EIR, which addresses all of those actions with the specificity of the information available to date, was circulated on April 27 and has gone for its 45-day review period. John McKenna, also with Phillips Brandt Reddick,. highlighted the details~of the specific plan. Using the graphic depictions posted, he described the four actions that would have to be taken as 1) identifying the areas that would be the subject of an amendment to the existing general plan, which is necessary to reconfigure and reallocate some medium- and high-density areas as well as to estab- lished the mixed-use area, 2) approval of the specific plan itself for the 230 acres proposed to be developed, 3) cancellation of the agricultural preserve, and 4) annexation of the entire 230 acres. Mr. McKenna said the objectives of the specific plan are: 1) to implement the 1979 general plan when the urban character and density of the area were established, but staying within the residential cap limit of 2,000 dwelling ,units, 2) to insure the balance of public services and facilities are provided in context with the development of the land in an orderly and logical extension of the City's structure system and to insure that these public services and facilities necessar t d t th i l y o accommo a e e area are n p ace, 3) to respond to the dynamics of the changes within the family composi- tion and lifestyle preferences that are being experienced, 4) to respond to the variety of local and regional issues and concerns, and 5) to provide for an opportunity to implement planning principles with the development and use of the property in both a residential and a mixed-use context. Mr. McKenna said the specific plan is both a planning and a x Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1984 ~°' Page Three regulatory tool. The planning is contained in the first two chapters which give the background and history with respect to this particular piece of property as well as describing in detail the various compon- ents, the land use, circulation master plans, various infrastructure plans, housing programs, public facilities, open space and recreation plans, and landscape outlines that comprise the heart of the specific plan. Chapter Three establishes the regulatory mechanism in the same vein as a zoning ordinance to establish development standards and controls for the various uses that are identified within the specific plan, addresses the three categories of residential development as well as the mixed use areas, and provides a detailed set of standards that will serve to guide. the development, implementation and use of the property over time. Mr. McKenna ,said that the specific plan has evolved over a period of several months involving the steering committee composed of repre- sentatives of the City, the County, the school district, .and The ~, Irvine Company; as well as a technical advisory committee composed of staff members of these same agencies. These committees explored a variety of land .uses, residential configurations, commercial configurations and opportunities, circulation concepts, and infra- structure concepts, and came up with five alternatives which were evaluated and trimmed to three, and finally to one preferred alter- native which was refined in the course of preparation and the draft review period, culminating in the land use plan that is under consideration at this meeting. Mr. McKenna outlined the manner in which the specific plan responds to local issues and concerns, as follows: 1) the specific measures necessary to accommodate the project from a traffic standpoint are indicated within the document as well as the timing with respect to those improvements, 2) land use compatability is addressed by pro- vision for a transition of low density areas and an interface with the county designated regional park, 3) provision is made for a a drainage plan at Handy Creek and very specific criteria and standards are established for any future drainage plan, 4) public services and facilities have been provided for, particularly with respect to school sites and police and fire facilities, 5) open space, recreation areas and ~edestri:anb~ eguestraan:a~ld bicycle trails are provided for, and 6) a phasing program is identified that addresses the improvements of various streets and infra- structure systems in concert with the development of the residential and mixed-use portions of the project. Mr. McKenna used a map of the proposedproject to point out the various areas discussed, as well as a chart containing projected costs and revenues to the City of Orange. He summarized by saying that the specific plan is the product of months of work by the steering and technical committees, the City Staff, and consulting input from the public which was gathered at two public workshops, and provides for the orderly and logical implementation of the City`s general plans and policies established five years ago. He said it responds to the issues that were identified during the course of the study and establishes the regulatory mechanism to control the development and use of this property over time. J Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1984 Page Four Mr. Schwartz ended the presentation by saying that he and other personnel of Phillips Brandt Reddick will respond to any questions from either the members of the Planning Commission or the public. Chairman Hart called for comments from the public at large and said the City Planning Department had received correspondence from the Santiago Municipal Advisory Council, Anita and Robert Bennyhoff and the Orange Park Acres Association, all of which will be made a part of the record. Ted Botens, 10802 Meads, Orange, said he had submitted a letter just prior tb~ this meeting, and requested that it be included within the 45-day limit since the 45th day was a Sunday. Chairman Hart asked Mr. Schwartz if this letter could be included, Mr. Schwartz said it could, and Chairman Hart said the letter would become a part of the record and would be answered by the consultant. Mr. Botens said the EIR was not clear in three areas of the plan, namely: 1) Was the impact of the future Santiago Community College considered in the traffic studies, 2) what impact will the ultimate traffic have on the ability of residents of the Orange Park Acres area to get into Irvine Park and what provision will be made to assure easy access to the park,-and 3) since it appears that the developer of the area i§ required only not to do any more damage than has already been done regarding drainage in the area, how is .the current status of the drainage problems going to be defined and what criteria will be used to define whether additional damage exceeds what is already there. Al Bender, 1659 Gymkana Street, Orange, discussed the current life- style within Orange Park Acres and objected to the so-called progress that will bring two roads, freeways, traffic signals, traffic bottle- necks, 2,000 dwelling units in an area no larger than Orange Park Acres, 60-foot high buildings, etc., and said that Orange Park Acres will become a City island subject to external non-local traffic. He said he believes The Irvine Company's figures on drainage are 100% incorrect and the the proposed plan puts high density, a park and a school right in the path of drainage and does away with the natural collection basin. He said the school site will_be under water three months of the year and every time there has been afire in the area it comes down right through the site for which high density is planned. He said he would like to see a constructive plan, not one that is destructive to the area. Robert Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange, said his letter speaks for itself but wished to add an additional item, that of the proposed two-lanes of Weir Canyon Road from Chapman Avenue to I-5. He said he read all the documents and can't find more than a hundred words on this key ingredient of the proposed development, with no mention of where on Chapman Avenue this proposed two-lane road will hook in. ® He commented also that there is no mention about the impact this proposed development is going to have on Orange Park Boulevard, which will undoubtedly be used as an alternative to Chapman Avenue Planning Commission Minutes ~ June 11, 1984 Page Five when the traffic builds up on that street and he feels the residents of Orange Park Acres are entitled to know what will happen since Orange Park Boulevard is the only road that bisects their community. Patricia P. Seman, member of the Santiago Municipal Advisory Council, said this organization does not find the EIR adequate and urges that approval not be given because it will result in an unfavorable impact on the areas of Tustin along Newport Boulevard. The organization feels that the EIR does not address the matter of flood water flowing southward into the City of Tustin or the matter of increased traffic along Newport Boulevard if it is changed to a major arterial, not only in relation to the parking facilities for office buildings in the area but also because of the many residential accesses off of Newport Boulevard-that would become hazardous, especially to school children, with the increase of traffic. Gera]d Podolak, 1186 Ridgeline Avenue, Orange, asked what will happen next and asked the Planning Commission to consider future policy very strongly.. He said there are 20,000 acress left in the sphere of influence, most of which is the property of The Irvine Company, and he is wondering why itiwants to develop this particular 240 acres now when they also own 15,00 flatland acres along the Santa Ana freeway which could be developed without so many problems such as those found in canyon areas. He also objected to The Irvine Company using Weir Canyon to dig sand and gravel because the land would be decimated and never reclaimed. He asked again why this piece of land, what do the current residents of the area get out of it, why now, and what will the future be like. Juan Pablo Serrano-Nieblas, 224 North Olive Street, Orange, pointed out the danger of earthquakes and floods in the area and said he is concerned about the environmental impace of the proposed development. He requested the Planning Commission to think about the danger to high density areas and school sites from flooding and earthquakes if it decides to approve this plan which he feels does not address any of the major concerns of the people now living in the area. Hugh Davenport, 1136 East Collins, Orange, pointed out the growth of the City of Orange in the time since he had built his home and said he feels that growth is inevitable but hopes that in considering future development the Planning Commission will keep in mind that there should be a balance in the land use in the area. He feels care should be taken so the area doesn't end up being strictly residential, with ..aggravated.. traffic problems and. no provisrion for local employment. He said also that he felt a better land use mix should be provided to insure a better tax base. Chairman Hart asked Mr. Schwartz to respond to the concerns that were verbally expressed. Mr. Schwartz said he had made a list of all the ® concerns expressed and could probably best respond by taking all this information as well as the concerns expressed in the correspondence and preparing responses in a report after the accurate information Planning Commission Minutes ' June 11, 1984 ~"`' Page Six ~ ~ had been obtained, since he felt it would be inappropriate to reply during this meeting without this research and preparation. Chairman Hart said it was obvious that the consultant should have time to prepare the response to the questions and therefore it appeared that the hearing should be continued. Commissioner Greek asked Bob Rende, Manager of the Project Planning Division of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, if he could give any; information on the status of the klandy.Creek study being conducted by this agency. Mr. Rende responded that the study was just getting started, not only because of .priorities of~~otherr projects but also because the issue of Handy Creek has only materialed with the study under consideration at this meeting. He said their plan in to proceed with looking at alternatives, which they should be able to bring before the Board of Supervisors by the early part of next year, and that they will work quickly knowing that the issue is' getting more critical. Commissioner Greek asked if there is any possibility that Peters Canyon Reservoir can flow to the south and if so, how high the water would ® have to go to do that. Mr. Rende responded that he thought Mr. Schwartz might have to address that question; however he gave a little history on the reservoir, including its spillway and dam, and said it had not been planned to release any significant flow. He said that the County's plan calls for this reservoir to drain out towards Handy Creek just as it has done for the last 50 years. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, that the Planning Commission ask-Staff and the consultant to prepare responses to the questions and have their report ready for the meeting of Monday, June 18, 1984. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Master, Vasquez NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, June 18, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers,. 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, ® California.