Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/15/1982 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California March 15, 1982 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; John Lane, Administrator of Advance Planning; Jim Reichert, Associate Planner; Jack McGee, Assistant Planner; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 1, 1982 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to approve the minutes of March 1, 1982, as transmitted. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - LAND USE ELEPIENT 1-82 (GPA-LUE-1-82). Item A - Redesignation on the Land Use Element for a 7.8 acre area on the northeast corner of Tustin Street and Meats Avenue from High Density Residential to Major Commercial, Jim Reichert presented this item to the Commission, stating that this property is presently developed as the Lamplighter Village Mobilehome Park. The item was originally included in the third General Plan Amendment package of 1981 (GPA-LUE-3-81, Item "B") and at that time the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that EIR #721 not be certified as being completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and State and local guidelines, in that it did not address several major concerns. The Commission also recom- mended that the Council not accept the Tenant Dislocation Impact Report as being completed in accordance with state law. It was then decided by the Planning Commission to remove this item from the GPA - LUE 3-81 package and carry it over to the first General Plan Amendment package of 1982, with specific directions to the property owner. ' The previous staff report prepared for this item indicated that the issues involved were not primarily related to physical land use relationships and compatibility of the site for commercial development, but rather to the dislocation of approximately 85 mobile home residents living in the park at the time the application was originally filed. As a result of the actions on October 26, 1981, the project was separated into two parts. The relocation assistance aspect was to be resolved prior to reconsidering the General Plan Amendment and EIR. Mr. Reichert pointed out that following the October 26th public hearing, the applicant revised the Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan, and sub- mitted it for review and action by the Commission. Following a work session on January 11, 1982, public hearings on January 18th and February 8th, and a final review of the revised document on February 17th, the Commission acted to approve the Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan and scheduled the reconsideration of the General Plan Amendment and EIR for public hearing on March 15th as part of the first General Plan Amendment package of 1982. Regarding EIR #721, Mr. Reichert said that the applicant has prepared an addendum to the document which addresses the concerns expressed by the Commission. He pointed out that this document, similar to most other General Plan Amendment EIR's, was prepared without a precise .. Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Two development scheme in mind. It is, therefore, difficult to measure specific impacts and prepose appropriate mitigation measures~at this level in the planning process. If the General Plan Amendment is ultimately approved, and the applicant moves forward with rezoning the property to a commercial designation, more precise development plans will be submitted for review. At that time, further environ- mental analysis can be performed which more specifically discusses possible environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. Regarding the Tenant Dislocation Impact Report, which is included in the EIR, it is felt that the Commission's concern was directed more at the adequacy of the relocation assistance program offered at the time than at the adequacy of the impact report itself, Since the Commission has acted to approve the Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan, it is felt the Tenant Dislocation Impact Report can be accepted as well. Regarding the General Plan Amendment item, the Staff's position has been that it is supportive of the change, subject to the resolution of the relocation issue. Since that issue has been resolved with the approval of the Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan, it is recommended that the amendment item be approved. Mr. Reichert also pointed out that a response to the EIR was received late this afternoon from Mr. Jantz, which was given to the Commissioners .~ before this meeting for their persual. It was suggested that, should the Commission desire a staff response to these comments, the hearing should be continued. Because of the large volume of papers relating to this matter, Com- missioner Coontz asked that Mr. Reichert refer to the various parts of the package and explain them more thoroughly, which he did. Commissioner Master asked if it was correct to assume that the staff has reviewed the EIR and wondered if there were any comments regarding the revised traffic section. Mr. Johnson replied that the Staff has indeed reviewed the EIR and that most things which were of concern to the Staff have been covered. He explained that Mr. Dennis, the Traffic Engineer, feels that until there is a specific plan for that particular piece of property it is very difficult to critique the recommendations of the developer. When a specific project is planned, after the zoning issue has been dealt with, there should be an additional traffic study made at that time to see what the specific impact will be. There was discussion between Commissioner Master and Mr. Johnson regarding the impact on streets beyond Tustin and Meats and the need to keep this in mind. At this time Commissioner Vasquez entered the meeting. Commissioner Master pointed out that in reviewing the EIR, Cambridge was not shown as a relief for traffic on Tustin. Mr. Johnson explained further in this regard, pointing out that the further you get from Tustin the less the overloading of the streets will be. Commissioner Coontz asked Mr. Johnson a question regarding traffic signal additions with concern about access points, pointing out that there were quite a few variables. Mr. Johnson expl~nind in greater detail. It was then pointed out that in the EIR all possibilities expressed were not necessarily viable. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Brent Swanson, attorney for Mr. Kennedy, the owner of the Lamplighter Mobile Home Park, asked for the opportunity to respond after those in opposition have spoken. He felt that his client's points have been made over the last several months in that they feel this is a viable designation for this land. He pointed out that they have met with the tenants since the last meeting, trying to make this relocation plan and process work as well as possible. To delay this process is not good for anyone concerned. As of this date, there are a total of 37 mobile home sites still occupied in the park. However, 10 of these Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Three have already sold their homes and are in the process of moving out. The grandson of one mobile home owner is living temporarily in the coach, so we are now talking about 26 spaces still occupied. To continue operation of the park is not viable at this point. They are on the way to making this relocation plan work and hope to obtain the Commission's approval at this time of the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Swanson indicated that he received Mr. Jantz' letter at 4:00 p.m. today and had not had an opportunity to read i t unti 1 6:00 p.m. They will do their best to answer all questions by the Commission. Commissioner Coontz thought that it should be clarified exactly what is before the Commission for a decision at this time. She explained that the relocation plan has already been approved and the Commission will be making a decision on the General Plan Amendment and EIR this evening. Chairman Mickelson asked Mr. Swanson questions with regard to the process which is going on at this time, explaining at the same time that the Commission has proceeded with the relocation plan and are now addressing the General Plan Amendment. The next step would be to go to a zone change, etc. fora particular project. He pointed out that a specific project would not necessarily be the worst case mentioned i n the EIR. There would then be an addendum to the EIR, speaking to these issues. Mr. Swanson agreed with this explanation and explained in further detail how they would proceed. Commissioner Coontz asked if the consultant from Ultra Systems had the benefit of looking at the response which had been mentioned. It was affirmed that he has a copy and has studied it. Vincent Jantz, supervising attorney for the Senior Citizens Legal Advocacy Program, 2700 N. Main, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission, explaining that his letter had not been put in at 6:00 p.m, in order to get a continuance. The tenants of Lamplighter are interested in getting a resolution on this item. With regard to the EIR, they have pointed out flaws which they have seen in the plan. They have an extensive appendix which pulls all of their comments together. They felt that it was necessary to place their statements regarding the relocation plan in this document because it is part of the EIR. Mr. Jantz expressed surprise that there is not an EIR that properly shows what the impact will be. He pointed out a section of the addendum which i ndi Cates that the city is supposed to make a decision, not necessarily a perfect decision, but a reasonable one. They are merely suggesting that the Commission look at the facts that are pre- sented and make a reasonable decision Since they just received the addendum to the EIR today, this was the only time they could present their response. He thought that the bottom line of the EIR is that 460,000 square feet of cement block, concrete and steel will have no impact whatsoever on that area. Their response deals with this. Chairman Mickelson asked if it was their contention that the General Plan Amendment should not be approved for Major Commercial, that it should remain High Density Residential, or that more information should be presented in order to make a decision, P1r. Jantz replied that they thought all three of these statements apply. They did not think the Commission has sufficient information to make a decision. He pointed out that in their response they are porposing that a lot split should be considered, with a portion of the existing lot being split off, and kept for mobile home lots, and the rest being developed for commercial purposes. Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Four Dale Smith , 501 E. Orangethorpe, Anaheim, addressed the Commission i n opposition to this item, stating that he felt there are some gaps i n the planning. He pointed out that i n the City of Anaheim at a Commission meeting Mr. Swanson had urged caution when he thought he was 1 osi ng . Toni gh t h e i s saying all systems go . Mr. Smith urged the Commission not to race into anything. They should use caution. Vivian Moore, Space 83, Lamplighter, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this plan, stating that when they spoke about using Cambridge as an alternate route they should consider the fact that Taft El ementary School is there and there i s a 25 MPH speed 1 imi t on the street. Commissioner Coontz spoke in regard to Cambridge,~asking for clarifica- tion and pointing out that reference to this street was-not specifically addressed i n the EIR or by the city engineers - i t was a question that was asked by one of the Commissioners. She asked for clarification in the fact that what is being discussed in the EIR is not a specific plan. She thought that there seems to be a tendency to believe that we are looking at a specific project when that is not what is being done. Chairman Mickelson explained this subject in a little more detail, stating that when specifics are known for a particular project then an additional envi ronmental analysis will be made i n addition to what is being presented at this time. We are not looking at a specific site plan or specific use. In other words, the General Plan process is not a quick, overnight process. There are a number of steps involved and it does take time. Commissioner Master asked if, in any previous General Plan Amendment which the Commission has approved, has there been a use which was any less than what the General Plan Amendment approved. However, he fel t that we do not look beyond this immediate step which is being taken tonight. He felt that as we look at a long range impact we must look at streets, traffic signals, etc. We are too short sighted when we make our decisions. Commissioner Coontz felt that the Commission is fully aware of the long range problems in the street system and did not think any of the Commissioners were "picket fencing" the future as far as the city of Orange is concerned. John Nicks, 15333 Los Altos Drive, Whittier, addressed the Commission in opposition to this plan amendment, stating that he has not heard from one person who is in favor of changing the zoning of this land to Major Commercial, except the petitioner, but there have been many who have spoken in opposition to it. They have also turned in a petition signed by owners and business people along Tustin who are in opposition to this rezoning. They are against the people losing their homes and against the i ncreased traffic which would be generated in an already high traffic area. He pointed out that according to the EIR the Meats freeway overpass may have to be rebuilt to carry the extra traffic. He wondered who would pay for this. He also pointed out that Mr. Kennedy had been instructed to resubmit information on traffic and as of this evening no one in the park had received a copy of what he understands has been submi tted. He felt that the park residents should have been provided a copy of this at least 15 days before this hearing. Mr. Nicks thought that the Planning Commission might be interested in what other cities are doing about the problem of conversion of mobile home parks. He explained that he had attended a joint meeting of the Anaheim City Council and Planning Commission last week, which meeting was attended by 800 people interested in this problem. The outcome of the meeting was: 1. A committee was appointed to survey the conditions in all of the city's mobile home parks. Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Five 2. No action would be taken until a final report from the committee i s received . 3. Permane nt mobi 1 e home parks are to be bui 1 t on city owned land to accommodate displaced Anaheim residents. Mr. Nicks wondered why the city of Orange cannot find a solution to this problem and thought that a study should be made on the conversion of mobile home parks. As a compromise to this rezoning, he submitted an alternate plan, giving a copy of thi s to each of the Commissioners . At Commissioner Coontz's request, he then read the preamble to the petition which had been circulated and signed by the business people and owners on Tustin Street. Commissioner Master asked for Mr. Nicks' comments on what his position might be by asking fora continuance in this matter. Mr. Nicks replied that the time 1 imi is which have been set i n thi s matter shoul d not be there, as far as he is concerned. Commissioner Coontz asked Mr. Nicks if he were not asking for a form of rent control , i n the plan he had submitted, where he asked for a reasonable rent to be imposed on the spaces which he was proposing for mobi 1 e homes . Mr. Nicks replied that th ere should be some kind of control, even though he does not like this. He did not know what the answer is but that perhaps there could be some kind of agreement in the matter. H e did not consider this a final resolution to the problem. Commissioner Hart spoke to Mr. Nicks' submitted plan, asking what he thought would be a fair return on an investment like this, assuming the whole thing would have to be relaid out and everything redone. P1r. Nicks felt there should be a fair return but he did not know what that woul d be. There are mobi 1 e home parks i n Orange County who must be maki ng a profit because th ey are stil 1 i n business . He again said that he did not consider this plan to be a final solution. He was hoping that the Commission can come up with a final solution. Pat Kitsch, 1400 Douglas Road, Anaheim, addressed the Commission, stati ng that after reading the EIR she noticed references to impact on residents of the park. She then read from the report. She also commented with regard to the impact of the proposed project, pointing out references in the EIR to the additional labor cost for fire and police departments, increased crime, plus an increase in electricity, gas, water and trash. Another impact she pointed out would be the concurrent loss of housing, plus the increased traffic, noise and air quality impact. She wondered how the Commission could approve a change of use based on this EIR. Commissioner Coontz felt that Ms. Kitsch had taken some things in the EIR out of context. She mentioned the increased revenue to the City of Orange. There are many things to be balanced out and there wi 11 probably be some answers from the consultant. She felt that there are positive aspects as well as detrimental ones which had been pointed out. Mr. Swanson responded to the opposition by stating that two of the speakers had referred to a meeting in Anaheim last week and he explained further with regard to what had been discussed. He said that a task force had been set up of which he was a member, as was Mr. Jantz and Ms. Kitsch . He then explained what the task force had discussed, pointing out that their deliberations had run along the same lines as what is being decided here in the city of Orange. Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Six Mr. Swanson then spoke to the relocation parks which had been mentioned, explaining that if this were done the rents would have to be raised quite high and it would not be economically feasible. He felt that it would be deceiving the residents of Lamplighter to deny the General Plan Amendment since that mobile home park is going out of business regardeless. He pointed out the cost of splitting this piece of property and settling up 26 spaces would be economically impossible. He emphasized that they are in the very early stages of planning and the EIR is dealing with it at this point. Chairman Mickelson addressed the bonus density plan which is now in effect and asked Mr. Swanson i~f the applicant were to get 100% bonus and put 360 units on the property would it be a viable solution. Mr. Swanson replied in the negative. G Frank Elfend, Ultra Systems, addressed the Commission, speaking to the EIR, which his firm had done. He pointed out that this is essentially an informational document. It is supposed to give enough information to make a reasonable decision on what is being proposed. He explained that the courts have not looked for perfection, but adequacy. The EIR must be as specific as the project that is being proposed. For their General Plan projects they do not have to be as specific as when a specific project is set up. He explained that their draft EIR was submitted last September and all comments on it should have been received by the end of the year. The comments he has looked at tonight should have been submitted earlier than this. He explained the addendum to the draft EIR in greater detail, responding to some of the comments made by Mr. Jantz. He explained that he was not able to go through this subject by subject in regard to the comments made. He pointed out that the document was set up according to State guidelines and was meant to fill the needs of the Planning Commission in order to enable them to come to a decision, but not be burdensome in details. 0 Mr. Jantz again addressed the Commission, stating that the EIR is supposed to be a full disclosure document and he wondered if we have that. He did not think so. As to Commissioner Masters' question about how the mobile home park would be paid for, it would come from the commercial building's outlay. He saw a large number of gaps in the EIR. There is no doubt that a commercial project could be built on this site, but it will adversely affect the housing,. of Orange. He also explained that the Anaheim task force had not made any decisions yet. Their first meeting was just to get acquainted. He felt that the problem of mobile home parks should be faced here and now. Commissioner Hart asked him to address the statement that Mr. Kennedy intends to close the park. Mr. Jantz responded that the impact would be that these people will be put out on the street and will have to find somewhere else to live. He explained that he never doubted that. He is only responding to the EIR and the Tenant Relocation Plan. He has not tried to make and emotional plea. Commissioner Master stated that he has trouble with the terms in the EIR, having difficulty with all of the figures and numbers in the report. He felt that the figures do not add up. There being no one else to speak for or against Item "A", Chairman Mickelson closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Seven Chairman Mickelson brought up the statement which had been made pointing out that perhaps the Commission does not have enough infor- mation to make a decision and should review the information further before making a decision. He felt that this was a legitimate con- sideration. However, he pointed out that the Commission has before it a General Plan Amendment that consists of three different items, if they continue one part they are almost obligated to continue the other two parts also. Another option would be to pull this out and continue to the next GPA hearing, and go ahead and deal with the other two items this evening. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that she has been concerned about the conversion of mobile home parks since 1979, did her own private study and consequently Staff did a report on rezoning of mobile home parks. A suggestion was made to the City Council again that this idea be considered along with other ideas. We are talking about something tonight that the Planning Commission knew was going to happen a long time ago. If we do not go through with the application for General Plan Amendment the tenants will get nothing. She explained that bureaucratic process moves very slowly and she did not think the Planning Commission could do anything about it as far as this applica- tion is concerned. They have done all they can. She explained that they have a housing consultant and several senior citizen housing committees at this point in time and the Commission must look at the legality of this application. She wondered if the Commission should send the entire General Plan Amendment package to the City Council intact, which would give more time for study, evaluation and response, all of which would be made a part of the record. Commissioner Master asked a question regarding the project mentioned in the GPA, asking for more clarification in this regard. Chairman Mickelson explained that the project in this case would be the General Plan Amendment. Chairman Mickelson commented there is finally a point where the line is drawn for this level of decision making and we say we have enough information and we will go ahead and make a decision. He felt that in reviewing the documentation that has come in so far there is enough information to make a decision on the General Plan Amendment. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart to recom- mend that the City Council certify that EIR #721 has been completed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and local guidelines for implementation of CEOA; and that the City Council find that because of the mitigation measures contained in the document, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and that such approval is not tantamount to the approval of a specific project and a specific application will require further consideration. Chairman Mickelson had reservations with the wording, saying that it will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment is true for the General Plan Amendment, because with the General Plan Amendment we do not have an actual project that comes out of the ground. The Commission will have a couple more opportunities to determine whether there is a significant adverse impact on the environment, and if so, it will be incumbent upon the Commission to find the mitigation measures to offset those impacts, or to deny the project later on. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez non e none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Eight Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to recommend that the City Council accept the Tenant Dislocation Impact Report as being completed in accordance with State Law; and that the City Council accept the Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan as approved by the Planning Commission on February 17th. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to recommend that the City Council approve an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element from High Density Residential to Major Com- mercial at the northeast corner of Tustin Street and Meats Avenue. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master commented that this is a situation like a gun to the head. He stated that when this comes back to the Commission for a zoning change he intends to look at it very carefully. Item B - Redesignation on the Land Use Element for a 7.5 acre area on the north side of Fletcher Avenue, east of Batavia Street from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential (6 to 15 dwelling units per acre) or Industrial. (Negative Declaration 751 has been prepared for this item). Jack McGee presented this item to the Commission, stating that this is a proposal to change the Land Use Element designation for the north side of Fletcher Avenue west of Fletcher Elementary School from Low Density Residential (2-6 du/ac) to either Medium Density Residential (6-15 du/ac) or Industrial. He explained that this was reviewed as part of GPA-3-81 and was pulled to provide more information. He pointed out that he has had discus- sions with many of the people involved in that area and discussed the situation with them, trying to suggest a possible compromise solution to the dilemma which has faced the city for many years. There have been many problems resulting from the industrial and residential uses being directly adjacent to each other in the Fletcher Avenue area. As long as the current land use relationship remains, some conflict will continue. Past discussion with the key individuals involved has revolved around the adversary relationship of the landowners, and the solutions offered have been in terms of either industrial or residential. Between these two extremes should be some area more acceptable to all concerned. Mr. McGee pointed out that the parcels are currently zoned and used for industrial purposes. It has been stated that this may make it economically unfeasible at this time to redevelop the area residentially. There would be little incentive to redevelop the area with residential uses and the current uses and problems would remain. He stated that development of new industrial uses following development standards created especially for the Fletcher Avenue area would make the use much more compatible with adjacent residential to the north and west. Such standards should require a physical design that would gain signi- ficant improvements while still allowing industrial operations. Specific standards could include: all building should be within five (5) feet of the north (residential) property line; buildings should be oriented away from the north property line (no windows, doors, or vents facing north); buildings adjacent to the north property line should be 10 to 14 feet in height maximum; uses allowed should be restricted to more compatible types; landscaping should be installed in sensitive areas; Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Nine and performance standards for noise, l fight, dust, and vibration shoul d be implemented. California State Law allows for such a set of special rules and regulations to be adopted through the Specific Plan Procedure. Mr. McGee pointed out that after discussing the situation, including the items above, with all of the industrial property owners at an evening meeting and also with a number of the residential owners, it appears that a Specific Plan solution is agreeable to both. While retaining the industrial development opportunities, this alternative could also provide quicker resolution to the reported on-going problems, and perhaps prevent similar problems in the future. The current status of the zoning (M-1 and M-2) and General Plan designa- tion (Low Density Residential) puts any hopes for development and conflict solution at a standstill. All of the property owners, both industrial and residential, deserve a firm and consistent determination from the City resolving the General Plan/Zoning incompatibility. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 751. Staff further recommends that it b e recommended to the City Council that they amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the 7.5 acre area on Fletcher Avenue from Low Density Residential to Industrial with two conditions: 1, That M-2 zoned portion be rezoned to M-1. 2. That a Specific Plan be developed and adopted concurrently with the rezoning. Commissioner Master asked about the Specific Plan approach, pointing out six separate ownerships and expressing concern about the implementa- tion of such a plan. Mr. McGee responded that there would be nothing that would force anyone to do anything at this time. All uses would be made legal if they were zoned Industrial. However, if they wished to make major changes, this would fall under the Specific Plan. Commissioner Hart saw a possible situation under the Specific Plan whereby individual owners redeveloping their property could cause problems for other owners. Commissioner Master liked the idea, but was concerned about the implementation. Commissioner Mickelson asked how many of the industrial owners had seen what is planned. Mr. McGee replied that he had discussed the plan with all of the owners. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that since the property is zoned M-1 and M-2 at this time it is in the form of a non-conforming situation, by virtue of the fact that the General Plan designates it residential. If the designation were to be changed to Industrial and then proceed with Specific Plan zoning, his perception of Specific Plan zoning is not a plan for development that lays out the buildings, parking and setbacks, but rather write the new zone for that particular area and determine such things as allowing the property owner to put his buildings adjacent to the property line providing he do whatever the Staff and Commission decides. The property owner would accept a new set of standards that people could develop to when they develop, without dictating the layout of the buildings, etc. He would envision writing a specific zone plan showing the individual standards for that area. There was discussion between Chairman Mickelson and Commissioner Coontz with regard to the Specific Plan which was being described, as she expressed confusion regarding what Mr. McGee had described and what Chairman Mickelson was describing. Chairman Mickelson explained in greater detail what Specific Plan means according to State Law, saying that specific development standards would be adopted concurrently with zoning. Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Ten Commissioner Coontz had a question with regard to M-2 zoning being rezoned to M-1 at the same we are stating that specific development standards would be adopted concurrently with zoning. She thought that, unless an overlay were adopted, development standards would only apply to that portion that was being rezoned M-1. She wondered how this would be dealt with. Chairman Mickelson replied that there is one alternative to this situation. Rather than an overlay, he thought that zoning should not be changed from M-1 to M-2, but rather, zone to Specific Plan. Mr. Murphy pointed out that he would hope that this property would be rezoned to Industrial, not to a Specific Plan. This particular property could be dealt with as an addendum to the Industrial zoning and this could be done along with the rezoning of the property zoning from M-2 to M-1 and cover the existing M-1 property as well. Mr. McGee further explained that Staff's thinking was that when the M-2 zoning went to M-1, a suffix could be added to that designation for the entire area. This would add additional requirements to the property and would be there in addition to the M-1 standards that are already created or be close to some of the M-1 standards which are already there. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Chuck Sandberg, 1643 Hunters Way, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this GPA item, stating that they concur with what the Staff wants, after discussion with them. Yvonne Torrance, 2547-49 N. Capri, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that she is disturbed over the zoning which is being discussed. The land is immediately adjacent to residential property and by going to Industrial zoning they will be creating a marriage with irreconcilable differences. She pointed out that Specific Plan solves the problem by building a 10 foot wall on the north side of the property. There are several families living on the north side of the property who will live behind the 10 foot wall. She did not feel you can put Industrial next to Residential without creating problems. Because there is a problem there now, she did not think a permanent problem should be created. An integrated residential. area would be the ideal solution for a higher and better use of the area. We need more residential uses, not in- dustrial use in a mostly residential area. She felt that the Commission must look to the good of the community. This is not the best use, it is to the detriment of the people living there and is not the highest and best use of the property. She would like to see some thought on the city's part to increasing the residential supply in the city of Orange. Chairman P~ickelson responded regarding Specific Plan, explaining that he had only brought this out to bring out all of the options. He felt that Mrs. Torrance's statements were good and to the point and he said that he shared her frustrations. He pointed out that the residential area grew up around this industrial area and we are speaking about property that is very valuable to the owners for its industrial uses. He explained that the only alternative in a case such as this is to rezone. Industrial property is more valuable than land for residential uses. Mrs. Torrance felt that it would be preferable to have high density residential rather than what is in there now. She asked that the Com- mission consider this in relation to this industrial property adjoining their own properties and if they decide on the Specific Plan, she would like them to consider the 15 families on the west and the 5 families on the north of this industrial area. A 10 foot wall abutting these properties will reduce the value of every one of these properties. ~~ Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Eleven Chairman Mickelson agreed that whatever interface is given between residential and industrial applies to all residents, including those on the north and on the west. He was not sure that a l0~foot wall is the magic solution to the problems we are facing. It was merely an example, a possibility. There may be other possibilities that could work better. Commissioner Coontz said that certainly what is there right ,now must affect the properties. There is always a problem with interfacing between residential and industrial. The area in general south of Fletcher is not a good area for residential. Commissioner Hart commented that the history of the area has been changed due to the economic demand of the land. That property was originally all zoned industrial. For some unknown reason, it was re- zoned residential. Now there is a reversing trend from residential back to industrial. Mrs. Torrance replied that this is not so. There are many people coming into California every day. The vacancy factor is 1%. There is a need for resident#al. Commissioner Hart pointed out that there are 5,000 new homes in Orange County that are unsold and this does not count resale property. None will build rentals today because they are not profitable. It would be somewhat unfair to the owners of the property to ask them to take somewhat less than what they would get as an industrial property. Mrs. Torrance and Commissioner Hart had a discussion with regard to re- zoning and proper use of this property. John Charlebois, 706 W. Brentwood, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this plan. He referred to paragraph 2 of page 6 of the Staff Report, stating that none of the homeowners were at the meeting mentioned in this paragraph. This meeting was for the industrial property owners only. He quoted from paragrapgh 2 "... it appears that a Specific Plan solution is agreeable to both ..." and stated that the neighborhood does not agree with this. He asked how this should provide a solution to ongoing problems. Under recommendations, he spoke to the conditions under #2 and asked if the specific plan should not be drawn up prior to the rezoning, rather than concurrently, so that questions could be asked. Who can say that this specific plan would prevent current problems? Things are not good, but if he must live with a lp foot wall just behind his ~,, property he would like to be sure that this will solve the problems, not just cut down on them. He spoke to the landscaping which had been proposed, pointing out that several existing trees which have been planted have died and been re- placed a couple of times because of trucks running over them and no care being given to them. Regarding noise, he wondered what makes the specific plan so all encompassing that it will change everything. The noise is a terrible problem and there have been many violations. He pointed out that the dust is worse than they have ever experienced before. Foul language is a very bad problem. Mr. Charlebois said that if he thought the specific plan could be worked out to their advantage and they could have meetings with Staff and have something to say about this, they might possibly agree to this. But they are not convinced that this will work. A 10 foot wall behind his property will drop his property value drastically. He said that he had shown the Staff Report to his neighbors and they decided not to come to this meeting and speak because they feel it is already decided upon for Industrial. The neighbors feel that the city does not want to listen to their input. Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Twelve Chairman Mickelson asked him to go back and tell his community that the Commission does not ram things down people's throats. They want to hear their input. Commissioner Coontz read what is allowed now for M-2 zoning and asked Mr. McGee what uses would be eliminated under M-1 zoning. He replied that the uses currently on the site would be of type requiring a Condi- tional Use Permit in the existing M-1 zone by virtue of being adjacent to a residential zone. Commissioner Coontz then explained that we are talking about a changeover for this piece of property as far as new development is concerned. Therefore, these types of uses would not be allowed. The goal is for future uses not for what is already there. Commissioner Hart felt that this could be an exercise in futility be- cause if someone does not do anything with the property it will remain the same. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that there are other options open to the Commission and asked Mr. Charlebois to respond to the possibility of High Residential rather than Industrial zoning. Mr. Charlebois replied that the neighborhood would accept high rise residential buildings rather than what they have now, because they feel that their complaints are not listened to or taken care of. Commissioner Hart pointed out that most of the options open to the Commission are not economically viable. He felt that High Density Residential could be possible, but all of the owners of these properties would have to agree to sell at one time to a developer. High Residential might be ideal but it is not realistic. Commissioner Master commented that perhaps the basic problem is to clean up the act in that area. We lack teeth to enforce the laws governing those properties and we probably need to enforce our laws more strictly. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that there is quite a large perimeter of enforcement. Mr. Charlebois commented on this statement that we do have the equipment to test and rate the noise decibels. There have been three noise violations that have been measured from his bedroom window. The violations are not enforced, however. He was told that citations have been given. Commissioner Coontz felt there should be more creativity in enforcement of violations. A clear message should be sent to the City Council in this regard. Glenn Sandberg, 2908 Van Owen, Orange, addressed the Commission, pointing out that there has never been a truck go through the fence. They have had a tractor go through a fence, but they fixed it the next day. Re- garding foul language and lewd conduct, this is not happening during the week when he is there. He does not know what happens on the weekends. He admitted that trucks are noisy. However, the trucks have been tested and approved to be legal. He pointed out that when the people purchased their homes in that area the trucks were there and were noisy then. There is nothing they can do about that. Chairman Mickelson asked what incentive he could think of that would cause him to move his truck stop off the site. Mr. Sandberg said that $8-$l0~foot would. There have been offers but they will not accept them without a guarantee to develop the property industrially. Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Thirteen Chuck Sandberg spoke again, saying that they would be happy to move with the right incentives. They have been looking at property, but the price they would have to pay is not feasible for what they can get for the property where they are now. This is why they would be willing to compromise with the Staff. Chairman Mickelson asked him if the Commission would opt for Specific Plan and create some limited industrial uses, wondering if this would make their property more saleable on the market so that they could seek a new location. Mr. Sandberg replied that if this was not too restrictive it can probably work. AYES: NOES ABSENT: There being no one else to speak for or against this item, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Mickelson spoke to the comment made by Mr. Charlebois that they might support Specific Plan if they knew what it was all about. He wanted some way to assure the neighborhood that this could be a viable plan. Commissioner Hart felt that there might be some way to reach a solution. He believed that if the neighbors who feel excluded would be able to get in on the process proposed in a study session, something could be worked out. He asked if they could pull this item from the package in order to study it more and work out an acceptable plan. Commissioner Coontz asked what he meant by a compromise and Commissioner Hart replied that this would be a compromise on an in- dustrial plan with cooperation between land owners and residential owners. Chairman f~lickelson asked Mr. Murphy how the Council actually changes the General Plan and Mr. Murphy responded that they adopt a resolution. Chairman Mickelson wondered if the Commission could recommend to the City Council that they favor an Industrial recommendation and the Specific Plan, but that they don't finalize the resolution until the Commission has been able to work through the study sessions with the owners and residents of the area to develop the Specific Plan and pass it on to the Council for consideration. Mr. Lane replied that there would be no problem. Everything would need a conditional use permit because of neighboring residential uses. Commissioner Coontz felt that there should be a time limit on these discussions. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, to recommend that the City Council accept the finding of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 751, with the amendment that straight designation to Industrial could have an adverse impact on the environment, but the creation of_Specifi'c Plan ;should provide sufficient mitigation measure to offset any impact. Commissioners Commissioners Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez none none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend to the City Council that they amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the 7.5 acre area on Fletcher Avenue from Low Density Residential to Industrial, with the understanding that they will withhold their adoption of the final resolution until the Specific Plan is developed to their satisfaction. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez none none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Fourteen Commissioner Coontz wondered if the Commission is conveying the message to the City Council of the Commission's concern regarding the neighbors and the land owners getting together. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, to proceed with study sessions with land owners and adjacent property owners to develop the Specific Plan, taking into consideration concerns that have been expressed at this hearing. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Coontz wondered if the Commission should red flag enforce- ment of violations in this area. Mr. Murphy and Commissioner Vasquez pointed out that there is nothing more that can be done that is not being done already. Commissioner Coontz asked that in the transmittal Staff indicate that th ere are problems in this area. Chairman Mickelson felt that there are limited resources and limited Staff to enforce these violations. Item C - Redesignation on the Land Use Element for a 1.75 acre area northwest of Chapman Avenue and Manchester Street (formerly Meyer Street) from Low Density Residential to Office Professional.) Jack McGee presented this item to the Commission, stating that General Plan Amendment 1-82, Item C, consists of nine parcels, 1.75± acres in area, on the northwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Manchester Street. (This portion of Manchester Street was formerly known as Meyer StrE~et.) The area is currently zoned R-1-6 and is shown on the General Plan Land Use Element as Low Density Residential. The site is, at least: partly, within a transition area from Low Density to Major Commercial on the Land Use Element. He explained that this change on the General P1 a n Land Use Element from Low Density Residential (2-6 du/ac ) to a n Office Professional designation has been initiated by the City at t:he request of Daniel A. Salceda, acting as agent for the major land owner. Mr. McGee explained that the area was annexed to the City in 1960 a.nd zoned for single family residences. The land use has not changed from that time until today. Adoption of the City's Land Use Element in 1974 saw the area designated Low Density Residential. The parcels to tree east and south were, however, designated Major Commercial, placing the amendment area in a transitional area from Low Density to Commercial. He pointed out that the site is currently developed with six singlE~ family residences. Three of these homes face Sheringham Street, with the others oriented toward Woodridge Circle. All are one-story in height. To the west and north are additional residences facing thE~ site area. East of the site is land zoned C-1. A portion of this area is vacant. Further east is the Holiday Inn/Restaurant, standing six stories in height. Mr. McGee stated that the C-2 zoning to the south is occupied by are eight-story office structure. This structure, and the entire area generally south of the site, is known as "The City", a mixed use retail/office/entertainment/residential development. The applicant has expressed interest in redeveloping the entire sii.e with an office building. Such a development would require this amE~nd- ment to the General Plan Land Use E1 ement. • Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Fifteen Taking the surrounding uses into consideration, the requested amendment would seem to be appropriate. Through proper site, architectural, and landscape design, impacts on adjacent residences would be minimal. Staff recommends that the City Council certify that Environmental Impact Report 746 has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and Local Guidelines for imple- mentation of CEQA, The City Council should find that some adverse effects may be possible. However, these adverse effects can be mitigated to a large degree by proper site planning and architectural and landscaped design. Staff also recommends that the Commission recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment 1-82 Item C to change the land use classifi- cation from Low Density Residential to Office-Professional be approved for the area in question. Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. McGee to describe how they have arrived at the point where there is a curve in the road on Manchester which winds around. He wondered if this is sensible and if this will stay the way it is or will there be changes. Mr. Johnson answered him by stating that he did not see this changing unless there is an effort by Orange and Anaheim to do something in that area. He pointed out that reassignment was done as part of the other past projects, but thought that perhaps a stop sign could be put in to slow people down in that area. However, this would have to be coordinated with the City of Anaheim, Chairman Mickelson wondered, assuming that the Commission takes the Staff's recommendation and designates this 0-P, would there be special consideration because of its location. Mr. Murphy replied that there are setbacks in the Office-Professional district, regardless of its location. He felt that there are better standards in the Office- Professional district than there are in Commercial district. Chairman Mickelson wondered if there was anything to require that the access be taken off of Manchester and Chapman, vs. Sheringham and Woodridge. Mr. Murphy replied in the negative, stating that it would be appropriate for the Commission to make comments with regard to circulation. Commissioner Master asked which of the parcels in question are owned by the applicant and was told that he owns three vacant parcels on the corner of Chapman and Manchester, one on the corner of Sheringham ands Manchester, one~on-the~gorner of Sheringham and. Woodridge and one on Woodridge. Mr. Lane explained that the applicant has been very difficult to contact. He did not appear at this public hearing and Staff did not find surprising. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing and there being no one to speak for or against this application, he closed the public hearing„ Commissioner Master commented that perhaps the cul-de-sac streets shoulld be closed and abandoned if we are going Office-Professional in this arE~a. ^~ Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Sixteen Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend to the City Council to certify that Environmental Impact Report 746 has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and Local Guidelines for implementation of CEQA. The City Council should find that some adverse effects may be possible. However, these adverse effects can be mitigated to a large degree by proper site planning and architectural and landscape design. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend to the City Council that Gen eral Plan Amendment 1-82 Item C to change the land use classifi cation from Low Density Residential to Office-Professi onal be approved for the area in question, with the Intent to Rezone. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: PRE-ZONE CHANGE 961 - CITY OF ORANGE: A request to pre-zone property from County of Orange A-1 (General Agriculture) district to City of Orange PI (Public Institution) district for an irregularly shaped, 30.05 acre portion of four parcels of land located north and south of Chapman Avenue southeast of Newport Boulevard and southwest of Santiago Canyon Road. (Note: The Rancho Santiago Community College District has certified and filed a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Orange/Canyon Master Plan per State Clearing House #81031960 for this area.) It was the consensus of the Commissioners to dispense with the Staff Report. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing and, there being no one to speak for or against the application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend approval of Pre-Zone Change 961, for the reasons as stated in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1194, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 82-755 - RICHARD BOURESTON: A request to allow an outdoor industrial storage area in the M-2 (Industrial) district and within 300 feet of a residential zone on land located on the north side of Walnut Avenue 242.24 feet east of the centerline of Parker Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 756 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Norvin Lanz presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to allow an outdoor industrial storage area within 300 feet of a residential zone. The property contains 2.24 acres of land located on the north side of Walnut Avenue 242.24± feet east of the centerline of Parker Street. The property has approximately 349± feet of frontage on Walnut Avenue. It is presently vacant and ~ is zoned M-2 (Industrial). Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Seventeen The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage areas within 300 feet of a residential zone for two industrial buildings. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and expressed four concerns: a) That the 12 foot off-set distance between the opposing freight doors that open onto the reciprocal driveway between buildings 1 & 2, will not allow sufficient circulation in the event of parked trucks/vehicles being loaded and unloaded simultaneously. b) That should industrial activity and storage be permitted in the proposed storage areas, it could create noise and visual intrusion for adjacent residential zones. c) That parking spaces in the storage areas be available to the public during business hours. d) That industrial truck traffic be encouraged to use the private industrial road that accesses Batavia Street (parallel to the northern property line) in order to relieve that function from Walnut Avenue. Staff recommends that the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 756 be accepted. Staff also recommends that the Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map 82-755, subject to all conditions of the Engineer Plan Check Sheet. It is the Staff's opinion that the proposed project is acceptable for three reasons: 1. The application is consistent with the provisions of the City of Orange zoning ordinance. 2. The proposal is in conformance with the intent of the General Plan. 3. The project conforms with applicable development standards of the M-2 Industrial district. Staff, therefore recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1194, subject to four special conditions and 26 standard conditions, as set forth in the Staff Report. Chairman Mickelson expressed concern about the truck routestudy being in opposition to what is being proposed here. Mr. Murphy explained that he did not think that the truck route study is trying to show that Walnut is a better street than Batavia. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Richard Boureston, Laguna Niguel, the applicant, addressed the Com- mission in favor of this application. He explained that he is planning to develop the property on Walnut and has reviewed the Staff Report and is in complete agreement with all conditions. He explained that he discussed any possible problems with Mr. Dennis, the Traffic Engineer and has resolved the problem on Walnut with the property owner to the north by a reciprocal agreement. Gary Jakes, 1449 Pheasant Court, Fullerton, addressed the Commission, stating that he is developing the property across the street and is neither for or against this project. He feels the problems have been addressed in the presentation so they have no problem with this. They are only interested in protecting their investment. Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1982 Page Eighteen There being no one else to speak for or against the application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 756. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none P-10TION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to approve Tentative Parcel Map 82-755 and Conditional Use Permit 1194, subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet, together with the four special and 26 standard conditions stated in the Staff Report, for the reasons as stated by Staff. Commissioner Master asked why Condition #21 was included and was told that this is a standard condition. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: Gary Johnson brought up the Quist tract in Olive, asking the Commission for direction because it appears that the conditions were not in keeping with the spirit of what was being created there. A decision will have to be made on the street improvements. The people want a rural atmosphere and the city wants sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Mr. Johnson explained that he had told Mr. Ouist that an alternative could be that he could post bond for standard improvements, either a surety bond or a cash bond, depending on the outcome of the Olive study, which is proceeding at a snail's pace. Orange is not actively involved at this point. A contract will probably be awarded to a firm to work with the people in that area and this will probably happen in May. Mr. Quist wants to grade out the street at the same time he grades the site and would like to post a bond this week. Mr. Johnson felt that this particular road is an entrance to the park and there is also a medical center there. If curb and gutter is com- pleted on that side, it would match the other side. The conditions state: "to city standards". Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to confirm the original decision to require standard curbs and gutters and street improvements on Tentative Tract 11636 and Conditional Use Permit 1152, AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none I N RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:45p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, April 5, 1982, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. ^~ EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 15, 1982. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Ch airman Mickelson at 7:30 p,m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that this meeting adjourn at 11:45 p.m, on Monday, March 15, 1982, to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, April 5, 1982 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere P, Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, March 15, 1982. Dated this 16th day of March, 1982 at 2:00 p.m. ~, ~ ~¢ ~~' ~= were N. r~urpny, ui ty,~r canner and Secretary to the Pl ann~ ng commission of the City of Orange. L STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER SS. OF ADJOURNMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere P. P~urphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the P1 anni ng Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on March 15, 1982; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on March 16, 1982, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of March 15, 1982 was held. n