HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/13/1989 - Minutes PCPLANNING C'aAfMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting
City of Orange P4arch 13, 198:
Orange, California t7onday - 7:Q0 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Scott
ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, Master
STAFF
PRESENT: Jack McGee, Administrator of Current Planning;
Jere Murphy, Administrator of Advanced Planning;
David Kuan, Traffic Division - Public works;
Luis A. Rodriquez, Sr. Asst. City Attorney;
Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and
Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary;
Other staff in attendance: Jim Reichert, Gone "4insheca, and
Chuck Glass.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IN RE: GENERAL PLAt1 UPDATE PROGRAr1
Citywide Genera. 1. Plan Update Program, consisting of an
update/revision of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Opan
Space, Conservation, Safety and Noise Elements.
10TE: Environmental Impact Report. 1247 has been prepared
for this project.
Mr. Murphy presented the staff report. This is the
beginning of the official public hearing process on the
General Plan Update Program. It is a combination of a year
and nine months study by the Community Development staff, in
conjunction with the Traffic Division of the Department of
Public Works and the consulting teams of Cotton-Boland
Associates and Austin-Foust Associates. The proposed Plan
does not change land uses within the City, but specifically
identifies land use intensities, particularly for the
non-residential categories. That is the primary purpose of
the update, as well as a re-org?nization to make the Code a
much more usable Cody to the general public. The Plan is
for the existing City. Although it accounts for, traffic
wise, the East Orange General Plan land uses that are being
considered, that Plan will be a separate public hearing at a
future point in time. Only the existing City of Orange area
is being considered -- not the sphere of influence.
Consultants
Pat C7ann, Principal with Cotton-Beland Associates, spoke for
a moment on developing a Program over the last two years
consisting of the existing General Plan, which was in a
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 1x88 - Page 2
number of separate Elements and with the Orange 2000
Program. They tried to put those together in a single
document with a common format to be presented to the
community.
Laura Stetson, Project Planner, presented the
recomm?ndations of the Plan. She stated the General Plan is
a blueprint of the future to describe land uses, circulation
systems, a section of resources -- it shows you where you
are going. The goal for the. General Plan is the year 2010.
The two maps that describe what the City is going to look
like are two maps -- the Land Use "'!ap and the Master Plan of
Streets and Highways (the circulation system). The focus of
the General Plan Update was not to change things, but to
dean up the existing General Plan and to make it easier
from the public's view to make the Land Use Plan balance
with the existing zoning. The Land Use Element is the most
important part of the Plan because it describes how the land
use is going to be distributed throughout the City. There
are 14 categories of land use. She described each of the 14
uses.
There are three additions to the General Plan Update: There
is a new category of residential development being
proposed. It is the medium high density, which allows 24 to
36 dwelling units per acre. It would be available to
someone who wanted to develop at a higher density than the
medium density, which has a cap of 24 units per acre. The
second addition is the Old Towne commercial designation,
which applies to the Plaza Historic District and also two
spoke streets, Chapman and Glassell. The purpose of that
designation is to encourage the maintenance of the
commercial uses and the older buildings that are there now
in the Old Towne area. The last major significant addition
is the development cap in the commercial-industrial area.
The current General Plan does not place a limit on what can
be done on an existing piece of property. State law
requires an intensity limit. The General Plan Update
introduces a concept of FAR -- Floor Area Ratio. The Floor
Area Ratio means you can get different types of development
on a lot. The City can look forward to a balanced type of
development in the comrnerci.al-industrial areas.
The General Plan proposes six areas of the City that could
support a higher intensity of use than the basic type of
commercial development seen on Tustin or Katella. It allows
for higher intensity uses in areas where it is appropriate.
Those areas are: (1) Northwest Industrial Area, which is
within a Redevelopment Project Area; (2) Another area i.n the
industrial. area where lower intensity uses could exist; (3)
Orangewood/St. College area, Koll Center Area; (4) The City
Shopping Center; (5) Garden Grove Boulevard; and (6) Town
and Country.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 1989 - Page ?
The second important element is the Circulation Element.
She pointed to the Master Plan of Streets and Eiighways,
which is proposed for the General Plan Update. It
introduces some new concepts. The most important thing to
realize is that the system is based on balancing land use
with the circulation system. The system must support the
land uses to function as a whole. A new concept has been
developed at the critical intersections. These critical
intersections allow for additional lanes of traffic at the
control valves of the street systems.
The final four components of the General Plan Update are the
Housing Element, the Open Space and Conservation Element,
the Safety Element and the Noise Element and she touched on
those briefly.
Mr. Murphy wrapped up the presentation by mentioning that
the General Plan has already been discussed at two public
workshops, December 21 and January 19, as well as a Planning
Commission study session on February 13. The staff has
identified in the staff report lists of issues that were
identified at these meetings and that is available to the
public. There were written comments received regarding the
General Plan, as well as comments and responses on the draft
Environmental Impact Report. Those are also attached to the
staff report and are a part of the final draft.
In addition, there were two items brought up last week to
the staff's attention that were not included in the Planning
Commission packet. The one comment received from the City
of Santa Ana was with regard to an understanding of the
Floor Area Ratios in the Town and Country area. The
consultants have prepared an additional clarification of the
relationship of the caps on development in the Town and
Country area and the overall average Floor Area Ratio for
the general area.. That description has been furnished to
the City of Santa Ana. It is staff's recommendation that
the Planning Commission amend the General Plan documents as
described in that documentation. The other issue that has
been raised is that of the lack of total consistency between
the General Plan and zoning in the Cypress Street area, the
area in the northwest quadrant of Old Towne. Staff has
received letters from land owners in the 200 block North.
Olive Street requesting that the consistency between zoning
and the General Plan for that area be addressed as part of
the overall Citywide General Plan. The existing zoning in
the area is R-4 at the present time with a designation of
medium density, 6 to 15 dwelling units per acre on the
General Plan. This request is based on a single block, 200
North Olive, between Maple and Palm Avenue. There are throe
alternatives: (1) Designate a special study area as it has
been in the past, to be addressed by staff; (2) Ask staff to
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 1989 - Page 4
do specific work within a short period of time and bring it
back to the Commission; or (3) Change the designation on the
General Plan for that one block area on the overall Citywide
General Plan.
Mr. Kuan, Transportation Engineer, addressed clarification
of the critical intersection descriptions that appear in the
General Plan. The Environmental Impact Report had a number
of cross section standards for arterial roads. The City has
made quite an effort to modify the existing streets, such as
Tustin. These streets are referred to as augmented streets,
which are different from arterial streets. The critical
intersection standard is also modified. Staff wants to make
the E.I.R. more complete by adding the cross section
standard for critical intersections for those augmented
streets.
Commissioner Hart has had calls from people who are
concerned about the lack of a specific Historic Preservation
Element in the General Plan. He realizes all the items in
that Element are included in the proposed General Plan, but
he would like to make a symbolic proposal that there be
included a specific Historic Preservation Element, dated
October, 1988, of which he had a copy. He would like the
Element added to the proposed General Plan.
The public hearing was opened.
Charles View, Associate Planner, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic
Center Plaza, Santa Ana, expressed his appreciation to the
staff. The particular area of concern are the Land Use and
Circulation Elements. They received the amended language
this morning which alleviates most of their concern.
However, they wanted to go on record to address a couple of
issues with the General Plan. The two areas of concern to
the City of Santa Ana are the Town and Country area adjacent
to Main Place and the area identified as The City mall area
for the City of Orange. The first issue is the proposed
Floor Area Ratios. They ask that clarification be given to
how the proposed Floor Area Ratio of 2.5 to 4.0 relates to
the average Floor Area Ratio expressed in the language
received earlier. The language indicates there would be a
requirement for special review; however, it does not
indicate what that special review would be. What kind of
discretionary action is anticipated for creating these
higher Floor Area Ratios? They also ask for clarification
of how the tract study is conducted for the General Plan and
E.I.R. and how it relates to the proposed 2.5 to 4.0 Floor
Area Ratios. In reading the documents, it appears that the
study is based on the Floor Area Ratio average of 1.5.
Also, they ask that the traffic analysis conducted for any
project at Town and Country include the area identified in
.Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 1989 - Page 5
the Traffic Systems Improvement Authority, which the City of
Santa Ana and the City of Orange are both parties to, to
insure that impacts do not adversely affect either City's
Circulation Element or capacities. Their staff would
anticipate that any specific project of Floor Area Ratio of
1.0 or higher might be studied through an Environmental
Impact Report or appropriate environmental documentation
prior to approval by the City of Orange and they ask that
they be notified of any projects being considered in The
City project area or Town and Country area with a Floor Area
Ratio above 1.0.
Chairman Bosch understood the City of Santa Ana is in the
process of updating its General Plan. How is the City of
Santa Ana addressing these similar concerns, including the
concept of E.I.R.'s for 1.0 FAR or higher?
€7r. View explained that the State of California has required
all cities create building intensities for their
non-residential development areas. The City of Santa Ana
has recently adopted a General Plan Amendment which adopted
Floor Area Ratios, which primarily reflected current
development in the city. roost of their Floor Area Ratios
are in the range of .5 to 1 for most of the city. They
anticipate amending the General Plan for certain areas
including The Main Place area to a higher Floor Area Ratio
with appropriate Environmental documentation done
specifically for each area as it is studied. In addition,
as projects are proposed by an applicant, they will be
subject to specific Environmental Review for the project,
including transportation studies. They have adopted Floor
Area Ratios primarily reflecting what is on the ground as
opposed to higher Floor Area Ratios which anticipate future
development. Their General Plan Amendment is not as
comprehensive as the City of Orange.
Chairman Bosch asked what the currently approved Floor Area
Ratio was for Main Place?
t~ir. View stated the Floor Area Ratio for Main Place was 1.0;
it might be 1.5. There are some models created by the
-. developer, showing some office towers in the area. Those
towers would be subject to specific General Plan Amendments
should they exceed the General Plan Floor Area Ratio adopted
by the City of Santa Ana.
Jerry Klim, 101 West Riverdale, spoke before the Commission
approximately two years ago when the subject of discussion
was the R.J. Noble Company annexation. He spoke at that
time on the circulation problems at Glassell and Riverdale.
He thought the addendum of critical intersections should be
given to the public. The comments and objections that were
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 1989 - Page 6
recently received should also be available to the public.
He restricted his remarks to the particular problem of
circulation up in the Northwest area. The main concern is
that the E.I.R. and the proposed Plan do not adequately
address the issues. There is major impact and the
mitigation measures proposed are not in fact mitigation
measures. They are wish lists, fuzzy goals. Litigation
measures need to be spelled out. There are problems with
parking, noise and access. It is at a stage where it is
easily identifiable. It is not enough to say you will work
with the Air Quality Management Board or other cities. It
is not adequate for this stage of proposal. He spoke to
staff a week ago concerning the route of Riverdale and was
told that there were no plans to bring that road all the way
through to Tustin Avenue. He noticed on the Master Plan of
Streets and Highways that is in fact what has been done. He
does not understand why he was told something other than is
present on the Plan. Two years ago, Planning staff had
planned an offset if the road were to come through at all.
He was told that was too small a scale to be shown. Also,
in the old General Plan, the General Plan specifically
stated the limits to various types of land uses. He
referenced the industrial and commercial development in the
Northwest corridor. He stated development should not take
place north of Fletcher. That has been dropped from the
current Plan. He wants to know why. He noticed a. new
designation as the Resource Area, which is used for the
Noble property. That is County property. Is it the
intention of the City still to annex it? If so, what is the
designation? Whose Resource Area is it? What attempt has
been made to coordinate with the County on that? There are
serious issues of parking, noise and access -- none are
being addressed. He felt the consultants should have done
some field studies. A field study would very clearly
indicate that there are conflicting uses that would cause
profound damage to homeowners in that area. Since they are
identifiable, the mitigation should be identifiable at this
stage. It is inadequate to say that in a General Plan stage
that it is too broad an area to get down to details. If you
designate those streets and if you designate area use, you
will cause damage. Life style and property values will be
lost. They want that issue addressed.
Commissioner Scott questioned staff as to when Riverdale was
placed on the M.P.A.H., what year?
Gary Johnson said it may have been on the original Master
Plan of Arterial Highways, which was adopted in 1961. It
has been on there for some 15 to 20 years. It is shown on
the County's Master Plan and the City's r~laster Plan is in
concert with the County's system of streets and highways.
The County's piaster Plan was adopted in 1958.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 1989 - Page 7
Mr. Kuan added that as part of the General Plan Update, they
are asking the Commission and City Council to approve the
proposed changes to the Circulation Element. The link of
extension for Batavia at Riverdale is not something staff
proposes to change. If they do that, they would also have
to go to the County for approval since that link is in the
County area.
Chairman Bosch asked if the City had a legal obligation to
conform to the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways?
Mr. Kuan stated there was no legal obligation, but there are
other reasons to comply with the County's Master Plan of
Arterial Highways.
Dorothy Hudecek, 3196 North Hearthside, reiterated Mr.
Klim's statement regarding industrial use north of Fletcher.
They request this be included in the General Plan. The City
is short in park land. So they have joined with the School
District to use the school grounds as public parks. She
questions the wisdom of this action because of the safety of
the children. This was not stated in the E.I.R. or General
Plan. She talked about augmenting Lincoln and Glassell to
six lanes of traffic and the extension of Batavia to
Riverdale. Removing the parking and augmenting Lincoln and
Glassell, she is not against increasing the flow of traffic,
but what you wind up with is a bottleneck effect at both
bridges. Both bridges (Lincoln and Glassell) are four lanes
of traffic. Then, if you put the extension of Batavia
through to Riverdale, a bigger increase of the bottleneck
will be felt. The County has no plans to widen those
bridges. There were no mitigation measures for this and it
doesn't seem right to have six lanes of traffic flow into
the bridges. Removing the parking from Lincoln and Glassell
-- it would place a burden on small businesses and people
living in the apartments along Lincoln. This area is a
heavy traffic area for joggers and bicycle riders. If
parking were removed, it would prohibit public access to a
public recreation facility. G~ith the extension of Batavia
to Glassell to connect with Riverdale, this road is on
private property. It has been on the County map for quite
some time even before Mr. Cleary bought the R.J. Noble
property in 1965. Assuming this property is annexed to the
City of Orange, this road could possibly run a million
dollars when you include the gutters, sewers, lighting and
landscaping. The road would also add to the bottleneck
effect. The road will only benefit and justify the
development of the R.J. Noble property. If this road goes
in, the R.J. Noble Company would have to pay for it. Since
they have not asked to do this, this issue is mute.
Planning Commission "4inutes
March 13, 1989 - Page 8
Terry Prince, 474 Christine Street, an East Orange resident,
specifically spoke about the General Plan for the East
Orange area -- the 7100 acres. Will that be covered in the
meeting?
Chairman Bosch explained the meeting is with regard to the
General_ Plan of the existing City area, not including the
7100 acres. There is a parallel effort underway in City
Planning for that area. Workshops and public hearings for
that area will be held in the near future.
A1s. Prince has not been given proper notification as to the
various meetings.
Ms. Baca, 313 North Center, wanted to know if the General
Plan has taken into consideration the expected increased
traffic from Chapman College's expansion?
Lois Barks, 2022 Spruce, was
of the proposed high rise in
the inability of the City to
create.
concerned about the intensity
the West end of the City and
mitigate the traffic it will
Gloria Boice, 143 North Pine, addressed her concerns about
the Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for the
project. She was looking at a staff document, "Findings of
Facts". She addressed four of those 16 items. That
statement (Item 2) with regard to air quality -- impacts
cannot be reduced to less than significant levels due to the
large scale of the project. This region has been unable to
meet the Air Quality Standards set forth by the Clean .Air
Act and most recently has been unable to mast the 1987
attainment deadline. The E.I.R. states "Development
occurring in conjunction with the proposed land use policy
will continue to produce significant amounts of pollutants.
This impact, therefore, is considered to be significant and
adverse." Her concern is that the analysis in the E.I.R.
"considers only mobile source emissions and stationery
omissions related to power plants." The scope of the E.I.R.
analysis does not consider pollutants generated by the
City's industry. This concerns her and she feels the E.I.R.
must at least attempt to estimate the pollutant modes that
are generated by all City development and usage. This must
be done so that the City can adequately evaluate the impact
of this large scale project on the City's residences and the
City's future. Her second point concerns itself with the
Land Use Element. Within that Element, the proposed General
Plan creates a medium high residential designation. That's
the 24 to 36 dwelling units per acre. This is not present
in the existing General Plan. The E.I.R. states that
designation is intended to allow for increased densities
under special conditions. This additional designation is
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 1989 - Page 9
not expected to create any significant adverse environmental
impacts. She is concern`d that the E.I.R. does not address
the potential impact of the medium high density. The fact
that the use is not currently present is certainly not just
reason to assume most significant adverse environmental
impact. She has found no statistical data indicating that
an analysis of potential impact has occurred. She suggested
that either the use be deleted from the General Plan and
then properly assessed when an area of use is identified, or
that the E.I.R. should attempt to forecast for potential
future placement of this designation and then
comprehensively assess it's impact. Her third concern
addresses aesthetics within the Land Use Element and the
Open Space and Conservation Element. The E.I.R. states,
"The aesthetic quality of Orange is one of the basic
qualities that makes Orange an unique place in the region.
Preservation of this aesthetic quality is fundamental to
preservation of character of the community." The key
features in the City's natural setting are described and
Orange is described as an urbanized environment, situated
mostly against undeveloped hills to the East. The developed
areas include mostly residential development surrounding the
well established Old Towne. Then the E.I.R. goes on to
define Old Towne as follows: "Old Towne is a popular visitor
area that contain a mix of older commercial uses." Very
clearly, the Old Towne referenced in the E.I.R. is actually
just a Plaza Historic District. The Old Towne boundaries
encompass the Mile Square bounded by Cambridge, Batavia,
r7alnut and La Veta, as well as the Nutwood Tract. The
E.I.R. states that development within Old Towne is not
expected to significantly alter the visual quality of this
unique area. This conclusion is based on an erroneous
understanding of what area constitutes O.ld Towne. The
E.I.R. needs to consider the implementation of this General
Plan with respect to aesthetics in the Old Towne rule Square
-- not just the Plaza Historic District. Her final point,
again in the Open Space Conservation Element, a discussion
of cultural resources is presented. The E.I.R. states,
"Land use policy is not expected to significantly impact
historical structures or districts." The basis for this
assessment of the Environmental Impact, she noted some
misunderstandings seemed to become evident. A Historic
Inventory was conducted between the years of 1981/1982. The
E.I.R. states, "A survey identified a total of 1,377
historic homes and buildings eligible for listing on the
State Eistoric Resources Inventory. The City notes that the
structures are only eligible for listing." The State Office
of Historic Preservation in Sacramento was called and
questioned regarding this statement. He indicated that a
State Historic Resources Inventory was filed for the City of
Orange's inventory. The person has agreed to prepare a
letter for the City's consideration and is forthcoming. She
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 1989 - Page 10
asked that the Commission not close the issue of
environmental impacts on the cultural resources in the City
until the issue is resolved.
Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, asked if the map will
show her property as not being a part of the College?
Barbara D~Niro, 1118 East Adams, wanted to reiterate a few
things. She was glad the gentleman from Santa Ana was
present and stated they will amend their General Plan
because The Main Place and Town and Country may exceed the
1.5. She remembers when they closed that street south of
Town and Country. She did not have the Overlay District,
Table 3 -- was that suppose to be part of the packet? She
has been a resident of Orange for 31 years. She was
concerned that parking is provided downtown; however, it is
not provided in any other area of the City. She noticed on
private property there is truck parking, as well as private
vehicle parking. She addressed the issue of a circulation
system that was needed to support land use, but also need
adequate parking for that same land use. The apartments
immediately behind Alpha Beta at Tustin and Collins came to
mind. She noticed there are between 80 and 90 vehicles
parked on the street from those apartments. It shows the
City is behind on those required parking spaces. She
wonders if that need for extra for the year 2010 is
included. She wondered how that parking for the movie
theater in her area coincides to residential parking and
use. One of the speakers commented that school grounds are
now being used for public parks. Living next to a school
for 26 years, she is troubled by that.
Debbie Sigler, 171 North Shaffer, stated the Element should
be retained as established on January 25, 1983 and that
there be an addendum to the Element with the Elements that
were incorporated into the Open Space and Conservation
Element and those that were identified in the Elemont of
'83. Before she can endorse the recommendation, she needed
to address some issues point by point. On Page 1.1 of the
Land Use Element it refers to Old Towne and fails to mention
the Historic Survey Advisory Board; it fails to mention the
inventory in that narrative section -- there needs to be
some fine tuning done just to clarify those points that are
not entirely accurate. On one of the points where they
support community awareness and cooperation, it still needs
to be clarified. She requests a week be given to provide
clarification and she volunteered her assistance. In
reference to the guidelines mentioned as one of the
implementation measures, it infers they were not yet adopted
by the City or the demolition review -- that needs to be
specified specifically. The "Whole House" booklet should
also be specified.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 1989 - Page 11
Dale Rahn, 350 North Harwood, Old Towne Preservation
Association President, is concerned that the Historic
Preservation Element is not a part of the 1988/89 proposed
General Plan. The Historic Preservation Element adopted in
1983 was a culmination of many years of hard work by
dedicated volunteers and professionals. It's adoption was
overwhelmingly supported by the proud citizens of Orange.
The proposed General Plan addressed historic preservation
issues in a different manner. They feel the objectives of
the historic Preservation Element may not be clearly defined
and prominent in the proposed General Plan. They have
itemized their concerns and would like to discuss them with
the Commission. They also ask that the Commission conduct a
study session to ascertain the ramifications or implications
of the Historic Preservation Element being dispersed
throughout the General Plan rather than its current status
as a particular unique Element of the General Plan.
Commissioner Hart stated Mr. Rahn must have been late and
did not hear his recommendation to include the Historic
Preservation Element in the General Plan Updated Program.
Tom Treschler, 703 North Shaffer, had a couple of comments
and questions. He reinforced the concept of an Old Towne
Preservation District as a separate Element and took it a
step further. The purpose of the General Plan is a tool to
communicate the City's various zoning and use requirements
to the design and planning professionals, a.s well as the
community, and other public members that are involved with
the City. tae wanted to make a very clear indication on the
General Plan as an overlay zone as to where the Mile Square
District is and where the Plaza Historic District is.
Y~lithin that separate Historic District section ask that all
the relevant documentation (demolition ordinance, everything
someone needs to know about in Old Towne) were referenced.
tie would like to see the FAR be limited to .5, except with a
C.U.P. to go above that. Most of the buildings in the Town
and Country area are at a .5 FAR. One concern with the
traffic plan is that ~~alnut, between Plain and Glassell, is
shown as a secondary -- not as a commuter. That would be a
problem in encouraging through traffic beyond Blain Street
through a tight neighborhood. ~~ithin the E.I.R. he wanted
to know what and where is Assembly Bill 3180 located,
requiring monitoring of an implementation plan for the
E.I.R. mitigation measures? He commented on the medium high
residential as an architect and planner. He believes there
needs to b2 higher density housing to provide more
affordable housing. It reduces traffic from people driving
out from Riverside, Corona into areas of Orange County.
v~lhat is the Floor Area Ratio the City of Santa Ana is
proposing for the former Herwitz prop?rty across the street
from t~iain Plare? It is important that Santa Ana have a
Planning Commission :Minutes
'March 13, 1989 - Page 12
reciprocal agreement with the City of Orange in terms of the
review and study of those projects. C.E.Q.A. already
requires that the City notice via the S.C.A.G. for any
project that is going to employ or house more than 1,000
people, or more than 40 acres including streets. They would
automatically receive a notice of any plans or Environmental
Impact Reports through that service. He noticed some
properties outside the City that is listed as R-A and 0-S.
What was the logic for dividing up that property that way
and do they need the approval of the School District to do
that in order to re-zone that?
Sydney Plakin, 411 West Crystal View, said the present Master
Plan states there will be no industrial north of Fletcher.
The proposed Plan does not say that and he would like to see
that put back in. Regarding the widening of Glassell and
Lincoln by removing parking, it's nice to still have a bike
trail and it would be nice to access it. But if people have
no place to park along those streets, there is no way of
getting to the bike trail. At one of the workshops, one of
the questions arose about bike trails on the East side of
Orange, along Wanda Road. At that time it was mentioned
that Wanda, along the railroad tracks, there would be a bike
trail from Collins all the way across. He sees now they are
going to be putting in a commuter road. V7hen they thought
about the bike trail, some of the people were complaining
about the people riding their bikes there, how will the
people feel about cars driving on that narrow piece of
property?
Robert Boice, 143 North Pine, wanted clarification on
Commissioner Hart's recommendation on the Element. He
understood the recommendation that he would like to see the
Historic Preservation Element retained as one of the
Elements of the proposed General Plan. He is concerned that
there are several problems with the wordage that is used
throughout the other Elements that are in the proposed
General Plan. He would like to recommend that the
Commission make their motion to state that the 19$3 Historic
Preservation Element wordage be used for the new General
Plan and if that is not adequate, then he suggests that
before the other wordage is included, that it be gone
through very carefully. They have established a committee
that has read word-for-word the technical report of the
General Plan and the E.I.R.. In that, each item that dealt
with the Historic Preservation Element as it was dissected,
was looked at and there are some problems. They could be
dealt with very successfully by just retaining the already
written without having to pay for anymore Historic
Preservation Element that exists in the 1983 Element.
Planning Commission Minutes
Plarch 13, 1989 - Page 13
Don Brandt, 800 North ~9aplewood Street, addressed the
problem of a conflict of zoning referring to the 200 block
rdorth Olive Street. Even though the area to the north has
the same problem, there are none or very few maximum density
structures .located at 69alnut Street. This problem may exist
in other areas. There is maximum density with the General
Plan calling for medium density. This creates a problem for
the property owners, not only for future development, but
also to protect what is already there. This condition
creates a non-compliance situation. It would be bad enough
to lose such property that way, but then to coma down to
City Hall and be told that because of the General Plan, the
most you could replace it with would be three units. There
are 17 properties located on both sides of the street, of
which all but four are residential units. There are three
single family rentals, three 3 units, two 5's, three 6's and
two 8's. This means that seven maximum density structures
already are in place. It would be an ideal time to correct
this problem whi1L upgrading the General Plan. They
submitted signed letters from owners of 14 out of the 17
properties to Planning for action.
Chris Crow, 1523 San Carlos, addressed an item of the Plan
recognizing her area is in a recreational area on the Santa
Ana River. In her area between Lincoln and Glassell, those
are the only two areas that are basically safe to get off on
your bicycle, jogging and that is why it is such an
attractive area for parking. G~ith an estimated 50,000
vehicles on Riverdale and expanding Glassell, taking out
street parking, it is no longer a safe area. They can't go
down to Chapman because there is too much traffic there.
Imperial Highway is extremely hazardous. People drive
across the bridge and park near Glassell and Riverdale as
opposed to riding their bicycles across the bridge because
it is unsafe. She thinks the City should look at this area
as a recreational area along that river.
?~Ir. Rahn asked for a clarification or if it were possible to
get a blow up of the General Plan ~1ap. He was looking at
the darker yellow -- the law density residential, 2 to 6
detached units per acre. Looking at that and realizing that
within the Old Towne District, the southeast quadrant,
according to the Map, would be R-l. If that is so, he would
applaud that as that is a move towards preservation, but if
not, he wanted clarification for the future. That area for
the most part is R-2 R-C-D.
Ralph Diedrick, 124 6~dest Brookshire, spoke about the traffic
problems in getting out onto Glassell. If we're not
careful, it won't take too long for all the people of the
housing tract, just south of Lincoln, to be put in jail.
P1`ase be careful.
Planning Commission Minutes
tiarch 13, 1989 - Page 14
Mr. Treschler gave clarification to
The low density residential of 2 to
would make everything in Old Towne
that is 7260 square foot per unit.
on that range should be adjusted so
zoning is.
Mr. Rahn's statement.
6 dwellings per =scre
ton-conforming because
He thought the numbers
it conforms to what the
pis. DeNiro commented that the City of Los Angeles has
increased their parking for restaurants and commercial
c`nters. She wondered if Orange were going to do that to
keep up with the times. Also, is there a possibility to
move the Post Office to an industrial area and get it off of
Tustin Avenue?
The public hearing was closed.
P4r. Murphy stated in attempting to address the entire City
in a single document, the General Plan has to remain as a
general document and cannot contain all of the specifics all.
of us would like to see it contain in terms of regulating
land use. That's why there are the supplemental tools such
as zoning and specific planning and the zoning codes, as
well as the Subdivision Map Act. The General Plan is an
attempt to set general policy in the City down to the degree
that an individual property owner can determine what use is
allowed on his property, but other than that, it is still to
b~ a general designation of policy for the City. Beyond
that, one must look to the zoning on the property to
determine more specifically what can be developed on that
property. P1any of the questions raised relate to those
subsequent implementation devices and not the General Plan.
State law does require the City to develop the General Plan,
as well as the implementation tools. The City has a good
basis for the General Plan and the zoning update will begin
very shortly.
Chairman Bosch wished to proceed by addressing the route of
the Specific Elements to the General Plan in order to group
the questions together.
1. Land Use Element
t~ir. View was asked to speak on the Floor Area Ratios or the
proposed current use of the former Herwitz property, south
of Town and Country.
Mr. View responded the Herwitz property is included in the
same General Plan designation as Clain Place, which is either
1.0 or 1.5. They have no specific proposal for that project
at this time. However, given the magnitude of the site, any
development that would occur they would anticipate an
thorough Environmental and staff review of proposed
projects.
Planning Commission Flinutes
March 13, 19~~ - Page 15
Chairman Bosch said several questions were raised with the
ability to define on the General Plan Map whether any
particular property lay within any particular General Plan
designation. ~~hat does the law require on that? What can
b~ done in terms of accessibility to the public of a larger
scale General Plan Map?
Mr. Murphy responded that recent case law has indicated that
an individual property owner should be able to determine the
uses permitted his/her parcel of land. 1n looking at the
General Plan documents, there were two questions asked: One
was regarding Chapman College and it's staff proposal to
indicate on the General Plan that the exact boundaries of
the Chapman College General Plan should be looked at based
on the approval of the Specific Plan as being a more
specific reference than the General Plan. A footnote will
be added for reference. The other question was regarding
the Southeast Quadrant of the Old Towne area which presently
shows being predominantly low density residential. then
that designation was placed on the General Plan back in the
early 1970's as part of a study of the basic Old Towne area,
recognizing that the property was primarily zoned for
duplexes, the land was used for single family homes. The
City Council, in it's approval of the General Plan,
indicated that the low density land use category approval
was an indication of the interest by the City in retaining
that low density character to the area, recognizing there
were some second units in existence at that time and others
being proposed. The Council indicated that if the staff
found in reviewing the General Plan at future dates that the
capacity of a low density category was exceeded, then a
General Plan Amendment should be reviewed at that point in
time. That point has not been reached and the character of
that portion of the City still remains basically as a low
density residential area.
Chairman Bosch stated concern was expressed about the 200
block North Olive where there is an apparent contradiction
between the proposed General Plan designation and the
existing zoning.
Mr. Murphy stated in that Cass the designation on the
General Plan is fairly clear in terms of the boundaries of
those areas. It is a question of policy on the part of the
City as to whether that area should be shown as a low medium
or medium density category.
Commissioner Scott asked about the school grounds having a
joint use and wanted that issue addressed.
Mr. i~iurphy responded the General Plan indicates that the
school properties in the present part of the City, to a high
Planning Commission i~iinutes
E,Zarch 13, 1989 - Page 16
degree, are over sized school sites. There are 15 and 20
acre elementary schools. The Community Services Department
has an on-going working relationship with the School
District to utilize portions of those school sites for
recreational purposes, particularly in the summertime and
after school programs, which supplements the City's Parks
and Recreation Programs. There is no formal proposal to
either acquire portions of those school sites or to even
expand on the use of those sites. They recognize what has
occurred over the last 20 years and there is a joint
City-School Program providing recreational facility use on
existing school sites. The joint use means using the school
property with the City administering the recreational
programs during off-school hours.
Chairman Bosch said this should answer the safety concern
about mixture of non-school participants with other
recreational programs for casual participants.
Mr. Murphy said it is his understanding that there is a
definite separation of use in order to avoid any conflicts
in use of the school sites.
Commissioner Scott wanted a clarification on the 1965
designation of park land in the Riverdale/Lincoln/Glassell
area. ~das that ever adopted?
Tv1r. Murphy said the property known as the R.J. Noble
property was previously designated as a park, based on the
County's Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Program,
which identified a series of parcels along both the river
and the creek to be acquired at future points in time. The
plan was approved in the 50's. At that time there was an
aggressive program by the County to acquire lands adjacent
to both water ways and to develop a rather extensive
Greenbelt Program. Since the adoption of that Plan, the
County has reduced that Program, has withdrawn funding
sources, most of which have dried up because of a lack of
assistance from their own revenues or State assistance, and
their efforts have been reduced to acquire lands. That,
therefore, impacts the City's General Plan on those major
parcels. There are still efforts to expand the regional
parks such as Santiago Oaks and others in the area, but the
City is depending on the County's funding to provide those
lands.
Chairman Bosch understood there is a concept that the City
cannot propose a General Plan designation for private
properties such as park land on other people's properties
without having the money to come up and buy it. It
represents a taking of private properties.
Mr. P~surphy stated that was correct. The City would be
subject to being sued for inverse condemnation by
identifying private lands in that manner.
Planning Commission ^~linutes
March 13, 1~3° - Page 17
Commissioner Scott said the question was raised regarding
designating industrial north of Fletcher.
hir. P~lurphy was not sure of what that reference is to as far
as the existing General Plan. I41r. P.eichert also is not
aware of any direct statement in the existing General Plan
that states there is a northerly limit of Fletcher Avenue.
In a General Plan Amendment some 10 years ago in which
industrial zoning was removed from the north side of
Fletcher and Fletcher Avenue was determined to be the
boundary, as opposed to the back yards of those lots on the
north side of Fletcher, west of Fletcher Elementary School,
a determination was made at that point that Fletcher would
be the far north point relaying to that study area. Perhaps
that is where it comes from. The new General Plan does not
state any direction as far as a northerly limit. on the
industrial area. Ydeither dogs it propose any industrial for
north of Fletcher at the present time.
There was a clarification request that indicates the current
copy of the General Plan does include that statement.
Chairman Bosch wanted staff to identify for the public what
the Designation Resource Area means that is being proposed
for application to the specific area.
T1r. ~flurphy referred to the map. The Resource Area. is shown
in dark green. Basically there are four areas that have
been used in the past for sand and gravel extraction or in
the case of the flat upper lands to the east, the
agricultural use (grazing lands). There are no proposals on
those properties at the present time in terms of their
ultimate use. The property, therefore, may not be used
strictly as an open space use. Staff has identified them as
2osource Areas btica.use of the lack of a proposal or firm
Mlan to use those properties for a specific use some time in
the future. This is a holding zone similar to an
agricultural district.
Commissioner Scott said it came up several times regarding
medium high density, yield per acre. He requested an
explanation for the public.
sir. Piurphy explained the medium high density is identified
in the legend as the highest density residential designation
of 2~ to 36 dwelling units per acre. There are no areas on
the General Plan designated for that use, but it is a land
use designation that could be utilized in the future.
Staff's proposal was that it be available particularly for
affordable housing and senior citizen housing in residential
types of areas as opposed to the commercial districts, which
is where most of the higher density projects presently
Planning Commission "•iinutes
March 13, 19~~ - Page 1£3
exist. This would bo a more appropriate way of regulating
those special uses; not traditional residential apartments
or condominiums, but special cases where a higher density
was desired for affordability reasons.
Chairman Bosch said as a follow-up to that and without
having specific areas designated on the Master Plan, even
though a designation would exist, wouldn't it require a
General Plan Amendment to apply it to any portion of the
City? tVhat is the ben`fit for including it in the General
Plan merely as a designation at this time?
P•1r. iiurphy responded to identify to perspective developers
of special projects that the opportunity exists; that the
City is at least examining that as a possibility and
considers densities higher than 24 units to the acre under
special conditions. The General Plan Amendment process
takes additional time on the part of the applicant.
Commissioner Hart asked if it hasn't been historical on past
actions that senior housing has been the only exception
where that has been used? (Correct.)
Chairman Bosch said there was a related concern that the
E.I.R. apparently indicates no adverse impact for the medium
high density. Is that true and if so, is that because it is
not designated on the Plan?
~4s. stetson said the reason it was not examined and
determined not to be an adverse impact is because there
isn't any at this time. Ono of the alternatives in the
E.T.R. looks at increased residential density in the City
and that could assume you do apply the medium high density
to some properties. That aspect and those impacts were
Looked at. ri'he impacts related to denser development
Citywide, which could be considered to include some medium
high density residential.
Chairman Bosch asked if that meant if a General Plan
Amendment Caere filed automatically, an E.I.R, would be
required for that designation?
i~4s. Stetson said that would have to reviewed on a
case-by-case basis, based on an initial study.
Commissioner Hart spoke about the special situation on Olive
Street. How would that be addressed at this point? Thera
must be a way to take care of the areas that are
inconsistent?
Chairm•~n Bosch thought that seas the intent of the General
Planning effort to clear up any inconsistencies. He agrees
it needs to ba cleared up, but at the same time he dons not
want to create spot General Planning.
Planning Commission MinutQs
larch 13, 1988 - Page 19
^ir. Murphy said there were alternatives that the Commission
has available to respond to that request. Staff has been
looking at the Cypress Street area for some time because of
the known difference between the zoning and the General Plan
for the area.. b~lhether that is a true inconsistency in the
eyes of the courts, he is not sure. The terminology used
for the R-4 district to be a maximum density and the medium
density residential indication on the General Plan
encouraged that inconsistency. The fact that there is only
one block rather than the entire Cypress Street area allows
the Commission to deal with that issue. It is the far south
extreme portion of the Cypress Street area, the closest to
the Old Towne core area and some adjacent apartment units to
the south of the high density nature. It appears to be part
of the Cypress Street area that contains the greater amount
of larger projects (density on an individual lot). Them is
some justification to look at that block differently than
the two or three blocks to the north that make up the
Cypress Street area. ~~lhether the Commission wish to take
action specifically on that one block area as part of the
General Plan, refer it to staff as part of the General Plan
action for further work, or take action on the two options
presented.
Commissioner Hart asked if the Commission proceeded with the
present Plan, and they wished to make that area in
conformance, would it require a General Plan Amendment
later?
PZr. Plurphy said there are two ways to deal with the area.
One is to change the zone and the other is to change the
General Plan. The Commission and Council need to determine
whether the zoning needs to be reduced or the General Plan
needs to be increased to make the two conform to each other.
The last time the issue was addressed, staff recommended to
retain the land use indication of medium density, 6 to 15
units to the acre, and re-zone the property to the R-3-A
district, which would make the two conform from a legal
standpoint (the entire Cypress Street area). The other
alternative is to retain the R-4 zoning for this block area
and to amend the General Plan to show what is nova called low
Tedium for the 15 to 24 dwelling units per acre category.
Commissioner Hart said Chapman College was brought up again.
He asked for clarification as to how it relates to what the
Council has adopted as the Chapman Plan. Are we in
conformance with that Plan?
~gr. P~Iurphy stated staff would propose to place a note on the
General Plan indicating that anyone interested in the
boundaries of the Chapman General Plan should refer to that
Specific Plan adopted by the City Council. The reference
would not change Council's action.
Planning Commission r~Finutes
March 13, 1~~~ - Page 20
Chairman Bosch was sure staff would have noted the
references to the specific definitions of Ol.d Towne
boundaries vs. Plaza Historical District throughout the
document, particularly the Land Use Element. (Yes.)
Chairman Bosch bounced back to Batavia/Glassell Street just
to clearly identify it. He was not aware of any current
City plans for future use of that area., other than the
Resource Designation. Is staff aware of any current
proposals for that area?
:=1r. Psurphy was not aware of any proposals at this time.
Commissioner Scott wanted to know the zoning on the school
property in East Orange.
t-1r. Murphy was not sure if
Resource Area is partially
That is a 500 acre parcel
Resource Area because they
b.=, especially with the la
public streets.
the large parcel shovm as the
owned by the School District.
-- land locked -- that is shown as
don't know what the proposal will
ck of access presently to any
2. Circulation Element
Commissioner Scott said a comment was made on the critical
intersection of Lincoln and Glassell. How many years in the
future is that projected? ~r~ould a public hearing be
required before that could be implemented?
~~ir. P.uan said the General Plan was a blueprint of the City's
future (the year 2010). The intersection will require
rdditional enhancements. Staff anticipates the right-of-way
will be acquired throughout time and the entire area
developed soon.
Commissioner Scott said there were several concerns about
removal of parking on Lincoln and Glassell. Mould this
require a public hearing before that would be implemented?
i1r. Kuan said the General Plan was proposing to have a six
lane modified augmented arterial along Lincoln, which is
consistent with Tustin Street. Glassell Street is not
proposing to have any change in terms of parking, unless the
traffic condition changes dramatically. Any parking removal
of that magnitude wi.11 go through a public hearing.
Chairman Bosch said in the same area of the City no plan is
mentioned to widen the bridges on Lincoln and Glassell. Are
those plans collateral with the Santa Ana River Project or
in the joint planning efforts of the City of Orange .-end
Anaheim?
Planning Commission ilinutes
t~~~rch 13, 1c~39 - Page 21
iqr. Johnson responded that eventually there will be widening
along the river to provide for hydraulic capacity. If, in
conjunction with that, the widening for street purposes can
be accomplished, then that will happen. There is a program
called the County wide Bridge Program vahich is funded by gas
tax monies. Each ono of those bridges will be looked at on
a priority type basis. At the present time, the County is
embarking upon a plan to widen the Katella bridge at the
river. They are doing it primarily for flood purposes.
Commissioner Scott asked if that bridge were half way
between the City of Orange and City of Anaheim. (Th:at's
correct.)
There was input from the audience regarding the
Riverdale/Glassell widening. There are no plans at this
tim? regarding the critical intersection.
t7r. Kuan clarified that G1Ysse11 Street. is shown in the
proposed Circulation Element as not having six lanes; it is
proposed to only have four lanes. If parking were to bo
removed to make those two additional 1?nes, then a series of
public hearings will bo held.
Chairman Bosch questioned the continuation of the
Riverdale/Batavia connection on the General Plan. ~9hy does
th:~t General Plan route continue to be sho~~m for reasons
other than tradition?
dir. Kuan pointed out ::~ couple of reasons. That section of
the Riverdale/Batavia extension has always been on the
City's i~2aster Plan as well. as the County's. The City must
justify to the County a reason for changing the Plan on an
Environmental basis. Staff feels the County should take the
lead in terms of making changes since that property lies
within the County's jurisdiction. If the City wants to take
a lead, it must go through the County anyway to make
changes. The City would bo subject to the County's
determination as to whether funding can be allocated to the
City for future improvements.
Chairman Bosch questioned if in fact the connection :.acre to
remain in the General Plan, what steps would have to b^
taken in terms of public process before a road could be
built?
~~~r. Kuan stated a road would be required for functional
development. If there is a park, then you would still need
a certain type of road to service the park. Tho first
process needed for the area to develop, is to ~~nnex the
area. A Genial Plan Update would then b^ needed, :which
requires ,s public hearing. Impacts to the area would. be
included in the E.I.R.
Planning Commission ~~Iinutes
?March 13, 198 - Page 22
Chairman Bosch said questions cadre
interface of augmented streets, let
arterials, with access to the Banta
regard to safety, potential parking
any plans in the caorks working with
trails to create safe access points
arterial highways at the trails?
:Staff was not award of any plans.
raised regarding the
along the existing
Ana River trail with
areas, etc. Are there
the County on the bike
interfacing with the
Chairman Bosch questioned the extension of ~•Ja.nda Road south
of i~Ya.lnut in lieu of a bicycle trail that has been discussed
in the past and the dash lines shown on the reap as spacial
study areas. T°lhat impacts would that give to the
Circulation Elem`nt?
~2r. Kuan said the extension would take place between ~7:alnut
and Collins. In Transportation Planning they are trying to
create a grid pattern, crossing one another. East of the 55
there is limited grid patterns. The ~a'anda extension will
crate a partial answer to that missing link for a grid
pattern. It will create another through street parallel to
Tustin Street, servicing the local residents in East Orange.
Chairman Bosch asked what the purpose was for the special
study designation with regard to study of noise problems,
width right-of-way problems?
gr. Kuan respond`d the Wanda. Street extension is not
proposed to be a special study area. Staff proposes to
include that as part of the "Taster Plan Street System.
Commissioner Scott questioned if the Circulation Element has
taken into consideration the Chapman Collage expansion?
(Yes it has.)
Chairman Bosch asked another question regarding circulation
impacts for the potential high rise on the west lido of
town. What is being done to mitigate the major traffic
impacts, as well as the I-5 widening?
r'tr. Kuan said there was a lot of discussion on how the
southwest part of town will develop. There are a couple of
major improvements that are currently being planned. The
most dramatic one is the I-5 widening project, which is in
the phase of being circulated. Cal-Trans has held a number
of public workshops regarding this widening. Staff is in
the process of reviewing the E.I.R. for any future
development and making sure right-of-ways are set aside for
that widening to take place. Right-of-way acquisition is
the most important part of the project. Arterial.
improvemQnts ~~re also very important in order to copU with
Manning Commission .;mutes
:"?arch 13, 19BQ - Page 2S
the intensified development in the area. Through the
cooperation of the Joint Power Authority between the cities
of Orange, Santa Ana, and Anaheim staffs can plan together
for improvements to occur in a timely manner.
Commissioner Scott said it was mentioned on the Circulation
Trap that C~~alnut Street, east of xiain Street, wouJ_d ba
indicated as a secondary instead of a commuter. Could
clarification be given?
>~Tr. Kuan said the section in question is tr~alnut betcaeen Main
-and Glassell. The Existing Flan of Arterial Highways shows
it as a secondary. Staff is not making any changes to that
classification as part of the General Plan Update.
Chairman Bosch questioned the adequacy of parking and how
parking was addressed, particularly with regard to
restaurants, commercial, theaters and the relationship of
commercial uses to adjacent residential zones and the
application of parking standards.
Ttr. "~cGee r`sponded that parking standards are something
which is different than a General Plan level type of
document might address. The City does have a chapter within
the Zoning Ordinance which does establish parking standards
for Query use within the City of Orange. Those specific
uses are addressed. Additionally, the City is in the
process of revising that Parking Ordinance. Those usos are
part of that. Restaurants, in particular, are being
suggested to be upgraded substantially (to double the
current standards). There are recognized problems ~f~ith
certain restaurant facilities and any business TrJhich ha.s ,f.
high attraction dogs require a significant amount of parking
to respond to that.
Commissioner Scott said one issue which was discussed was
thn relationship to thn_ proposed zoning to circulation. The
circulation will handle to the level of service D, is that
correct? Define D.
Tir. I{can said every field has their own jargon of words.
Level. of service is the way they measure and convey "level
of street operation" so that people can understand how
streets operate. Level D is the level most cities use in
terms of planning for the future at a General. Plan level. D
is also consistent with the County of Orange Growth
T~Ianagement Plan. Level D is not a rosy picture. Tio~~ever,
since Orange is in an urbanized area, level D service is
acceptable. ,fin example of level D service exists on City
Center Drive. Also, Chapman Avenu^ from Tustin to E.3rlham
is operating at level D service.
Planning Commission r2inutes
ttarch 18, 198 - Page 24
3. ~3ousing Element
Chairman Bosch said one of the questions related to the
collateral land use with regard to the medium high
designation, which was addressed previously.
4. Open Space and Conservation Element
Chairman Bosch stated they addressed the question on joint
use of schools relative to safety and over sized school
sites and hours of use. The identification of recreation
areas as the Santa. Ana River Greenbelt and the interfaces to
that was a question as to how the City was identifying that
to show it is an existing recreation area in the City'
i~'Ir. "=lurphy said the Santa Ana River is shown as part of the
trails system from the beach to Featherly Park, which is
part of the County's Bicycle Trail System, as well as
equestrian use. It might be appropriate to direct some
communication from the City to the County indicating any
concerns regarding access to the trail system or safety
issues that the Commission may be concerned about. To a
high degree, that comps under the purview of the County.
5. Historic Preservation Element
Commissioner Hart presumed the information would be
extracted and consolidated into an updated Historical
Element. He suggested those who had questions about the
Element, submit them in writing to the Planning Division.
Chairman Bosch stated there was concern expressed about
dispersal of portions of that throughout other Elements of
the Plan. The Commission wants to be sure of adequate
interface among the Elements to protect the Historical
Pr.tiservation Element.
Mr. te~urphy said if the Commission and Council wish to
rc-write the Historic Preservation Element, it might b^ more
appropriate to direct that as a separate action so as not to
significantly delay the progress of the Genera]. Plan at this
point in time. Hn could see that taking a substantial
amount of tiros with the interest expressed. It might be
better to retain the Historical Preservation Element in its
present form and refer to it in the revised General P?.an and
direct staff to, come back at a future point in time, and
totally re do the Historic Preservation Element and get full
input from the community.
The Commission had discussion with the audience regarding
the ~iistoric Preservation Element. At this time, the
~:xistina Element will remain in affect until an update would
be approved.
Planning Commission .•2inutcs
i~ls~rch 13, 1989 - Page 25
~. Safety Element
Chairman Bosch stated several issues have already been
addressed relative to traffic, bike trail access, etc.
7. Boise Element
ado questions were raised.
8. Environmental Impact Report
Chairman Bosch said there was one specific question with
regard to the applicability of Assembly Bill 3180 regarding
required monitoring and an implementation plan, and how it
would apply to the General Plan Amendment.
~~ir. Rodriquez said with respect to the applicability,
Assembly Bill 3180, there is a requirement that the
mitigation monitoring be made at the time of the E.I.R.
determination. That program can be implemented by a
supplemental ordinance. There is a specific question that
has not been answered. There are no guidelines yet whether
the monitoring requirement applies to a project as defined
under the planning law as opposed to Public Resource Code
1537A.
Chairman Bosch said there was another question with regard
to Findings of Fact on rao. 2 the air quality. ~dhat is
considered a significant Level and what about industrial
pollutant loads -- how are they addressed relative to air
quality?
The Air Quality "lanagement District no longer provides
information and the consultants will attempt to include that
information in some sort of addendum.
Chairman Bosch said they also had a question regarding the
term aesthetic quality of preservation in the E.I.R.
relative to the definition of Old Towne. He assumes the
consultants have picked up the corrections of the
boundari?s. {Yes.)
Commissioner Scott asked if a blow up of the Zoning ?~iap
could be made available?
ir. Murphy said once the General Plan is adopted, there will
b~ a reproducible copy of the same size scale map that will
be available to anyone who wishes to use it.
Chairman Bosch asked in the interim would the large display
map b` accessible during office hours in the Planning
Division for public viewing? (Yes.)
Planning Commission P•iinutes
i`larch 13, 1989 - Page 26
P~Ir. "Murphy stated the final draft of the Environmental
Impact Report contains an addendum in the back. It not only
identifies the County's questions, as well as the other
respondents on the E.I.R., but also the prepared responses
to those comments. Specifically, the County's comments
start on Page D-2 under the addendum and run through D-~.
Staff feels they have addressed all of the issues raised by
the County in an adequate form.
3r. Rahn spoke about a discrepancy that needed clarification
regarding the Historic Inventory. Chairman Bosch assured
him once the letter was received from the State, it will be
entered into the document as part of the responses in the
E.I.R.
"loved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott,
that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
certify E.I.R. No. 1247 as having been completed in
m:.ompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and
the City's local guidelines adopted pursuant thereto and
find that even with the implementation of mitigation
measures contained with the E.I.R. there will still remain
significant adverse environmental impact related to air
quality and traffic circulation. It is further recommended
that the City Council adopt the attached Finding of Fact and
Stet^ment of Overriding Considerations which outline the
reasons why the project should still be approved.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Scott
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, P4aster
R9OTI0~1 CARRIED
Discussion was held regarding the 200 block North Olive.
However, legal counsel advised it would not be appropriate
at this time to make a motion relating to conformance
because of the motion made on the E.I.R.
PSoved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott,
that the Planning Commission rscommond to the City Council
that they approve the revised General Plan with appropriate
comments and modifications including a study of the Cypress
Street density and zoning, and the Southeast Quadrant
density and zoning in the Old Towne area; and that they
maintain the 1983 Historic Preservation Element and extract
from the Open Space Element those references to Historic
Preservation.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Scott
NOES: r3one
ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, TM4aster P~IOTION CARRIED
7
.Planning Commission ~ginutes
<~arch 13, 1939 - Page 27
IN RF : ADJt~UR21"~tENT
T~~oved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch,
that the Planning Commission adjourn to March 20, 1989 for
their regular Planning Commission P~?eeting at 7:00 p.m., with
a study session at F~:30 p.m.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Scott
~QES : None
ABSE?'dT: Commissioners Greek, Master A"I~JTIO~I CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
/sld