Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/7/1983 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California November 7, 1983 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Greek, P~ason, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Master STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secretary; PRESENT: Jack McGee, Associate Planner; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR IrJITHDRAWN: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1313 - OAK RIDGE PRIVATE SCHOOL: A request to expand the capacity of an existing school from 75 to 100 students and to move-on a modular unit for classroom space on property located on the south side of Walnut Avenue at the terminus of Maplewood Street (1134 E. Walnut Avenue). (Continued from the October 17, 1983 hearing.) NOTE: This project is exempt from environmental review. Mr. Murphy explained to the Commission that the Oak Ridge Private School had requested that their application for Conditional Use Permit 1313 be withdrawn. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Greek, to withdraw the application for Conditional Use Permit 1313, at the request of the applicant. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1316 - WEST COAST CONSERVATORY OF BALLET: A proposal to operate a ballet school in a 5,600 square foot space within an industrial center on land located on the south-vest corner of Collins Avenue and Batavia Street (1014 4!est Collins Avenue). (Continued from the October 17, 1983 hearing.) NOTE: Negative Declaration 870 has been ~ prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report. By consensus of the Planning Commission, no presentation was given. Chairr;~an dart explained to the audience that the reason for the continuance was that at the last meeting there v~~as a split vote among the Commissioners anU more time had been needed for deliberation of the matter. Since Com- missioner Greek had been absent at the last meeting, he had studied the matter, perusing the staff report and minutes of the last meeting and was prepared to vote on the application. Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Two ~,, Kristin Potts, 14426 Brandywine, Garden Grove, the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating that she had nothing to add to her previous comments, except that all problems had been cleared up with the city staff. She said that all conditions are acceptable to them. Commissioner Greek asked Ms. Potts if she realized that there is a condition stating that this application will be reviewed in six months and could be rescinded at that time. She stated that she was aware of this condition and accepted it. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Greek, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 870. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason., Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED ~. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Mason, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1316, subject to the conditions outlined in the memorandum of October 28, 1983. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - LAND USE ELEP~1ENT 2-83A, ZONE CHANGE 1009 - MR. JESS FROST: A proposal to change land use designations from Open Space and Low Density Residential (2-6 units per acre) to High Density Residential (15-24 units per acre) and rezone from R-1-7 (Single Family Residential, 7,000 square foot minimum lot), FP-1 and FP-2 (Flood Plain Combining) Districts to RM-7 (Residential Multiple Family) and FP-2 (Flood Plain Combining) Districts to accommodate an estimated 420 unit apartment complex on 26± acres located on the west side of Tustin Street at La Veta Avenue (580 South Tustin Street). NOTE: Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this project. Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains 26± acres of land located at the west side of Tustin Street at La Veta Avenue. It has approximately 666± feet of frontage on Tustin Street and is approximately 2004± feet deep. The property is developed with a golf course and is zoned R1-7, FP-1 and FP-2. Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant proposes to change the land use designations from Open Space and Low Density Residential (2-6 units per acre) to High Density Residential (15-24 units per acre) and rezone from the R-1-7 (Single Family Residential), FP-1 and FP-2 (Flood Plain Combining) Districts Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Three to the RM-7 (Residential Multiple-Family) and FP-2 (Flood Plain Combining) Districts. He pointed out that the proponent proposes to fill the site to a level above the 100 year flood plain level and provide a 100 foot wide 8 to 13 foot deep (in the center) rectangular lining in the creek bed to accommodate the 100 year flood flow for the front 1,210± foot depth of the parcel. A reinforced concrete drop transmission structure is required which will be installed from the south side of the Tustin Street bridge to the rectangular channel. A velocity reducing grouted riprap outlet structure will be provided at the west end of the rectangular lining to reduce flow velocity to the intake velocity and allow water to spread to the present natural flow lines over the remaining 794± foot length of the project property. The applicant requests that the property elevated out of the flood plain be redesignated for High Density Residential use (15-24 units per acre) and rezoned RM-7. The open space land use designation will remain on the newly formed creek channel and any remaining 500 year flood plain area. That reach of the channel will be rezoned to the FP-2 zone. ~ Mr. Murphy stated that the applicant has submitted several concept plans for this property, the fourth alternative being the one discussed this evening. This plan reduces perimeter setbacks about 5 feet over prior Plan 3 (which is discussed on page 104 of Draft EIR 838), provides a 100 foot wide creek channel and depicts 420 apartment dwellings on the site. However, this concept plan will require a subsequent conditional use permit and tentative parcel map filing. These will be subject to detailed review for environmental concerns and land use implications at future hearings. Mr. Murphy explained that the fourth conceptual plan calls fora total of 420 apartment units, consisting of one, two and three-story buildings and one-story covered parking. The unit density per acre, including the creek right-of-way would be 15.35 units/acre for the total site area and 21.30 units/ acre for the developed area only. A medium density land use designation of the General Plan as recommended by the staff for this site would be met by this plan, based on the City's practice of using the gross acreage of a large area that has no public street system to determine that a project meets General Plan density levels. How ever, the density of the developable area is more than the General Plan designation if the creek flow area is removed. Staff has some concern that the developable area density adjacent to lower density areas may be too dense. ~` Mr., Murphy said that staff has reviewed the conceptual plan in more detail than usual to determine if the project could be built essentially as stated. In general, it is felt the site could accommodate the project. However, signi- ficant changes will be required to realign the channel to use larger curve radii. As a result, more of the project is likely to be located to the north bank rather than now depicted. The staff has expressed several concerns to the conceptual plan: That some 195 parking spaces are not shown in the plan as it stands at the present time. ti Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Four 2. That adequate storage and maneuvering of vehicles at the main entrance is not treated on this plan. 3. The alignment of the channelized creek is not shown accurately, par- ticularly moving from the Tustin Street bridge into the project. Also, that a trail along the creek channel is not shown on the plan. 4. Future disposition of the southwest portion of the property is not discussed in any detail. Mr. Murphy explained that the property is predominately bounded by single family residential development on the north and south. A 53 space mobile- home park is located immediately north of the site, facing Tustin Street and a 12 unit apartment complex to the south. To the east, across Tustin Street, is a 62 unit apartment complex and the Rehabilitation Institute of Orange County. To the west, across Cambridge Street, is single family and duplex residential use. In reviewing the proposal, staff feels that Low Density (2-6 units/acre) residential development is infeasible, given the irregular shape of the property, the presence of Santiago Creek bisecting the property, the signifi- cant costs associated with improving the creek and providing necessary on/off - site improvements such as roads, utilities, and bridges. High Density Residential (15-24 units/acre), however, would be incompatible with the sur- rounding area, which is primarily Low Density Residential (2-6 units/acre) in nature. Staff does feel that Medium Density Residential (6-15 units/acre) is the most appropriate. designation for the property. Such a designation would allow for development which is compatible with surrounding uses, yet allow for a sufficient density to make the necessary improvements feasible. Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element redesignating the property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, but retain the Open Space designation within the area required for improvement of Santiago Creek. If the Planning Commission finds the rezone request to be appropriate, the staff recommends the resolution of intent procedure to rezone to RM-7 (Residential Multiple-Family) District be used. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Gil Martinez, of Martinez Associates, master planners, 13132 Newport, Ste. 110, Tustin, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He introduced some of the other consultants who have worked on the project,. explaining that they were here to answer questions, if needed. They were: Frank Elfend, Altman Associates, involved with the Environmental"Impact Report; Doug Linstahl, of Greenspahn Associates, traffic engineers on the project, Striker Engineering, project engineers on the project, Frost Construction, who is the applicant, and also present were the owners of the property, the Belden family. Mr. Martinez then presented a series of slides and explained the background of the project. He painted out that back in May a scoping meeting had been ,~ Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Five held, with the neighboring residents at that time. He explained that the showed the 4th conceptual plan. in attendance, and a plan was presented slides being presented at this time Frank .Elfend of Elfend & Associates, 3857 Birch, Suite 436, Newport Beach, then explained that at the scoping meeting the neighboring homeowners brought up several concerns, among them being land use, compatibility, density, traffic, aesthetics, alternatives and also economics. This information was reviewed and submitted to the city, as well as Gil Martinez. A second scoping meeting was held in July, at which time a second plan was submitted for the homeowners' review. Mr. Martinez again addressed the Commission, explaining what took place after the scoping meetings. He went on to explain the various slides being shown in the presentation. He stated their goals and objectives as being compatible with the land uses around them, preserve the views, privacy and aesthetics which are there now; respond to and improve all the aspects of traffic circulation surrounding the project, as well as respond to the hydrology, or drainage of the property. He then showed the proposed plan, explaining it in great detail to the Commission and the audience. He pointed out that after the scoping meetings with the neighboring citizens, they changed their plan and then submitted it to the staff. After discussing it with the staff, they developed the plan which is being presented here this evening. Commissioner Vasquez asked for clarification with regard to the footage from the property line to the northeast building and northeast parking. Mr. Martinez explained that they would be using. turf block between the property line and the northeast building. Upon questioning, he said there were five feet between where the turf block would be and the property line. There would be 85 feet from the property line to the northeast two-story building and 65 feet from the property line to the northeast one-story building. He also explained via the slides how they would be dealing with the Santiago Creek. Mr. Martinez summarized by saying that they felt they are implementing the policies of the city in terms of the housing element; improvements to the creek will be part of this project with a 100 f t. wide channel; the plan before the Commission tonight is pretty much the consensus of a variety of meetings and they would like to think that this is not only their plan, but that of everyone else involved in the project; they are proposing 60% of the site to be open space, which is much more than what is normally done in a project of this nature. They hope to create a park-like setting with a low profile around the edge of the property; and this project will result in a positive fiscal impact to the city. Commissioner-Mason asked how many units are being proposed in this plan and was told the number is 420, cut down from an origina1.450 units. Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. Martinez what he envisioned as far as parking in the creekbed. Mr. Martinez went back to the slides, showing what they propose. In discussing this with the city staff, they agree that they would build the channel the same as it is in Hart Park, which is a 100 ft. wide channel. Going to 100 feet squeezes their plan so they would like to use Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Six this area as Hart Park is used for overflow parking. Kathy Rogers,-1141 E. Fairway Drive, Orange, President of the Santiago Creek Homeowners Association, addressed the Commission in opposition to this proposal. She asked for a show of hands of the people who are at this meeting in opposition to the proposal and almost the entire chamber raised hands. The room was filled to almost overflowing. Ms. Rogers then explained that the Santiago Creek Homeowners Association entails the homes around the golf course and creek area and as far as Fairhaven. They include 125 home- owners. El Welton, 489 Greengrove Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission, speaking with regard to the flooding of Santiago Creek. He explained that his home backs up to the golf course. He is the previous owner of the Val Verde Mobile Home Park and was present at the time of the flooding of the creek in 1969. He was in touch with various Flood Control people at that time and during that flooding period the Santiago Creek looked like the Colorado River. He was required to evacuate all of the residents in the mobile home park for fear the flood might reach them. It stopped about 50 feet from the park and somewhat below it. The Flood Control people later explained to him the reason for evacuation was that uprooted trees, large debris, etc. came down the flooded river and could back up against the bridge, causing the mobile home park to flood. They also explained that the Villa Park Dam could possibly overflow and cause much damage. Mr. Welton said that he was concerned about-the original plan showing a flood channel 55 feet wide and 15 feet deep. He didn't think this would handle all the water he saw in 1969. He still wasn't sure that the proposal being presented tonight would handle it any better. Dave Clements, 1521 E. Fairway Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission with regard to open space/greenbelt areas. He explained that his property borders the golf course. He also explained that he is an architect and has had a license in Orange for 20 years. He is also the vice-president of the Santiago Creek Homeowners Association. He asked the Commission to consider the pre-Proposition 13 studies of the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek greenbelt corridor as a planning reference for maintaining an open space link from the ocean to the mountains. He felt that this was truly a good conceptual plan upon which much time and tax money had been spent to plan for the present and future peopl e of the City of Orange, as well as the people of the counties of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino. As a planning professional, Mr. Clements did not approve of setting aside this important study, especially considering the history of flooding of this whole artery that carries the runoff of hundreds of square miles of watershed. He felt that it is the present landowner's right to develop the land to its full potential. However, it is also reasonable to protect the adjacent property owners' rights and values. He pointed out that there are approximately 67 homes bordering the property in question, with property values of around $140,000, which adds up to a $10,000,000 value for the surrounding property value. He asked that the Commission carefully consider the two other alternatives for (1) no project or (2) open space, which appear on page 102 of the EIR. V Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Seven Mr. Clements felt that exhaustive research should be conducted to obtain public or private agencies to acquire and maintain the current land use. He pointed out that once the open space is gone, it cannot be reclaimed. Aline Allen, 1201 E. Fairway Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission with regard to the nature of the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that she is also a member of the Santiago Creek Homeowners Association and also a real estate broker. She pointed out that the people on Fairway Drive pur- chased their homes because of the open space. The residents are mostly adult professionals, retired people, etc. It is a pride of ownership area and they take great care of their homes. There is opposition by the home- owners of this plan because it will Beverly alter the area. She said she could not even imagine 2 and 3-story apartment buildings being considered for that area. She felt that this project would be disastrous to the community. Wayne Spring, 1243 Fairway Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission with regard to public services and utilities. He said that he has been a resident of Orange for five years and is very proud to be a resident here. He pointed out that the proposed project will add an additional demand on the fire department and paramedics services. The fire department stated that four access points would be essential for a,project of this size. However, this property has one access and one little side road. The police department would also have additional demands placed upon it. He pointed out that 420 units are being added into an already high crime rate area. The police department has warned that there will be more crime in the area if this project goes in. Curt Sandberg, 1346 E. Chalynn, Orange, addressed the Commission with regard to traffic. He explained that his property also adjoins the golf course. He then quoted from the Register regarding traffic capacity, the article stating that traffic is a major problem in Orange County and will be the deciding factor regarding growth in the county. They also pointed out that Chapman Avenue and Tustin Street are the 9th most difficult traffic areas in the county. The source of this information is the Transportation County Environmental Management Agency. He explained that he had compiled 25 specific objections to items which are discussed in the Environmental Impact Report and passed out copies of these objections. He then spoke to 13 of these items in detail. He pointed out that it is an unavoidable fact that we are going to have more traffic per year and for that reason he believed no complex this large should even be under consideration. He then said that he would be willing to provide copies of the list which he had read from to anyone who wanted them. He stated that his point was that the traffic report is totally unacceptable. Nick Ranill, 1023 Fairway Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission with regard to analyzing the staff report. He stated that he has been a resident of Orange for over 30 years and is deeply concerned over this development. He had reservations about some statements in the staff report, pointing out that the development is 200 spaces short in the parking area. He then pointed out that the staff report states that the density is 15.35 units per acre, but once the creek right-of-way we are looking at over 25 units per acre. Mr. Ranill also pointed out that the neighborhood's concern is not the financial and economic points of the project, but whether it is v Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Eigh t good planning. He went further into the staff report, pointing out items on pages 6 and 7 which discussed the high density use being placed immediately adjacent to low density uses. He then pointed out that the property has been zoned for low density residential and open space since the General Plan was adopted in 1974. He purchased his house because of the open space and because it showed that in the General Plan. The property is predominantly bounded by single family residences Mr. Ranill also pointed out that there were items discussed in the staff report which should not have been a staff consideration. He explained that parts of the report sta ted that there were other uses, such as duplex housing, which might be more compatible with the surrounding single family residences and he thought would probably be more acceptable to the neighbors. Af ter reading the staff report, he felt that what it is basically saying, and the neighbors agree, that this is not really an acceptable project, and the neighboring residents request that it not be approved. John Tyson, 1047 E. Fairway Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission regarding flood control. He explained that he lives on the south side of the golf course and has lived there about 23 years. He then explained that he had written a letter to the Commanding General of the Corps of Engineers on ~ July 26, 1983, copies of which had been forwarded to the Commission. He pointed out that the Corps of Engineers has been spending substantial amounts of the taxpayers' dollars for at least 20 years, making studies and writing reports. He has two reports which they have done., one dated 1981 and one dated July 1983. He felt that after all of this study, now they and the County Flood Control District have decided to back off and leave the problem of flood control in the hands of a a private developer, subject only to the approval of the City of Orange. He felt that the Commission is a dedicated body, with the best interests of the citizens of Orange on their minds and he could not imagine the Commission even considering a project such as this in that area. He felt that the EIR was both ambiguous and heavily slanted and of ter reading that and the staff report, he could not believe that the staff would recommend an RM-7 zoning. He felt that the staff did not approve of this project as he read the report, and yet, at the end, it appears that they recommend it. He felt that the citizens must speak up because this project will create more .traffic problems, flood danger, and destroy the quality of life for hundreds of residents. Mr. Tyson pointed out that neither the owner nor the developer of the proposed project live in the City of Orange. He explained that the Corps of Engineers map, as he read it, shows the level of a 100 year flood at the top of the bank right behind his home. He brought out the fact that. the 1969 flood was a 30 year flood, as he was told. At that time the water was within inches of coming over the top of the bank. He said that if this plan is approved and the Commission is satisfied that the concrete ditch proposed will protect this new development, what about those who live downstream. He said that is this project is approved, he suggested that the concrete channel should go all the way to the end of the property. Mr. Tyson then stated that if the Villa Park Dam were to go out, the City of Orange would have a great problem on its hands and the people in these apartments would be in great trouble. He thought that if the city accepts ^ 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Nine ~''~ this responsibility, they might be liable for lawsuits for damages to the citizens' properties. He also pointed out that it was felt by the residents that not one cent of taxpayers' money should go into making this project feasible. Mr. Tyson then went on to address some other concerns which he had. He felt that if this project is approved, the citizens must explore their legal options, i.e. restraining orders, injunctions, and possibly class action suits in order to protect their own rights. He pointed out what could happen to the entire area if this rental project goes in, with the major portion of the city possibly becoming a rental desert. He pointed out several areas in Orange which are largely rental areas and what happens to those areas aesthetically. He felt that Fairway Drive was one of the few nice areas left in Orange. He wondered who would reimburse the home- owners for loss of property value if this project goes in. Ralph Masek, 1429 E. Fairway Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission to summarize all that had been said by the people representing the Santiago Creek Homeowners Association. He explained that he has lived on Fairway Drive since last December and did-not know about the proposed project at the time he purchased his home or he would not have done so. He explained that these people have come to the Commission as concerned citizens of Orange and taxpayers who are directly affected by this project. They feel that these effects will be adverse to the neighboring residents of the project. There have been other concerns not addressed yet this evening, one being the crime aspect. They also wonder what amendments to this plan will be researched for their environmental effects later. They also wonder if the city has had adequate time to study this amendment, since they feel that have not. They would like to have the opportunity to discuss this with their full membership at one of their regular meetings and they would also like to invite the developer to present this plan at that meeting. They are requesting the Commission to not make a recommendation on this General Plan Amendment tonight and to continue this study further at a later date. Philip Brigandi, 2630 Hamilton, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this proposal, stating that as a historian he wished to addressed the flooding aspect. He explained that this has been a major part of Orange's history. In 1916, 1938 and 1969 there have been major floods. In 1884 water from the creek came almost to the downtown area. Flooding more than anything else is the criteria here. He felt that this should be looked at very carefully. He pointed out that the Hart Park creek bed has not been effective during flood times. John Holmes, 957 Fairway Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to the project, stating that he lived there during the 1969 flood.- He pointed out that the city had insisted. that 12 foot pilings be put down before his house was built. Nothing has been mentioned about putting pilings down with regard to this project. Why would they build a three-story building in a place where it has been required that a one-story building have pilings put down. He explained that his neighbor at 947 Fairway Drive lost almost 50 feet of his back yard during the 1969 flood. He lost almost 30 feet of his property, 1. Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Ten -~ James E. Eberhart,.. Val Verde Mobile Home Park, addressed the Commission in opposition to this project, stating that there are many people in attendance tonight who reside in the mobile home park. He then explained that Mr. Masek had brought petition papers to him to have poeple sign who lived in the park and almost everyone in the park signed these papers. He then gave some reasons why this project should not be approved: 1. It would change the whole atmosphere of this area. 2. It would cause a loss of the park and the peace and quiet in the area. 3. More traffic congestion on Tustin, which is already impossible to navigate now. 420 units would put a possible 630 mare cars out on the street. 4. We will lose the recreation area which is needed for the area. 5. We must think of the people's needs, particularly senior citizens. Mr. Eberhart then asked for a show of hands of those people here from Val Verde. About 20 people stood. Nancy Plow, 1008 E. Chalynn, addressed the Commission in opposition to this proposal, stating that she was concerned about the number of students which this project would add to the local school and the safety of the students when going to school. They would walking north and south on Tustin Street, encountering several commercial driveways. She was concerned about the safety of the children. If it is rental property, she felt there would be many families there with children. She asked that the Commission consider the safety of the children. Robert Trice, 1102 Rosewood, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposal, calling attention to the creek bed where it is 100 feet wide and then narrows down to practically nothing. Flooding would take much of the property where it narrows because of the velocity of the water. Mr. Eberhart again addressed the Commission, mentioning that if pilings were to be driven into this land, it was his understanding that at one time the property was a dump and he wondered if anyone had checked as to whether methane gas would arise if the pilings were driven into the ground. Gil Martinez again addressed the Commission in rebuttal to those in opposition. He felt that it is important to note that the golf course will be closing soon, whether or not this project is built. This will probably mean deterioration of the property, which has happened in the past. Regarding the question of flooding, they have studied this in great depth, meeting with the city engineer, other groups of engineers, etc. and the design represents a standard project flood, which represents a situation that would accommodate a flooding situation for a 300 year flood. Mr. Martinez felt that their project would essentially remove some of the problems which the citizens are concerned about. They would do everything v s Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Eleven possible to protect the new, as well as the present residents. He then addressed the emotional attachment of the residents to the open space, stating that they believe that they have taken a great deal of effort in preparing this plan so that anyone living around this property will be looking at this project and seeing a lot of green space, trees, etc. It will appear that they will be looking at a park. He explained that if they are allowed to proceed with the project they will come back to the Commission with further plans and the public will have the opportunity to review and speak to them. Mr. Martinez pointed out that medium density would also allow 35 ft. high construction, just as high density does. Frank Elfend again addressed the Commission, speaking with regard to the EIR. Regarding economics, he explained that a cost review analysis was included in their document. He pointdd out that the current operation on that land is costing the taxpayers money. This proposed project will have a positive economic impact on the city. Mr. Elfend then addressed the issue of public services, explaining that when they initiated this project, they contacted all of the services within the city, all of which responded in letter form, which letters are included in the back of their document. All of the service agencies who responded pointed out that providing the mitigation measures which they requested were implemented that they felt the project was acceptable. Speaking to the subject of geology, Mr. Elfend explained that they had prepared a very technical survey in the report. He went into further detail in this regard, comparing this site with the land of which the citizens spoke. Paul Wilkerson, traffic engineer, spoke with regard to traffic and circula- tion, explaining that a very detailed study was made of the area. He summarized their analysis by pointing out the existing Fairway Drive problem at this time. Mitigation measures have been suggested for this area. How- ever, problems will continue to exist for that street as long as it remains as close to the freeway on-ramp as it is. Mr. 4ilkerson then addressed the traffic generation rates employed in their study - the distribution procedure, the growth rate for traffic, etc,, explaining that these are all consistent with traffic engineering practice in Southern California, particularly in Orange County. They were worked out in detail with the city traffic engineer. He further explained that the ICU can be interpreted as a percent of total intersection capacity and under most circumstances, with the exception of one location, during the peak hours, the total project impact was only 2-3% of the total available intersection capacity at those locations. Traffic growth patterns for a two year period, as indicated by the city, indicates the same type of impact. They consider the traffic impact associated with the project is within the day to day traffic variation that occurs naturally on Tustin. Mr. Wilkerson accepted the fact that there is a traffic problem in that area and people cannot travel through the area as quickly as they would Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Twelve ~' like, but his observation as a professional was that generally speaking, except during the short peaks, traffic is adequately processed through the area. He summarized by saying that the mitigation measures proposed in the report generally mitigate potential impact of the project,that the procedures used are consistent with common engineering procedures used in Orange County and the City of Orange, and they believe them to be accurately stated as to the potential impact of this project. w Commissioner Vasquez questioned Mr. Wilkinson regarding his reference to the estimated volume of traffic, northbound and southbound, and it is stated that the source is the apartment trip generation informational report, instituted by the traffic engineers of Arlington, Virginia. Commissioner Vasquez then read from the traffic engineer's report with reference to traffic traveling on Tustin, asking how they arrived at that kind of a conclusion in terms of trying to ascertain people's driving patterns. Mr. Wilkinson responded that the Institute of Transportation Engineers is a national organization that headquarters in Arlington, Virginia and most of the studies which appear in the summary from which Commissioner Vasquez read were developed by Caltrans over the past 20 years. This is data that is developed in California and was published by the Orange County MA as an appropriate traffic generation rate for traffic engineering. Secondly, traffic distribution is probably ohe of the most subjective elements involved in traffic engineering for this type of study. It is basically an understanding of street systems, of where the freeway ramps are, an evaluation of the directional flow on various arterials and where their capacity and strengths are, and also they depend heavily on the city traffic engineer. They are largely subjective, but they seem to come pretty close in their calculations. He explained in greater detail how these calculations aid them in their final analysis. He said that it is basically their best guess as to the traffic pattern. However, even if they are wrong in their analysis, the percentages which they are talking about would not be changed to a great degree. The project is such a small part of the existing total whole, they could almost be 100% off and still not change the figures by a great amount. Mr. Wilkinson explained that 2600 vehicles travel in the area in question in an hour and we are talking about adding only 1 or 2 additional vehicles per minute. Commissioner Vasquez then ref erred to page 44 of the study, reading directly from that page, and saying that what he read led him to believe that there is an impact, even though it is incremental. Mr. Wilkinson responded by referring to page 43 where there is a table, labeled Table 5, and said that this is the meat of what is happening trafficwise in that area. He then explained this table in greater detail. A statement was then made by a gentleman in the audience that in 1969 Santiago Creek had 11,000 feet per second of water coming down. Paul Belden, representing the owner of the property, addressed the Commission, explaining that the family cannot continue to rebuild the golf course, Therefore, they will be closing it soon. At this point, they are just con- sidering closing the doors. They have evaluated many projects over the Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Thirteen last couple of years and feel positive about this project. Commissioner Mason asked a question with regard to traffic, expressing her concern because, as she saw it on the map, it will all be impacted at the one corner. There doesn't seem to be any other way for people to go. She wished there was some other way to solve the problem of the intersection of La Veta and Tustin. Mr. Wilkinson responded that access to the site is a real problem. The existing La Veta and Tustin intersection is now a T. That is to be found along the frontage of the site, which is somewhat limiting, but probably the most logical place to provide the key entry in and out of the site, because the movements that would happen at that location would be somewhat compli- mentary to those which already occur. He sees significant difficulties on both Fairway and on Tustin, but considered as a whole, the key access as envisioned is probably about the best fit. Commissioner Mason asked if he had a calculated estimate of how this would be alleviated if there were another access off of Cambridge. Mr. 4Jilkinson replied that there are obvious difficulties because they would go over property that did not be]ong to them. However, Tustin is still where people ~, wish to go and that access would be used the most, even if another access is provided. Mr. Elfend again spoke, indicating that an access to Cambridge had actually been discussed at the scoping meetings. When they initially became involved with the project, they had considered an alternative access to the property. However, Cambridge was not considered as a viable option for several reasons, one being access and utilities, etc., together with adjacent ownership. Most importantly, when they left the scoping meetings, one of the things they did not want to do was to bring traffic onto Cambridge and bring it around through those streets. Orientation is simply going to bring the traffic back to Tustin and, by creating an additional access off of Cambridge, what they could be doing would be bringing traffic into those residential areas, which they have preferred not to do by the current site plan. Not having any access on Cambridge was almost a mitigation measure for some of those adjacent residents who are concerned about people driving up and down their streets. John Holmes again spoke, stating that no one has mentioned the fact that after they build these apartments, what would happen there that happened in Anaheim and all of these people would have to get out of the area in a hurry with their cars. With two exits and all of these people trying to get out, it would be a terrible bottleneck. He felt that there should be more than two exits. There must be for the safety of the people concerned. Comments were also. made with regard to the Belden family, who own the golf course, as to why members of this community should subsidize them if they have fa i 1 ed to pay the penalty. Commissioner Vasquez referred to a reference made in the staff report to pedestrian and bicycle paths, wondering who this is intended to serve. Mr. Martinez responded that they wish to serve the proposed residents who Planning Commission Minutes Pdovember 7, 1963 Page Fourteen ~ would be living in the project. At some future date, when the corridor improvements are made, this part of the channel would then accommodate these linkages and then accommodate hikers and bicycle riders on the outside. Commissioner Vasquez asked who at the Flood Control District level r~view!ed and approved this project. Mr. Martinez explained that they will have to get approval from a number of agencies before this goes through. The project concept that they have come up with is based on the direction they received from the city staff, in addition to the EMA and they, in turn, have coordinated with the Corps of Engineers. Commissioner Vasquez then stated that if we are talking about a 100 foot flood channel in Santiago Creek and that empties out in a westerly direction, through the area which is undeveloped as yet, who is willing to sign off that there will be no repercussions if this infrastructure exists already to handle that load, aside from the city staff? Mr. Johnson responded to this question by stating that there has been contact with Flood Control and certainly the staff will be looking to Flood Control to review the final design for that channel. Commissioner Mason asked about the statement that part of this property had been a dump at one time. Mr. Martinez stated that the findings in their studies have been that this statement is not true. That land has never been a dump. They also discovered that the soil is different in the areas where houses are sinking than on this property. Commissioner Greek said that upon reading the EIR, he he trouble with the figures stated therein. He figured there are possibly 2.2 acres of channel and he assumed 6.9 acres of vacant ground, with a total property of 27- acres. With those figures in mind, he had trouble coming up with the density figures which had been mentioned. He asked if they were taking credit for the 6 acres adjacent to the property and the channel as open space and was told that this was true. He then asked what the density would be if they accepted these areas as developable acreage. Mr. Martinez replied that they would 24 units/acre. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vasquez commented that it is obvious that there area great deal of legitimate concerns about this project. He felt that there has been a great deal of community relations communication lacking in this project. Therefore, he would not be inclined to provide any kind of support for this project at this time. He felt that the community needs more time to interface in regard to the project. Commissioner Hart concurred with Commissioner Vasquez' statement as did Commissioner Mason. She felt that time is needed to look at the whole picture. She also challenged the people who live in the area, stating that we cannot neglect the fact that the Beldens have provided a place of quiet which the neighbors have enjoyed. ode must consider the facts arrd make com- promises in lif e. She hoped that they would consider these things when they study the project. Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Fifteen r~ Commissioner Vasquez said that this situation reminded him of the mobile home parks with which they have had to deal not too long ago. Somewhere there must be a middle ground and there must be a time for communication between the developer and the residents of the area. George Shattuck, 1318 Fairway Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he has lived there for a long time. He referred to the aerial view of the property which showed that there is no high density of any kind in the area and he did not think a tenement should be placed in the middle of a low residential area. They must solve the flood problem before putting anything in that area. He did not see how anyone could put high rise buildings in the creek bed. Commissioner Greek felt that the property should be developed, but not to the detriment of the neighbors. He thought that the plan is not detailed enough to solve the flood problem and the density is not proper for the area. He thought there would be too many units on too small a property. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Mason to continue General Plan Amendment - Land Use Element 2-83A, Zone Change 1009 to November 21, 1983 for the reasons as previously stated. Commissioner Mason asked if it would be helpful if there was a meeting with the homeowners in the area and the developer so that they can state what they would like to have. Mr. Elfend explained that there have been four meetings with the homeowners thus far. At the last meeting they just said the plan was unacceptable and gave no more input. They would like to meet with the homeowners again. The Santiago Creek Homeowners Association was agreeable to this. However, they felt that there should be a longer time period involved. Mr. Elfend stated that they would like a two week continuance. There was discussion among the Commissioners and the developer with regard to the length of time for a continuance. The Santiago Creek Flomeowners Association was not satisfied with a two week continuance, as they felt they needed more time to present this to their entire membership. Commissioner Vasquez explained to them that they did not have to come back on the 21st with solutions. The matter can be continued further at that time. Mr. .Elfend asked for assistance from the city staff and for a member of staff to work with them to help resolve this situation. Commissioner Greek explained the things the developers must address and asked for more details in the plan when they come back to the next meeting. Mr. Martinez explained that they are asking for a General Plan Amendment and zone change primarily, Providing grading plans, etc. requires much time and expense. The applicant would have to pay for these items and would not mind paying at the appropriate time. However, he did not feel that this is the time. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, P1ason, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master t~tOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Sixteen CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1318, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 83-768 - SANTA FE LAND IMPROVEMENT COh1PANY: A request to permit a 14,400 square foot addition to an existing 3,100 square foot building (former depot) for office and office/ industrial use in the industrial zone and permit compact parking spaces in excess of 40 percent on property located at the northwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Atchison Street (184-186 North Atchison Street). NOTE: Negative Declaration 874 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report. Jack McGee presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains 1.7 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Atchison Street. The property has approximately 110 feet of frontage on Chapman Avenue an d approximately 660 feet of frontage on Atchison Street. The site is currently developed with a railroad depot and grounds. The depot building is listed on the City and State Survey of Historic Places. The depot is also listed as one of 38 structures in Orange as one with potential to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. McGee explained that the applicant is requesting permission to establish an office use in the M-1 zone and to establish a greater than 40% number of compact of parking spaces. The applicant proposes to refurbish the existing depot building and redevelop the site to include 14,500 sq. ft. of office and office/industrial space. The loading dock and warehouse building attached to the north end of th e depot will be removed. Two new buildings are pro- posed for the site; one to the south of the depot and one to the north. Re- quired parking is also proposed on site, 47% of which is for compact cars (40% maximum is allowed). Mr. McGee pointed out that some of the parking is proposed to be located among the large pine, palm, and camphor trees existing on the southern portion of the parcel. Ten of the seventeen trees on the parcel are listed on the City list of historic trees. All ten historic trees are retained in the proposal. Mr. McGee explained that on April 13, 1982, the City Council considered removal of these ten trees and one other elsewhere from the City list of historic trees, due to maintenance. costs and liability problems associated with City maintenance of private trees. However, it was determined that the City liability would remain by virtue of the City's involvement in maintaining the trees in conjunction with maintaining the park area. As a result, it was decided that the trees should remain on the historic tree list. Mr. McGee further explained that on May 12, 1976 the City of Orange contracted to maintain as a park, the southern 299.33 feet of land fora 36.24 foot width at the north and with the western boundary 15 feet from the spur line that extends southerly to Chapman Avenue. This park area extends 156.33 feet north of Chapman. Avenue on Atchison Street frontage to a depth of 50 feet from Atchison Street. The contract may be terminated by a 30 day written notice from either party. The contract is currently in eff of t. It has a very low level of usage, but is also relatively inexpensive to operate. 61ere the park to remain, the usage would not require substantial improvement (i.e. lighting, parking, etc.) Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Seventeen ~ Mr. McGee pointed out that the proposed buildings are designed to compliment the existing depot building. Also, the general plan designates the area for commercial and industrial uses. Staff has received several inquiries during preparation of this report expressing concern for retention of the park use, as well as the trees and visibility of the depot. Staff has prepared Negative Declaration 874 from the viewpoint that no significant adverse impact was anticipated on the depot and trees on the site if mitigation measures proposed (design structures and treewell designs) were required of the project. In general, it was understood the park use agreement was originally initiated primarily to provide a vehicle by which the "park" area could be maintained and policed under City authority. Nevertheless, public concern for retention of the "park" as a park as well as better visibility of the depot building itself may become an issue in public hearings. If the Planning Commission finds the aesthetic and historic values are adequately protected, the Planning Commission should move to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 874. Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 83-768, subject to the 5 conditions listed in the staff report. Staff is of the opinion that the development of this site for office use could stimulate private redevelopment interest of adjacent property owners. It appears that the long term use of the park-like setting has not in itself initiated such interest. A drive-by of the site finds it is recessed from public view by adjacent buildings. Only two very dilapidated picnic tables are on the site, with one concrete bench. Evidently, the site gets very little usage. In order to serve as a focal point to the area, it appears it should be enlarged or enhanced by similar parks in redevelopment plans of surrounding blocks. If it were large enough, it could be identified from Chapman Avenue as a "place" or "landmark" similar to the Plaza. However, in the interim, the project design provides sufficient open areas to be landscaped to meet current noon time uses if the owner were so inclined. Beyond the park issue,-staff feels the proposed office use is beneficial to the area, and feels the. parking will be adequate. The special architectural design of the structures will be unique, attract more people to this site and, in itself enhance the identity of the depot as a historic building. If the Commission finds t a project redesign may be and the question of park urination. If the park ar posed, the staff feels th measures, approval of the for three reasons: hat the park preservation concept has merit and that in order, this application should be held in abeyance acquisition referred to the City Council for deter- ea is not retained and no project redesign is gro- at with appropriate conditions and mitigation application is in the best interest of the community 1. The proposed use is consistent with surrounding uses and the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 2. Establishment of office uses will not create special problems for the area and may, in fact, provide an impetus for improve- ment of the general area. Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Eighteen 3. The project will provide for the long-term preservation and maintenance of the depot and historic trees. Staff recommends approval of CUP 1318, subject to the 14 conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. McGee mentioned a letter received from Debbie Seger concerning the park and explaining some alternatives as to how it could be retained. Commissioner Mason asked if there are any plans now in renovating the depot to bring the building up to earthquake code. Mr. McGee explained that this is something which will be explored by the city's building division. Chairman Hart explained that, as a member of the Old Towne Steering Committee, it was his understanding that it was the recommendation of the majority of the committee that the plan be approved. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Dan Heinfeld, 44 Plaza Square, Orange, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He explained that essentially what they are trying to obtain is to reinforce the depot by being compatible with it in aesthetics. They felt that they would strengthen the depot by placing buildings on either side of it and making an enclave there. By maintaing the trees, they would create the same concept that the park has done up to this point. He said that their plans were to save all ten historic trees, but there is a camphor tree on the site furthest to the west which they have been told is diseased and could present a public safety problem. Therefore, this would be removed and nine trees would be restored. Mr. Heinfeld that this project does provide for the preservation of the depot and the trees. He addressed Condition #3 for the Tentative Parcel Map which states: Dedicate and construct public improvements on Chapman Avenue and Atchison Street. Improve the Chapman Avenue railroad crossing. Remove all poles and place underground all utility lines located on Atchison Street and Chapman Avenue within the boundaries of the subject parcel map, as well as remove those poles and lines parallel to, and westerly of, the railroad tracks crossing Chapman Avenue within the limits of Underground Utility District No. 8. He pointed out that since they .are a low key development they feel that underground utilities would be an unacceptable expense for the applicant to undertake. Mr. Johnson explained which underground utilities they are talking about. He further explained that as a condition of splitting this parcel the underground utilities will be completed, as per the condition. The land cannot be split unless this is done. He pointed out that. the underground utilities being discussed are the ones which are in the railroad right-of-way. Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Nineteen ~ They are presently part of a law suit which AT&SF and the City of Orange are involved in. The problem is that this is now part of the operating right-of-way and they are proposing to split it off in their operating right-of-way. It is a part of the Santa Fe operating company and not Santa Fe Land.. The applicant said that this was correct, that it was not a part of this development. Mr. Minshew felt that two different things were being discussed here. The part that is going to the one company is not in the right-of-way. He thought that the right-of-way power or telegraph lines were still an issue. If this is on another parcel, then the city will insist that they be underground. The applicant also asked about underground utilities along Atchison and Mr. Johnson did not think that there are any underground requirements for Atchison. There was further discussion between the applicant, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Minshew with regard to what would be required in the way of underground utilities. Doug Matthews, representing Santa Fe, 5200 E. Sheila, City of Commerce, addressed the Commission, stating that, for clarification, he would like to point out that the power and telephone lines along both Atchison and Chapman are overhead at this time. The lines on Chapman are in the utility district, which this parcel is not a part of. They will be taking their power off of Atchison overhead and underground from that point. He wondered if those lines were to be put underground as part of the conditions. Mr. Johnson said that he was reading from 5 conditions which his office inaugurated and then the staff report brought in with greater detail than what they had requested and he surmised that in drafting up Condition #3 there were other discussions among the members of his staff and members of the planning staff. He was not sure what the reason was behind this and thought that it should be clarified. Mr. McGee explained that this condition was added into the staff report after discussion between the city attorney and Mr. Johnson's staff. Mr. Matthew felt that there was an overlap here and Mr. Johnson agreed. He thought that poles along Chapman will be removed and put underground whether this project goes ahead or not. The railroad has been put on notice as to their telecommunication lines and is the subject of a law suit. He was not aware that the lines on Atchison area requirement. Mr. Matthews asked if that could be eliminated from the conditions. Com- missioner Greek felt that if this conditions is deleted this matter should be postponed so that it can be looked at. The commissioners felt that this is a reasonable condition and is placed on all new developments. Commissioner Vasquez wondered if there was some confusion as far as staff is concerned regarding underground utilities here. Mr. Minshew did not feel there was. There was further discussion among staff and the commissioners regarding which lines are to be put underground. Mr. Johnson stated that Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Twenty ,~ the request is to underground lines on both Atchison and Chapman. He went on to explain that some conditions are put into the staff reports as general conditions, whether they affect the applicant or not. Philip Brigandi, 2630 Hamilton, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he had attended the meeting of the Old Towne Steering Committee. He explained that the presentation was made by some of the gentlemen in attendance this evening and was billed in their agenda as "for information only". He went on to point out that Old Towne Committee members have expressed the opinion that had they known that some action was going to be taken on the matter, they might have attended. As it is, there was such a small body of members present, that there is a question as to whether a voting quorum was actually present. He pointed out, as. Chairman Hart had, that their recommendations not only carry no weight but, in theory, they are not supposed to be producing recommendations on things such as this. He also pointed out that since the diseased camphor tree is on the historic tree list, a permit will be needed to bring the tree down. Mr. Brigandi spoke primarily about the park and the historical background of it, presenting a document to the Commissioners and also a petition signed by members of the Orange Historical Society. He explained that the depot was built in 1888 and in 1891 work began to plants park at the depot. This work was supported financially and otherwise by, not only the City of Orange, but the citizens of Orange, including the city voting to take care of the water bills for the property. He pointed out that most the depots from that era are gone now so the depot has even more significance. historically and also the park is the oldest park in Orange. He explained that the park was looked after by the Santa Fe during the 80 some years that Santa Fe maintained the depot in Orange. Around 1971, when the depot closed, Santa Fe ceased maintenance on the property and after five years the City Council acted to enter into the lease which has been mentioned previously and to take on paying for the upkeep of the park. He further pointed out that 10 years ago the city also took on paying the taxes for the park. Mr. Brigandi pointed out that besides just the aesthetic value of the park, there is also the historic value, which should be considered by the Commission. He handed a copy of a letter from Paul Clark to the Commissioners, which spoke to the planning aspect. He explained that this letter brings up staff points brought out in the staff report, which. Mr. Clark seemed to feel were inconsistent and Mr. Brigandi then read point #3 directly from the letter, further pointing out that there has not been enough study put into the many .complex problems of developing this type of property. One of the ways to go about this is to have an EIR prepared on the property. Mr. Murphy said that if the Commission felt that the property should be zoned the same as the block to the east, this matter could be continued and the applicant directed to file fora zone change on the property. Mr. Minshew asked how the Planning Department came up with this zoning and was told that it was based on the zoning across the street, Mr. Minshew felt that this was a valid way to go. Planning Commission P1inutes November 7, 1983 Page Twenty-One Commissioner Mason referred to the question which was asked as to whether ~° or not the City Council might want to advise as to the advisability of the city acquiring that land as a park, which was in the recommendation on the conditional use permit, wondering if the Commission might want to give that some consideration. Mr. Brigandi pointed out that the city has been maintaining this area and paying taxes on the land to keep it as a park. Commissioner Vasquez thought perhaps this item should be continued for two weeks in order to clarify the zoning aspect of the situation. Mr. Minshew agreed that Commissioner Vasquez was correct in his evaluation that there should be a continuance. Jeffry Gwynne, Santa Fe Land Improvement Company, addressed the Commission regarding the issue of the park, stating that they would like to move their operation to this area and must move their operation by this coming summer so there is a certain time restraint involved. If they do not make a decision here soon, they will choose another location. Their main reason for choosing this location is that they think it is an excellent one for their staff. The second reason is that would get a good, economically viable element for their company. However, the only reason this would be true is that they plan to rent out at least half of the space. They would not consider developing the property as it is now if a park is required. They feel that the park now is a detriment to the area, the surrounding area is very run down and is going downhill. They do not want to bring their staff into- this development if the park remains on the corner because they do not feel it is a desirable area as it is now for their secretaries to walk through. Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. Gwynne if the city were to retain the park that this would be unacceptable to his company and Mr. Gwynne replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Greek felt that the park is out of place in that area. However, the bigger issue is that the area is probably zoned improperly. Therefore, it is imperative that there be a continuance in order to take care of this situation. Commissioner P1ason added that if there is a continuance perhaps the staff can clear up the questions regarding the utilities. Commissioner Greek did not feel there is a question with regard to the utilities. This is a standard simple requirement. Commissioner reiterated that he would support a continuance to ~dovember 21st in order to get input f rorn the city attorney's office. ~' Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Greek, to continue this application to November 21, 1983, to allow the city attorney to review the issue of zoning and whether or not it applies to the laws as they exist now. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Twenty-Two IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 83-765, TEXACO ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. A proposed land division separating a 243 acre parcel on the east side of Meats Avenue from the balance of Anaheim Hills ownership. Jere hiurphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc. is proposing to sell the subject 243 acres to a residential builder who will be filing development plans in the near future. He pointed out that the Planning Commission and City Council have,- in the past, expressed concern that development and maintenance costs of Southridge would not adversely affect the City's general fund. The following statement was adopted by the City Council on June 17, 1980, as part of Resolution No. 5223 approving the rezoning of the property:. Recognizing that the precise infrastructure and capital improve- ments can only be determined through more specific plans, the Council instructs the staff and the developer jointly to develop a cost revenue model currently being prepared to the entire South- ridge annexation proposal, including an investigation of methods of maintaining capital facilities through special assessment districts or other methods that would prevent a drain on the general fund through long time maintenance costs or deficits, and further, that the Council consider discussions with the property owner regarding the results of cost revenue analysis, said model to be developed prior to approval of the Tentative Tract. Mr. Murphy explained that as part of the development application for the 243 acres, staff has requested the applicant to prepare a cost revenue study including a listing of infrastructure items, i.e. Serrano Avenue, Loma- Imperial Highway, reservoir sites or other public improvements, and how they will be funded so as to meet the intent of the City Council's direction in the previous statement. This 243 acre property is the most developable portion of the Southdrige portion of the Texaco Anaheim Hills ownership. The applicant has indicated that the balance of Southridge may not be feasible to develop now or in the near future. He pointed out that ordinarily two lot land divisions are acted on by the Inter-Departmental Staff Committee when they are considered standard or routine in nature. Staff has expressed two concerns: 1. Because of the magnitude of the land division being requested, as well as the concerns voiced by the Planning Commission and City Council in the past regarding infrastructure costs, staff feels that this applica- tion should be reviewed and acted on by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission hiinutes November 7, 1983 Page Twenty-Three ~ 2. Texaco Anaheim Hills wishes to pursue this land division prior to development plans being processed for the property in question, even though staff has expressed a desire to both applications processed simultaneously. Once the property is separated into more than one ownership, where the developable portion is owned by one party and the undevelopable by another, and the undevelopable portion contains the greater amount of infrastructure costs, it may be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fairly distribute the costs of infrastructure type improvements to the individual property owners. The City of Orange may be pressured to subsidize the costs of streets and other public improvements that would otherwise be provided by developers of the property who claim that the limited development possibilities do not support such improvements. The recent Jones Ranch activities surrounding the extension of Crawford Canyon/Coma Street where the flatter portions of the ranch where the major developrent was planned, were sold off leaving the center of property with only a relative few units to pay costs of a major road extension. Staff cannot recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 83-755 because it is premature to subdivide the ownership of South ridge without addressing the infrastructure issues. ~ Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. George Mason, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, representing Texaco-Anaheim Hills, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He explained that this tentative parcel map was filed on August 1, 1983, at which time the statement of the applicant for a land division map was completed and signed on behalf of the applicant and the necessary fee paid. He pointed out that the statement at that time stated that no improvements are proposed with the filing of this map and that the map is being filed solely for the purposes of financing and conveyance. fJo variances, waivers, conditional use permits or other permits or grants for approval of the parcel, which will be created by the map, or of the remainder of the land which is owned by the applicant and which is not being subdivided have been or are being requested in connection with the request for a parcel map. Also, no zoning changes are requested with the parcel map. t'-ir, f~1ason went on to explain that they had been advised on August 18th by the city planning staff that this tentative parcel map would present signficant difficulties within the meaning of Section 161204082 of the I~lunicipal Code and, accordingly, would be presented to the Planning Commission for appropriate action. Mr. Mason pointed out that under these circumstances the Municipal Code requires that the Environmental Review Board, within 20 days of the filing of the map, make a report to the Planning Commission, together with recommendations for the acceptance or denial of the tentative parcel map. In accordance with Section 66452.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, this Planning Commission is required to act within 50 days of the filing of the tentative parcel map. He said that they have seen a staff report, but have seen no report from the Environmental Review Board. Therefore, they are assuming that the staff report is, in fact, the report of the Environmental Review Board required by the municipal ordinance. J Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Twenty-Four ~ h1r. Mason stated that if this is the case, they would like it stipulated on the record at this time. Chairman Hart asked if this is the intent of the Environmental Review Board and Mr. Murphy replied that he was not familiar with that section of the Municipal Code, asking for permission to check it out. Permission was given and a short recess was called in order for this to be done. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the procedure here is that the Environmental Review Board on this type of parcel map would act on the map and they could deem it a final action. In this case, the staff felt that their denial of this tentative parcel map would only mean an appeal to the Commission. Therefore, they automatically sent it on to this body for a decision. He pointed out that they had a meeting with Mr. P4ason and the proposed developers of the property and told them of the staff's recommendation for denial and the problems connected with it and, after some deliberation, Mr. Mason in- dicated that he went back to Texaco to determine whether they wanted to proceed. Mr. Murphy then received a letter instructing the staff to proceed. This occurred on September 15th and they have proceeded since then. The Environmental Review Board action was to deny this. Mr. P~ason disagreed with this statement, pointing out that they submitted the application for a tentative parcel map and were advised that it presented unusual difficulties and that the Environmental Review Board would not act upon it, but would send it to the Planning Commission. F1e explained that he then contacted h1r. Murphy some weeks after they were advised of this and was told by him that in order for the matter to come before the Commission he would have to write to Mr. Murphy and request that this be done, which he did. However, in reviewing the ordinances of the city, the Commission is not hearing this as a matter of appeal, since the Commission does not have the right to hear an appeal from the Environmental Review Board. That appeal would go from the ERB to the City Council. However, under Section 1612040, the Planning Commission has original jurisdiction to hear parcel maps that present unusual difficulties, which requires a report and recommendation from the ERB. Mr. Murphy felt that if this is the case, then the staff report would represent the recommendation of the Environmental Review Board. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that the staff report covering Tentative Parcel Map 83-765 be considered the report of the Environmental Review Board. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Mr. hlason then stated that no action on this tentative parcel map has been taken by the Planning Commission within the period specified under Section 66452.1b of the Subdivision Map Act and, therefore, the applicant reserves the all of the rights they have under the provisions of 66452.4 of the Sub- division hlap Act and Section 16,120508 of the Orange Municipal Code and participation in these proceedings is not to be deemed a waiver of those rights, nor an agreement to the extension of the time period specified in Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Twenty-Five ~° the Subdivision Map Act or the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Orange. h1r. Mason then went on to point out that the staff report erroneously refers to this parcel as a two-lot land division and it is actually a pseudo-lot land division. There is only one parcel on this map and that is Parcel No. 1. The remainder of the applicant's property is not being subdivided by this map and has been designated as a remainder parcel, pursuant to Section 66424.6 of the Subdivison P•1ap Act. Chairman Hart asked if this is all one parcel at this point and P1r. Mason responded that it is. Chairman Hart then asked questions about a portion of the map shown and then pointed out that two lots are being created from the one parcel, Mr. Mason explained that under the Subdivision Map Act, they may subdivide a portion of the property which they own and it can be subdivided into one lot. The remainder of the property is then designated as remainder property, it is not subdivided. Mr. Mason-then stated that they do intend to sell and convey Parcel 1, as shown on the parcel map. The proposed purchaser of the property has indicated to the applicant that their intention is to file with the appropriate city agency, upon acquiring title to the property, applications for zone changes, subdivision maps, and other permits for development of the property, in accordance with the General Plan of the city applicable to this land. However, they have no contractual obligation with the purchaser. He will be free to leave the property as agricultural property, as it currently is, if he chooses. Mr. Mason then showed to the Commission an aerial photograph of the land in question, showing the tentative parcel map which has been submitted and the surrounding areas, including all of the land that is owned by the applicant in this area. He pointed out on the map the land in adjoining areas which has been fully developed, also pointing out that since this photograph was taken in April of 1983, more land, particularly north of the property in question, has been developed. Mr, Mason then explained that all of the land which the applicant owns in the City of Orange is currently zoned A-1 Agriculture and a portion of this land was used for grazing purposes until just recently. He also pointed out on the map land owned immediately to the south and west of the property in question by the Southern California Edison Company. As the owner of this land, they are required to obtain a parcel map from the city, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, which provides that where a parcel to be created has a gross area of not less than 40 acres a parcel map will be required. The Act prohibits they from selling this piece of land unless a parcel map is created. In fact, the conveyance of a parcel such as this without a parcel map is a misdemeanor under the California law. Under Section 1612040 of the Orange Municipal Code, this Planning Commission is granted the power of approval of parcel maps and that power is shared, under certain circumstances, with the Environmental Review Board and with the City Council, Because of these restrictions and the inability to convey property, the denial of a parcel map in their submission is something which cannot be denied arbitrarily or for improper or unlawful reasons. The Orange Municipal Code provides that a map shall be disapproved for failure to meet or perform any of the requirements or conditions imposed by the Subdivision Map Act or by the Subdivision Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Twenty-Six ~ Ordinance of the City of Orange. The report of the Environmental Review Board, or staff report, does not raise any question at all with the fact that this map has been property filed or that it meets all of the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Orange. He pointed out that the report concludes that staff cannot recommend approval of the tentative parcel map because it is premature to subdivide the ownership to South ridge without addressing the infrastructure issue. The applicant submits that the infrastructure, however that may be understood, i s not an appropriate ground for denial of the parcel map and, in fact, has nothing to do with it. He further pointed out that the logic by which they arrived at the conclusion that the parcel map should be denied because at this point there is not a cost revenue analysis which can be reviewed and accepted by the city puts the applicant in a catch-22 situation. They cannot prepare an adequate cost review study without knowing precisely how the land is going to be developed. He went on to explain what such a study must contain in order to be effective. Mr. Mason then pointed out that the remaining parcel is some 736 acres. The studies which they have done to date indicate that in the present market con- ditions and given the existing zone plan of the City of Orange, and particu- larly the requirement for the construction of the extension of Serrano from Nohl Ranch Road to the point where Serrano has been constructed in connection with the Mabury Ranch and Autumn Ridge projects, there is no way that economically a land owner or developer could possibly undertake development of that property. He also pointed out that if Parcel 1 on their parcel map cannot be sold it will make no difference in this conclusion. The value of that piece of land is less than 50% of the cost of construction of Serrano Avenue to the point where it is being constructed by Standard Pacific. Mr. P~1ason stated that the staff report also recommends that if the tentative parcel map is approved rather stringent conditions should be imposed upon the map. Section 66411.1 of the Subdivision hlap Act provides that improvements required for a division of land into four or fewer lots, which this is, shall be limited to the dedication of rights-of-way easements and the construction of reasonable off-site and on-site improvements for the parcels being created. That is why they emphasize there is only one parcel being created by this parce lmap and that the power of this Planning Commission to impose dedication of rights-of-way and construction of off-site improvements must establish that they are related or in line with the statute for this parcel. He pointed out that one of the major conditions which the staff seeks to im- pose on the parcel map is a condition that the developer dedicate and construct Serrano Avenue between Nohl Ranch Road and P1abury Ranch. He then pointed out Exhibit B to the Commission, explaining the meaning of the Exhibit. He then went on to explain why they believe that the question of infrastructure costs and responsibilities should be left to specific plans when they are available. They also think that the improvement of Loma should be left to final tract maps and that Serrano has nothing whatsoever to do with this appl ication. Chairman Hart asked why the configuration on the tentative parcel map is different than that shown on 20? P9r. Mason explained that the map is from 1977-78. He further explained the map to the Planning Commission. Chairman Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 1983 Page Twenty-Seven Hart asked further questions in this regard to which Mr. Mason responded. Commissioner Greek asked for more clarification of whether this property could be so]d without a parcel map. There was further discussion among the Commissioners and requests for more clarification on points which Mr. Mason had brought out, which points were clarified by Per. Minshew and Mr. Johnson. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vasquez felt that this is a matter of interpretation. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the question of the road and its importance with regard to the development of Texaco-Anaheim Hills has never really been addressed before. Anaheim Hills has been in planning and development stage for 10 years or so, but all developmemt has been in the City of Anaheim. This is the first action taken in the City of Orange. Therefore, this has never been addressed in public hearing and is the first project that has come before the city. What we are saying is that if Area 20 is being locked off then it is even less advisable to stand the cost of that street. Chairman Hart referred to the Loma extension regarding the fact that Villa Park/Plabury people do not want that extension. He wondered if we are asking for something here that might never come about. Mr. Johnson felt that if Loma is deleted it makes Serrano that much more important. There was further discussion among the Commissioners with regard to the requirements being requested here. Mr. Minshew also brought out some facts in this regard. Moved by Commissioner Mason to deny this application, as recommended by the staff. Motion died for lack of a second. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map 83-765, subject to the eight special conditions set forth in the staff report and with a finding that a Condition #2, re- quiring that construction of Serrano Avenue, pursuant to Section 66424.6,H~hich provides that the construction of this road is a necessary prerequisite for the orderly development of the surrounding area. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 A.M., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, November 21, 1983, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.