Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/9/1989 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting City of Orange Orange, California October 9, 1989 Monday - 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Hart (excused from meeting due to a potential conflict of interest) STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secretary; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-89 "B", TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13901, ZONE CHANGE 1068-89, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1589-89, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 89-23, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1143 - BURNETT/EHLINE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: The applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment from open space and low density residential to medium density residential and local commercial. The applicant is also proposing a Zone Change from R-1-7 (Single Family Residential minimum lot 7,000 square feet) to PC (Planned Community), and C-1 (Local Commercial) and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the creation of 180 single family lots without direct street frontage. Further requested is a Tentative Tract Map to allow the creation of 180 single family lots and two commercial parcels; and an Administrative Adjustment to allow a reduction in parking stall length and width permitting utilization of uniform parking stalls throughout the commercial portion of the project. The site is comprised of 25 parcels totalling 37.1 acres and is located along Santiago Creek between Tustin and Cambridge. Included in the total acreage are 22 lots located at the northeastern terminus of Rosewood Avenue. NOTE: Environmental Impact Report 1143 has been prepared for this project. (This item has been continued from the Planning Commission Meetings of August 21 and September 18, 1989.) Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 2 This item was brought before the Planning Commission Meeting of August 21. A number of. questions were raised and a study session was held on September 11 to ask the questions of the developer. The developer then came back to the meeting of September 18 in order to give the Commission an idea of how much time it would take them to answer those questions. The applicant is at this meeting to answer and respond to said questions. Chairman Bosch discussed the Commission's procedure for the public hearing. At the previous public hearing, this item was closed after receiving public testimony. Commission voted on how they wished to proceed. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission re-open the public hearing. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED The Commission also wished to address each question contained in the packet, "Responses to Planning Commissioners Questions Regarding the Villa Santiago Project dated September 22, 1989." The public hearing was opened Applicant Lynn Burnett, Principal with Burnett/Ehline Development Company, 2050 South Santa Cruz, #100, Anaheim, stated there were three primary changes to the development plan since the August 21 presentation. They are an increase in minimum lot size, a re-configuration of the LaVeta right-of-way and bike trail, and a revision to the commercial parking plan. With respect to lot size, minimum lot size has been increased to 4,000 square feet. Their largest lot is now 6,600 square feet with an average lot being 4,400 square feet. He pointed out if the land given up for the LaVeta extension and the greenbelt were to be included in their calculations, their average lot size would be nearly 6,000 square feet. Concerning the LaVeta right-of-way, it has been modified to increase the landscape area along LaVeta contiguous to the residential area and the bike/pedestrian trail has been integrated into the plan. Parking for the commercial retail center has been reduced by 18 stalls, from 523 to 505. The project still, however, maintains a surplus of 62 stalls in excess of City requirements. Representatives of most of the planning disciplines were present to answer technical questions from the Commissioners. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 3 Questions & Answers SITE PLAN: Q.l. What is the FAR for each parcel? Commissioner Greek's concern about the FAR is .77. In the development plan the houses are listed from 1800 to 3100, so the range is not really .77; it's something different. Mr. Burnett responded .77 would be the extreme case; it would apply to the largest home of 3100 square feet. Their average home size is 2350 square feet, including the garage. Q.2. What is the average size of the recreational greenbelt areas for similar density projects? Commissioner Scott questioned "not within the vicinity, but within the City of Orange." They were only addressing the proximity of this development. How does this compare to what has been approved in East Orange? He did not feel comfortable with the answer he received. Mr. Burnett referred the question to staff. Staff did not have available other recent developments in the City. Commissioner Scott wanted to know if this were comparable or not. Q.3. It appears that the narrow parcels do not have sufficient width for the double wide driveways proposed, especially on the cul-de-sac lots. Mr. Burnett said that is one of the areas they have made substantial changes to the planned configuration. With the increase in lot size, they have achieved a better balance between lot sizes from the larger to the smaller. They have achieved a better average. They have taken 17 to 18 feet out of the commercial section; extended that boundary eastward and added that additional footage into the residential component. Commissioner Greek asked for the dimensions on Figure 5, Page 8, (residential development on the revised plan). Rich Nolan, land planner with F.M.A., responded to the question. The minimum is 42 foot width. It was intended to show what the Z lot detail would be; how you create a Z lot on a typical straight street. It was not intended to show a typical layout of landscaping or driveways. He explained there would be approximately 20 feet of landscaping, 20-22 feet of driveway and 1-2 f eet of some type of planter or concrete. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 4 Commissioner Greek was trying to determine adequate parking for the street, and whether or not it was going to work. Mr. Nolan stated relative to the parking they calculated what they felt realistically they could get for parking on the street, and that was dimensioning off the amount of curb along the interior streets and reduced it by a great deal. The scenario has worked in other presentations. Chairman Bosch asked what the actual length of parking space would be between the driveways. What size did they use to calculate the on street parking mentioned in other answers? Mr. Nolan responded 20 feet per car. Chairman Bosch asked if that included the apron of the driveway in the 20 feet per car for on street parking? Mr. Nolan said they did not get down to site planning for individual lots. He believes 22 feet is a very liberal driveway width. Chairman Bosch asked if there was on street parking or not? (Yes). What is the dimension of space between the driveways that is usable for parking? Mr. Nolan calculated it as 20 feet. They did not take 20 feet per lot as a parking stall. They did not show that there would be 180 guest parking stalls on street. Commissioner Scott said the standard driveway for a two car garage is 16 feet, and explained the calculations as he interpreted the plan. Mr. Burnett said plot houses. It criteria. In th feet. A parking feet. They used street parking. this plan was not an attempt to precisely was an effort to come up with planning e majority of instances they will have 20 stall can vary in length from 17 to 20 some rules of thumb in calculating on Commissioner Scott referred to the applicant's answer to Question 3. In looking at the revised plan, Lot 176 only has a 15 foot opening on it; 179 has 20 feet -- under the dimensions for a normal 22 foot driveway. It will have to encroach on the adjoining property owner. Q.4. Why was no guest parking provided? Mr. Burnett was not sure they had a calculation for the anticipated number of on street parking stalls provided. They could address it if it is a concern. In the majority Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 5 of instances, there is ample room in front of the residences for at least one parking stall. In some instances, it is possible that on street parking may not be contained strictly within the lot lines of the residences, but that is a situation common throughout the City. Q.5. What is the impact of fire hydrants to on street parking? Mr. Burnett said it was part of the same equation. They will make an effort to position the fire hydrants in a manner that will not take up a parking stall, but they did not have the exact impact of that yet. Commissioner Greek noted the 300 street parking spaces and asked for Mr. Burnett's confirmation. (He stipulated to that.) Q.6. The provisions of Chapter 17.67 need to be fully addressed. Commissioner Scott wanted staff to respond to the applicant's response -- was it adequately addressed? Mr. Godlewski responded staff has not gone through the response to questions in great detail and prepared a response to every one. He will review it at this time and give them a response in a few minutes. There was not a great deal of time to go over the questions before transmitting them to the Commission. Q.7. The proposed lot sizes conflict with the East Orange General Plan for low and medium density. Chairman Bosch said the first paragraph indicates that if the proposed development plan is not approved, the owner of the property will be effectively deprived of the right to develop the property. Isn't it true that the applicant has current zoning applied to the property? Mr. Burnett responded yes. The property is currently zoned R-1-7,000 and has been zoned that designation since 1956. Additionally, the General Plan is approved and in place, allowing up to six dwelling units per acre. Chairman Bosch was interested in the person's logic, given that the applicant has a General Plan and zoning on the site that this plan before the Commission today is the only one that necessarily would allow them to develop the property. The E.I.R. addresses several alternatives that appear to be available. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 6 The response was prepared by Maureen Hardy, 14 Mountain View, Irvine. She meant that economically due to the channel improvements and LaVeta, this is the plan that is necessary to take care of all of the infrastructure improvements to develop the property. The present R-1-7 requiring 7,000 square foot lots when you plot them out with the odd configuration, even without LaVeta, but the creek running through it, makes for very few lots. She was not intending to reply to the legal status of the current right to develop under existing zoning. Q.8. Justify the strip zoning for commercial on Tustin. Commissioner Scott said when you look both north and south of the project area on Tustin it is residential. How do you justify re-zoning this to commercial? Mr. Burnett said that was corre south is the apartment project on to the north, but if you go established as commercial. The prevalent up and down Tustin. instances of some residential - residential and higher density. ~t. Immediately north and Fairway, mobile home park beyond that, Tustin is commercial zoning is more It is true there are spot - primarily multi-f amily Commissioner Greek wanted justification for the depth relating to the intensity of commercial use. Mr. Burnett said the depth was determined primarily as a result of the layout of the commercial center itself. If they are too deep, the commercial viability of the project is cut down; if it is too shallow, then there isn't enough commercial to support it. Q.6. Chapter 17.67 - Staff review Mr. Godlewski reviewed the application against the requirements when the applicant first came in to make their proposal. What is stated is correct. The applicant has met all the provisions of the Planned Community District. When the Commission was asking the question, the tone of the question was whether it meant the requirements of the Planned Unit Development. That is not what they are applying for. They are applying for a Planned Community, which is different. In a Planned Unit Development there is a trade off for open space and clustering of units. In the Planned Community you basically write your own zoning ordinance and this is what the applicant has done. Commissioner Greek asked for verification of Item D, Page 3 -- density and units per acre. He would like to see a table of how these things fit. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 7 Mr. Godlewski said the representation of densities is not required by code. Staff looks to the description in the definition to describe what it is they are measuring. Mr. Burnett responded the acreage dimensions have shifted recently. They took two tenths of an acre from the commercial and integrated that into the residential. Figure 6, Page 9 of the development plan are the current acreages. The density number has been rounded slightly. It's 6.9 dwelling units per acre. The PC is more accurate. Commissioner Greek asked about the statement on Page 3 of the responses. What are the public facilities? Mr. Burnett said the reference to public facilities were the greenbelt areas which cover 1.5 acres. Other public amenities have to do with the bike trail and pedestrian path. Commissioner Greek asked when will a decision be made whether or not LaVeta is part of the Master Plan of Highways? Mr. Johnson responded LaVeta was considered a special study street and was not included in the circulation element. This project was meant to be the study vehicle for that special study street. The road is shown as being an arterial and its implementation will require an amendment to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the circulation element. The County is in accord with that and would react favorably. Q9. Evaluate the impacts of the 12 foot high wall on the mobile home park. Mr. Burnett referred to their illustration on Page 28 of the PC. It is a condition that was brought about by the grade differential between the existing grade of the mobile home park near Tustin and the actual street grade of Tustin. As the property line continues westward from Tustin, that condition continues. The grade falls off; however, there is a situation right at Tustin where the grade differential is approximately 12 feet. The steps they have taken to mitigate that condition to soften it by building a stepped wall on the mobile home side. It is 5 to 8 feet in height with landscaping. The intent is to get some height and landscaping, as well as a cascading plant material to soften it. Beyond that is the actual property line wall, which would be a 6 foot wall. On the other side is additional tree planting. Commissioner Scott asked about the illustration on Page 28 -- where is the property line? Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 8 Mr. Burnett said their property line is the lower wall. It is intended to be 5 to 8 feet dealing with the varying conditions. Q.10. The buffering of the site from the adjacent residence may be inadequate. Commissioner Greek does not believe effort has been done. Q.11. Submit emergency access gate details. No comment. Q.12. Concern with should justi standard 20 f the 18 foot garage setback. fy the reduced driveway length eet. Commissioner Scott said this has been approved on some developments in the past, but it has been criticized as far as the length less than 20 feet. The applicant's response was because of the automatic door opener on the garage doors, there was not a need to be concerned with the door opening. This has been a concern in East Orange. Is it adequately responded to? Commissioner Greek was also concerned and his recommendation would be not to have 18 foot driveways. It should be a 20 foot driveway. Mr. Burnett understood most of the criticism on the shorter driveways in East Orange were because they were much less than 18 feet. Eighteen feet is a fairly typical car length. In addition, they will provide a sectional roll up door. Q.13. Give the density for each phase of development, and for each separate parcel under different ownership, excluding the area for streets from the calculation. Commissioner Greek did not feel the question was answered. Mr. Burnett stated this was a difficult question. The concept of the project is a totally planned environment. It's not envisioned that portions of the development would be Master Planned and sold off. This is intended to act as a whole. The density (shown on the site plan) is on the residential and is evenly spread across the site. All infrastructure work will be completed at the same time. Commissioner Greek wanted to get a feeling of the overall density in the existing golf course units, then the Rosewood tract and the County parcel to end up with 180 units. The biggest problem is the possibility of the commercial ~licant rom the Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 9 property being sold and the rest sitting there forever. A condition needs to be written to tie the fact nothing can be started until ownership is in one title. Mr. Godlewski was not sure if there needed to be a condition. The applicant would need to implement the tract map as proposed, and any modification to that would be a substantial modification to everything being requested. Mr. Burnett's presented. If be a signific~ plan. There infrastructure would make it rapid basis. intent is to deal with the entire plan as one piece were not to be involved, that would ant enough change to come back and revamp the is approximately 17 million dollars worth of involved and would be put in initially, which important to develop the site on a fairly Q.14. Clarify the range of lot sizes, the minimum average lot size and address the lots that do not conform with the regulations spelled out in the proposed Planning Commission text. Mr. Godlewski confirmed that statement. All the lots meet the minimum 4,000 square foot lot size. Commissioner Scott said because of the problem with the small lots in East Orange, it was proposed that small lots be dispersed throughout a subdivision and be limited to 30~ of the total lots. An amendment to the East Orange development standards is being processed and now this project will go against those standards. Mr. Godlewski responded after looking at the original tentative map, staff found a number of lots that did not meet the minimum 4,000 square foot dimension. There was some discussion of East Orange, but the primary concern was that their proposed tentative map did not match what the requirements were in the PC zone booklet. Staff did not address the issue of the East Orange consistency. Chairman Bosch noted the applicant had an exhibit A by the Keith Companies that showed lot sizes and it seemed the smaller lot sizes were on one side and the larger on the other. Mr. Burnett said there earlier plan and the minimum lot size is better balance betwee of factors involved in Orange nor found in some economic factors infrastructure costs. were some inconsistencies between the PC, but have been resolved. The 4,000 square feet. They achieved a n large and small. There are a number their site that are not found in East other projects in Orange. There are unique to this project; namely, the Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 10 Q.15. Incorporate the addendum onto the text (referring to the development plan). Staff confirmed the changes were made and incorporated into the text. Q.16. What is the affect of the Rosewood cul-de-sac on the surrounding neighborhood? Commissioner Greek recommended changing it to a standard cul-de-sac because there is another cul-de-sac to the north that serves the same three houses. Mr. Burnett has met with Traffic Engineering. The looked at the proposal for the termination of Rosewood and have agreed in concept what is laid out. It is a short distance there. The impact to the existing neighborhood is that traffic will be significantly diminished. Q.17. The commercial parking is in excess. Why not incorporate this excess space into the greenbelt? Chairman Bosch understood the excess space has been incorporated into increasing the lot sizes rather than to the greenbelt. Mr. Burnett said they re-balanced it and some did go into the greenbelt area. The majority of it went into the residential land area. He pointed out they diminished the number of parking stalls by 18. There is still a surplus of parking in the commercial area. Reduction of the greenbelt area has to do with the re-defining of the LaVeta right-of-way and area that was previously in the right-of-way. The net change is that there is additional landscaping on site that comes into play with the modification of the landscape area contiguous to the residential component along LaVeta. It has been increased by six feet. It is not being counted in the greenbelt area. Q.18. With the greenbelt extending past the commercial portion of the project, the bike lane can be taken off the roadway. Chairman Bosch understood the bike lane has been taken off the roadway, but does not extend past the commercial portion of the site, nor does the greenbelt extend past a portion of the site. Mr. Burnett responded that was correct. Q.19. The restaurant parking lot impacts the adjacent residences. Justify the proposed mitigation measures_ Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 11 Commissioner Greek thought the car lights would shine into the residences because they are raised above it. The response is not really adequate. Chairman Bosch said there appears to be a 5.4 foot grade differential with a property line wall. The wall is going to be at the lower elevation of the residential lots and the lights would shine over the top. Mr. Burnett would be happy to look at that further. It would be possible to re-grade that and go with a combination retaining wall in an effort to accomplish that. LA VETA EXTENSION: Questions 1, 2, 3 and 9 were being responded to by Bernie Dennis, City Traffic Engineer: Mr. Dennis answered the question - the benefits vs. the consequences of the LaVeta extension on the adjacent major roadways. The comparison is made in the recently adopted circulation element of the City's General Plan and is included a graphic in the project E.I.R.. As a shift in the area circulation occurs at the LaVeta extension, Fairhaven has also been included in the attached exhibit 1 comparing both and providing capacity ratios as extracted from the circulation element and tabulated for this report. It gives the comparison of traffic volumes on street segments on Chapman, LaVeta, Fairhaven, Cambridge and Tustin. It gives the projected daily average traffic volume without the extension and with the extension. It also gives the volume capacity ratio. It should be noted is the traffic demand is a function of approved land use and is a constant. The increase/decrease of traffic volumes over the street system, whether it be with or without LaVeta, is actually a balancing of total traffic demand. The volume capacity ratio is a measurement of the street's functional ability to accommodate a given traffic demand. This is expressed in a level of service, with level of service A being the best and level of service F is the least desirable. The street would be at capacity at this level. Using exhibit 1, certain relationships can be determined for impacts. With or without the LaVeta extension, Chapman will operate at or near capacity. A similar relationship can be made comparing three streets: Fairhaven, LaVeta and Cambridge. The demand on Fairhaven and Cambridge exceeds the mitigatable capacity at several street segments without the LaVeta extension. With the LaVeta extension, subsequently an additional street, the balancing of the east/west demand tends to occur. The balancing is a redistribution of traffic. There is very little change in traffic volumes on Tustin. There is a slight increase in demand. Regarding the two freeways, Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 12 the extension of LaVeta has virtually no effect on the freeways. Another consideration is what will happen to the streets in the area that were not addressed by the circulation element; specifically, Fairway and Palmyra. Without an arterial existing between Chapman and Fairhaven, these two streets in combination are providing the east/west capacity between Cambridge and Tustin. There is very little that can be done to mitigate the excessive traffic other than some type of diversion strategy. Commissioner Master stated with the amount of traffic anticipated from the analysis on LaVeta, are there sufficient mitigating measures that will meet the City's standards for noise and the residents? Mr. Dennis responded the Commission's concern was the impact to residences on Rosewood and Fairway with regard to having a street adjacent to both their front and rear yards. Staff's response is although there are hundreds of residences in the City of Orange that have a back-on, front-on road condition, in most cases both the dwelling units and roads were in place at the time of purchase. They were not retrofitted. In that condition, there are two factors from a traffic perspective that require specific consideration: noise and light glare. Regarding noise, street grade, elevation, traffic composition and traffic duration (the period of time the traffic occurs) are the four traffic factors that must be considered and effectively mitigate noise impacts to adjacent residents. The other factor is ligh t glare. In respect to on-site improvements involving commercial and office/industrial development adjacent to residential land uses, the configuration of the parking area, security lighting and the building material reflection are prime consideration in mitigating that problem. Commissioner Master asked what was going to be done? Is there a proposed plan for potential mitigation of impacts on the adjacent residences? Mr. Burnett referred to Page 14 of the PC, diagram 11. Regarding the Rosewood section, there is a grade differential of 4 to 5 feet. The LaVeta side is the lower side. They have created a 20 foot buffer, which will be heavily landscaped, sloping up to a wall that would be on the property line. The design of that wall is intended to mitigate sound. Final height would be subject to a further sound attenuation study and recommendation by a sound engineer. East of Rosewood, they have created a 1.4 acre greenbelt area. It averages 70 to 80 feet from the property line to the street. It is to be landscaped and bermed. In addition, the residents in existing homes would have the option to choose a fence material suitable to their particular situation. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 13 Commissioner Master asked if the applicant were going to meet City standards as far as sound level? Mr. Burnett said these are mitigating measures as a result of the study that was done through the E.I.R. process. These measures would satisfy the requirements and will meet City standards. The E.I.R. indicates there is a bit of a sound problem already in the Rosewood area as a result of the freeway extension. The indication is that after the project is constructed and a sound wall put in place, the sound level would be reduced over its present level. If needed, they will increase landscaping or the sound wall. Mr. Godlewski pointed out there are a couple of places where noise is addressed in the documents before the Commission. It is addressed in the mitigation measures attached to the project in the E.I.R. report, as stated by the applicant. It is also addressed on Pages 11 and 29 of the Statement of Overriding Considerations. It discusses the aspects of noise that take place because of the environmental factors of the freeways and other noise generating sources outside the project's ability to control. The statement says we recognize this noise environment does exist; the applicant will do whatever he can to mitigate this. Additional studies will be made by acoustical analysis prior to issuance of building permits. It will also be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Mr. Dennis responded to the question of submitting a signalization plan for the intersection of LaVeta at Cambridge and Tustin. The construction plans and specifications for the modification of the traffic signal on Tustin and LaVeta, and the installation of the traffic signals and safety lighting at Cambridge and LaVeta East have not been prepared as both of these construction projects are dependent upon this particular project. He provided a conceptual overview of how the signals would work. A conceptual channelization plan was attached, exhibit 2. Rosewood and Cambridge would not be restricted to right turns in or out. Commissioner Scott asked if this development would be similar to a recent development -- Home Depot -- on Katella where they were required to modify the signal at Katella and Glassell, as well as install the signal at their main entrance at their cost? If the same, would the developer front the cost of the modification to Tustin and LaVeta? Mr. Dennis responded that was correct; also install the signal at Cambridge and LaVeta East. And also with the revised plan, those mitigation measures that would be required for the bike crossing between Tustin and Cambridge. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 14 Commissioner Scott stated it should be listed as a condition. Mr. Dennis said the traffic signal at Cambridge and LaVeta West is related to the LaVeta West improvement project. It's included in the Capital Improvement Program, which is scheduled for installation in 1990-1993. It is a stand alone project. Q.4. Evaluate the adequacy of the proposed internal circulation svstem. Commissioner Scott asked if LaVeta should be extended between Cambridge and Tustin and the proximity of the residential homes, would it be posted for no truck traffic? Mr. Dennis stated yes. LaVeta, from City limit to City limit, or at least from Glassell to the East City limit (i.e., Esplanade) is not designed nor would truck traffic be encouraged. It would be posted. Commissioner Greek questioned the applicant's response. The statement should have a comment and staff should response with their evaluation. Mr. Godlewski responded in terms of the adequacy of turning radius and serviceability, that was reviewed by City departments and found to be adequate. There is some discussion in the E.I.R. as to the adequacy of the street internal circulation, but he could not recall the details. Mr. Johnson stated the circulation with regard to the residences is adequate from the standpoint of emergency and vehicular circulation. The street widths were adequate. Staff felt they could live with the street configuration. Q.5. Refers to the connection of the existing LaVeta east of Tustin and then refers to correlate with the new creek/culvert alignment. No c omme nt . Q.6&7 How is visitor access handled? What are the queing and parking availability at the entrance gates? No comment. Q.8. Where are the bus turn-out locations? RE: OCTD comments. Chairman Bosch noted the revised plans still does not show a bus turn-out lane. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 15 Mr. Burnett has the process of of the turn-ou t this point. had conversation with OCTD and they are in specifying where the location and dimension would be. That has not been finalized at Mr. Dennis responded that regardless of what OCTD decides, the bus bay, if it occurs, will go on the southwest corner. There is another problem of putting it on the northwest because of the bridge structure. He explained the dimensions and criteria for the bus bay. The response given is incorrect; it would be the southwest corner, rather than the northwest. SANTIAGO CREEK: Q.1. Submit security details for underground culverts. Commissioner Greek asked Mr. Johnson if he agreed with the applicant's statement. Mr. Johnson believes if the Flood Control District is going to take it over, they will be concerned with the security of the facility because they are responsible for anything that happens within that right-of-way. If they're saying the entrance can be secured in a manner that doesn't require an obstruction to the flow of water, it appears they are willing to take that over. Q.2. How will debris build-up be handled? Chairman Bosch asked how the debris catching on the security fences would be overcome? Mr. Johnson said the security fences would not cross the channel. Debris would not hang up on anything until it came out of the culvert at the end. At that point there would be some type of trash rack that would give with the pressure of the water or trash in a manner that would not create a back up at that location either. Chairman Bosch asked how the Flood Control District get security to prevent unauthorized access to the culvert? Someone could walk downstream into the culvert. Mr. Johnson said they could control it within a given distance both upstream and downstream, but if someone wanted to come in from Chapman at the park and walk down 1/2 mile, they will be able to gain access. At some point in time, the County will control the entire right-of-way along the creek, but not with the first phase of development. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 16 Q.3. Evaluate the up and downstream impacts. (Also included were Q. 4 - 8) Chairman Bosch, with the Commission's concurrence, would like a full presentation on the next several questions which relate to one another. Carl Nelson, Keith Engineering, in response to Q.3., hydraulically, the water will enter the Tustin bridge much as it does today. The underground conduit going away from Tustin Avenue will have its grade line devised in a way that there will not create an upstream back water. The natural flow, as it would be upstream, would not be disturbed. The stream line pier walls will be extensions of the existing Tustin bridge pier walls, which are now vertical. Debris will not catch and hold. The invert (or bottom of the channel) will be a control point and will not create upstream hydraulic problems. The water will look the same. Downstream they will achieve the same effect with the transition from the underground conduit to the open. There will be some energy dissipation in the transition returning the flow as close to the natural velocity as possible. The project is designed not to create either an upstream or downstream problem. It is being designed for a flow rate of 12,000 cubic feet per second. Commissioner Master noted the transition takes place some distance west of Cambridge. Mr. Nelson said the underground conduit will be under LaVeta. The conduit will be carried downstream a short distance partially through the City property because at the location where the new conduit crosses Cambridge, it does not reach the existing channel. That extension is simply to extend down to reach the existing waterway. As a biproduct of the extension, the City property and it's frontage on Cambridge, can then be utilized for whatever purpose the City determines in the future. Commissioner Greek said it looked like the upstream phase of the Flood Control right-of-way is next to the buildings. Mr. Johnson thought the buildings were fairly close, but the intent is not to encroach. There are some improvements on that side and they would have to tie the southerly side of the bridge abutment into the channel protection that exists along the south side. Mr. Nelson said the boundary line shown there would be the existing channel right-of-way upstream. There is rip rap on both sides of the channel as you approach the Tustin bridge. That rip rap will be modified somewhat to channelize the Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 17 flow into the conduit as it goes through the Tustin bridge. There will be two vents at the Tustin bridge that will not be needed. There will be no construction outside of the right-of-way. The vents would be sealed off to meet the City's approval. Commissioner Greek asked if the City Engineer has reviewed this and is the City willing to accept the relocation of the channel into the City property on the west side of Cambridge? Mr. Johnson thought the question of how far down stream the Flood Control accepts jurisdiction is an issue. The intent is to get the flow of water back to its original state by using a hydraulic jump at the outlet structure. There may be some additional mechanical means used to further retard the flow and slow down the water. All of the outlet structure should be part of the Flood Control District jurisdiction rather than leaving the City with a problem of maintenance or erosion control problems in the future. Commissioner Greek asked if there had been staff discussion on whether or not this was an acceptable location or acceptable construction within the City property? Mr. Johnson stated staff's concern was that area or an equal area to the south is encumbered by the channel. It appears the City is reclaiming some of the land for usable property by allowing that area to be used for the outlet structure. That's a good trade off assuming the City does not have any of the on-going maintenance problems associated with the change in flow characteristic. Mr. Nelson said the intent would be to convey to the Flood Control District an easement over the entire construction, including whatever length of underground conduit is to be built and including the transition and rip rap to the point where it rejoins the natural channel. There is no intent to leave part of the structure with the City. The existing waterway, where it comes out of the Cambridge bridge, is much wider than the concrete conduit. So there would be a reclamation of land on the City property. Chairman Bosch understood there was potential liability ramifications that occur when one reconstructs a waterway outside of its natural path that doesn't occur when you reconstruct it within the natural path. How will the City be able to avoid the liability incurred from from that outcome ? Mr. Nelson said the general rule is that you come to the rejoining of the natural stream to bring the water into the Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 18 natural stream in an alignment and of a velocity that is close to the condition that it would have gone there in the first place. Mr. Herrick addressed the legal aspects. He prepared a memorandum provided to the Commission addressing those issues. With respect to flood control, there is a new law that has been generated by the Supreme Court recently which cuts back on the old rule, which was strict liability in the event a flood control structure fails to perform up to its design capacity. There is now a rule of reason that appears to have been laid down by the Supreme Court and that reason requires a balancing of the public benefit from the Flood Control project against private harm that could occur in the event of a failure. The rationale for that analysis is laid out in detail. The problem one has is the Supreme Court case specifically applied that rule of reason to cases in which the natural channel is not changed. There is a Court of Appeals case that has extended that to cases in which the channel is changed, but it is not known at this time whether the Supreme Court will agree. There is a possibility that a rule of strict liability may apply. The best protection is to do a careful analysis and rely upon qualified experts to make a determination that you are acting reasonably. In the event there were a f ailure of this flood control structure, there is no question the City will be a named party. Mr. Nelson commented on the reasonableness. If the creek were being lined with concrete in its existing location, there would still be the problem of transitioning back to the natural downstream from Cambridge. The engineering approach is to bring the creek into the shape, size, depth and velocity of flow that it would be in the prior condition. There is a National policy which evolves from the Federal Flood Insurance Program providing for a 100 year flood. The Corps of Engineers will be involved in the review and the Orange County Flood Control District, has as its standards for a large creek the 100 year flood and they have already acknowledged their willingness to accept the project and conveyance to them when improved to their standards. The flow rate is something that will only be required until the Corps finishes more improvements upstream at the gravel pits, which when finished, will be a form of flood control reservoir that will reduce the flow rate to just a little more than one-third that is being designed for. The tentative schedule for completing that gravel pit modification to reduce the flow would be 1992 or 1993. Mr. Herrick clarified there are two separate issues of liability with respect to design: Inverse condemnation (damage to property) because of use by the public; and design negligence. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 19 Mr. Nelson stated on Question 21 there is a list of examples of structures of this type that have been in operation for a period of time. Question 4 has been touched on regarding the impact at the culvert interface. Question 5, the Flood Control District has already indicated their concurrence in accepting the improvements. He was confident the Flood Control District would require the Corps approval. There is a Federal law requiring a Section 404 permit be obtained from the Corps of Engineers before getting permission to build. Question 6, as to the any of the construction Modification of the ri would be satisfied that drain into the creek, originally designed. MWD facility, they do not anticipate directly impacting the MWD facility. _~ rap would have to be such that they their facility, which is intended to will continue to function as it was Commissioner Scott believed MWD has the relief in the creek. Will the design take care of that? (Yes.) Question 7, the main feeder line, which would blow off underneath the creek, they do not anticipate doing anything more than improving their protection. That would require their approval before proceeding in their right-of-way. Question 8 on the transition structure details, the details would be in the final plan specifications. They do not have in the conduit a large change in velocity. That's the principle concern of going through a transition. He explained the critical velocity of the transition. Question 9, issue of ownership, the proponents will be the owners of the property. There is Flood Control right-of-way upstream and downstream and there is City right-of-way and MWD right-of-way; all will require permission for the future operation and maintenance. Question 10, evaluating the impact of the culvert on the Tustin and Cambridge bridges, who will pay for the modifications -- the entire project of the flood conduit will be designed as a single construction project. There would be no structural modifications to the Tustin bridge. At the Cambridge bridge it would be necessary after the completion of the new conduit to remove the old Cambridge structure. All construction would be at the cost of the developer. Question 11 is regarding impacts to the creek downstream, which has been discussed. No one is requiring larger than a 100 year flood to be accommodated. Within the next three years, as soon as the development could be occupied, the Corps of Engineers will have a reduction in the flow rate. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 20 Chairman Bosch said 'the written response indicates that under any design there would be more than 12,000 cfs regardless of the reduction. He had concern with the proposed grading and elevations shown on the tentative tract map. Mr. Nelson said the answer was not intended to say the whole creek could overflow into LaVeta. If there is a minor overflow or if the water got higher, the conduit would be designed for open channel flow. The water surface inside the conduit would be below the ceiling (soffit). If there were more flow and the water should seal and be a pressure condition, it's like a sewer that gets too full. Water can back flow through the entries in LaVeta or at the Tustin bridge. Chairman Bosch asked at what cfs would it overflow and how much would the LaVeta design accommodate? Mr. Nelson did not have a number, but talked about a flow that would exceed the 100 year flood. He gave a brief history of the flood information. Q.12. Evaluate the impact to Tustin and Cambridge traffic during bridge construction. Mr. Nelson claimed there would be no impact on traffic except on the westerly side of Tustin when the railings would be removed and the interface between the parking and the bridge and new curbs, and the intersection of LaVeta would be constructed. On Cambridge there would have to be a detour during the construction of the conduit through LaVeta. There would need to be a staged detour for removal of the Cam bridge structure. Cambridge would not be closed, but transitioned. Plans would be submitted to the City for review. Q.13. Show how LaVeta is designed to handle run-off and creek overflows. Mr. Nelson said the run-off would be minor and touched on that earlier. Some excess could flow down LaVeta. Q.14. Evaluate what the impact of increased run-off in east Orange due to new construction has on the project. Mr. Nelson said east Orange was small compared to the overall watershed. Most of the watershed for Santiago Creek is within the Cleveland National Forest. There would not be an increase on the major part of the watershed. The design flow rate for the conduit will be 4300 cfs. There will be a Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 21 treme ndous safety f actor in 1993. The Flood Control District, City and Corps of Engineers tend to look, within an area like Orange County and have for many years, every bit of land that is not under some kind of government ownership, would develop in accordance with the General Plan of the jurisdiction that has control. The Sphere of Influence for the City of Orange goes out to the entire tributary watershed except for the National Forest. Question 15, the SAVI line easement, has an interesting history and Mr. Nelson explained it. The large concrete pipe within the easement was converted to drainage so that it would improve the drainage of City streets north of this property. Mr. Nelson summarized the liability for culverts; Orange County Flood Control District will own and operate the Santiago Culvert and will be named as first party. Question 17, status of up and downstream creek improvements -- the Santa Ana River federal project includes Santiago Creek. The concept for the federal project is simply at the gravel pits to put in a gated outlet such that the pits will function like a flood control reservoir. Q.18. What is the current Q required by OCFCD? Chairman Bosch asked how the Q relates to the velocity and how it is determined? Mr. Nelson said calculations would be provided to back up the plans; natural velocity upstream is 10 to 12 feet per second. Questions 19 and 20, after they accept the letter of conveyance, OCFCD maintains it. They would take the responsibility of fencing and maintenance a s they do throughout the Flood Control Di strict. Question 21, list of similar type underground conduits given. He added only the Santa Ana Delhi channel is the only one designed for a 100 year flood. The others were designed in earlier years for a 25 year flood. Question 22, is more of a geotechnical question, but he summarized it by saying that the creek at this location is permeable and it is illustrated by the fact that a short ways upstream big pits have been dug to harvest the sand and gravel. Subsurface flow tends to be vertical rather than lateral in these conditions. VILLA SANTIAGO: Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 22 Q.23&24 What is the status of the 1603 permit and its relation to the proposed land use; and how will the net wetlands loss be mitigated? Chairman Bosch read the response and stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations to the E.I.R. also included the case that if it could not be found, that it would be a measure that could not be mitigated. No further comment. Q.25. What is the phasing of the creek improvements and what effect will it have on other City projects? It indicates creek work not allowed to begin earlier than March 15 nor completed later than November 15. Phased construction does not appear feasible within the creek bed. No further comment. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS: Q.1.&2. What is the box size of the replacement trees? 15 gallon trees are too small for replacement trees. Chairman Bosch asked what the affect was in the difference of size between a 20 inch box and 15 gallon tree? Mr. Burnett was not sure if he could answer that except to say that 20 inch box trees were larger than 15 gallon trees. Q.3. Indicate on the plan where the specimen quality oak and sycamore trees are located and the impact of keeping them in their present locations. They are shown on exhibit Burnett said they make an trees into the landscape. AIR QUALITY: 9, Appendix H of the E.I.R. Mr. effort to incorporate healthy Q.1.&2. How will monitoring of grading operations be accomplished; and what standards for particulate emission will be used? Chairman Bosch read the applicant's response. Is there a requirement within the AQMD regulations for monitoring by an independent testing laboratory retained by the developer during continuous on-site conditions rather than the spot check by AQMD? Mr. Burnett was not familiar with one if there is. No further comments on Air Quality questions. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 23 LANDFILL Q.1. Clarify hauling quantities, haul routes, alternate routes and number of trigs. No comment. Q.2. The amount of fill required appears greater than the amount stated in the E.I.R. Resolve this inconsistency. Chairman Bosch asked which quantity was correct? Mr. Burnett responded the later number is correct (the lesser number). The current quantity is 250,000. Q.3. A condition for the project specifies an increase of fill over the culvert from 3' to 5'. Evaluate impact of this increase for fil_1 amounts, hauling operations and grading phasing. Commissioner Greek asked which number is adequate? Mr. Johnson thought the answer varied in certain locations. He did not think the existing culvert was parallel with the ground. Staff's concern was 3 to 5 feet was a ballpark figure based on the need to give adequate cover to the utilities. Commissioner Greek felt if staff were going to require five feet of fill over the culvert, that will require an additional two feet of import over the whole tract. It would be a substantial increase in import. This needs to be clarified. Mr. Johnson did not know if there was enough flexibility in the grades of the culvert itself, but maybe the culvert could be lowered in certain areas and still make the structure work hydraulically. If that is the case, there won't be any additional fill brought in. They will cut more on the bottom of the culvert and filling more on the top so it is a wash. He did not have any information that would tell him one way or the other. Eric Nielsen, Keith Engineering, clarified that the condition originally came as a request from the Orange Water Department with the assumption that the water line would be placed on top of the culvert. Subsequent discussions with the Water Department, after the original staff report was prepared, indicated some alternative alignments for that water line might be acceptable. Namely, placing the water line adjacent to the box with adequate cover rather than right over the top. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 24 Chairman Bosch asked how the other side of the development would be served? Mr. Nielsen said they would try to provide adequate cover or special construction methods where a 5 foot cover couldn't be achieved. They are willing to work with staff on the details of that design. The sewer will have to run parallel and then they will have to find a place where it is deep enough to go underneath (probably under Cambridge). Commissioner Greek said they had a staff report which recommends a given condition and they don't have a staff report not recommending that condition. If this gets approved and if they use the staff conditions, the applicant would have to put a 5 foot of cover on it. The quantities are not correct if an additional 120 yards were to be put on. Clarification was needed. Mr. Johnson suggested changing the condition such that the standard grades of the culvert must maintain the minimum cover over the utilities. Mr. Nielsen said it was their intent to keep the grading to a minimum, which is the essence of the concern. Chairman Bosch reiterated staff felt Condition 39 should be modified to change it from the 5 foot minimum coverage to some other wording. Mr. Johnson responded some wording that would indicate the minimum standard cover for utilities shall be maintained over the box. Q.4. What is the grading phasing plan for both the commercial and residential portion of the project? No comment. Q.5. Conditions are needed which will enforce the grading plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Chairman Bosch asked if staff has had an opportunity to look at that item? Are the standard provisions appropriate protection for the City to enforce the grading plan? Mr. Johnson said that any tract map that is filed and shows certain grades, if there is a substantial deviation from those grades, staff would bring it back or get the revision approved. Q.6. The be different ding and resolved? parcel ownership m hasinQ of the project. affect the ow will this Chairman Bosch said this was answered before. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 25 Q.7. What other dust controls are available other than AQMD requirements? No comment. Q.8. How will the Rosewood tract excavation and fill be accomplished? No comment. Q.9. What is the extent of the old dump site? Mr. Johnson thought the applicant's response was somewhat misleading. The first time through, the dump was reclamated. There was material excavated. The major failure has occurred at the intersection of Eagle and Rosewood and in the cul-de-sac area of Rosewood. The entire area shown as a dash line would not require complete rehabilitation. It will be necessary to provide a full-time on site geologist technician who will review the grading and make recommendations as to how far they go to get the bad stuff out. Mr. Burnett said their approach to this issue is a little different than their predecessor's. Their solution is simple -- pull it all out. They are prepared to go down 30 or 40 feet. Gerald Nickel, G.A. Nickel & Associates, Geologist & Soils Engineers in Tustin, 15621 Redhill Avenue. With respect to the current investigation of the site they have additional test pits and borings. The borings go to a depth of approximately 55 feet. There are seven new borings. As a result of the previous history of development and substance in the area, there was a considerable amount of existing information. They wanted to verify the findings as to the quantity, depth and quality of the fill materials that were present. The materials were also investigated as to extent by way of photo investigations. They were able to prepare a contour map which gave them a pretty good handle for their own internal use. They were able to confirm by a backhoe test the location of haul roads and the boundary of the pit and slope angle. They were able to drill through the landfill into natural ground. It is not necessary for borings to go down 80 feet. Q.11. Temporary grading and dust impacts may affect adjacent residents resulting in a negative impact to their quality of life. How will these impacts be mitigated and how will adjacent residents be compensated for a loss in life style? Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 26 Chairman Bosch stated the Commission received some correspondence from neighbors in the area indicating their calculations that the amount of dust to be generated during the course of normal grading activities would be a rather substantial impact on them. And the concern about the shut off at 15 mile per hour wind velocity across the site that is required by AQMD or grading ordinance. Mr. Burnett responded they were sensitive to the problems created by grading and are willing to abide by the guidelines to control the dust and will try to mitigate the inconvenience. E.I.R. QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: Q.1. The E.I.R. was prepared for a more dense project than the project currently before the Planning Commission. Is the E.I.R. legally in conformance with CEQA? In addition to the response before the Commission, advice from Legal Counsel was sought. Mr. Herrick said the change in project does not, as a matter of law, invalidate the E.I.R. because a single family alternative is included as a study alternative. And the single f amily alternative is a less intensive land use than the primary alternative. The Commission still has the obligation under the law to examine the report, to make findings with respect to the adequacy of the study of the anticipated impacts and proposed mitigation measures based on the single family alternative. Chairman Bosch stated the Commission received correspondence from Gregory Hile, representing the homeowner's association. Mr. Herrick briefly read through the letter at the meeting. Mr. Hile will be asked to respond a little later. Q.2. What about the specific differences between them such as the creek and culvert? No comment after reading the applicant's response. MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS: Q.1. Residents have questioned the proposed future of the City owned parcel west of Cambridge which is partially affected by the transition structure. Why isn't this parcel included in the proposal? What is the plan for it? Punning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 27 No comment. Q.2. Verify water and sewage capacity and how increased capacity will be provided if needed. Mr. Johnson has not seen a detailed study of the sewer availability. He believes it is their intention to drain to Cambridge, but there are some conditions that would require off-site upgrading at trunk facilities to provide for that capacity if necessary. Q.3. Applicable staff report comments. Chairman Bosch was concerned that the draft E.I.R. did not include response to comments relative to some items in the staff report. A general summary was requested of how they are adequately responded to in the E.I.R.. Sid Linmark, PBR, Irvine, said the particular responses before the Commission are resultant from the coordination between three different documents. One was the staff report, which was prepared by City staff. It did not have access to the Response to Comments that were submitted separately by them. This particular response attempts to coordinate between those items. The first body of information pertains to comments that were raised by the County E.M.A. Planning staff as it related to traffic. Particularly the level of service at Tustin/Chapman intersection, the growth rate assumed by the traffic study and the impact of the project on the Chapman and 55 on and off ramps. All three of the issues were responded to in the final E.I.R. and this particular material summarizes those three responses. Item 45 of the staff report is a new requirement of the Southern California Association of Governments that a jobs/housing balance be achieved within the region and this particular response provides data on what the current job/housing issue would be in the City and what impact this project would have on that ratio. The City does not have a current goal for a specific job/housing balance at this point in time. Items 51, 53, 54 and 55 have been responded to by Keith Engineering. Referring to exhibit B, as written on the staff report on Page 21, Item 53 related to the comment hydrology and what were the limits of the 100 year flood. That particular exhibit is included in the Draft E.I.R. Item 54, Page 21 of the staff report related to the box culvert sizing and the cfs flows. Item 55, Page 22 relates to the issue of whether an open channel or a closed box channel could be achieved on site. He believed Keith Engineering responded to that. Item 56, Page 22 refers to the differing cfs's and has been resolved in prior discussion. Item 58, Page 23 relates to the estimates of earth work on site. The last item 60, Page 24 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 28 relates to the estimation of trips related to fill being brought on site. Item 61 related to the hauling operations and mitigation is provided in the E.I.R. that would result in the developer meeting with both City and Cal Trans to find the most feasible route for import of fill into the site. Staff report, Page 25, Items 63, 64 and 65 relate either to the biological impacts and the wetland loss previously discussed. Item 78, Page 31 of the staff report, relates both to the curb-to-curb width of LaVeta and the internal circulation access, discussed previously. Item 80, Page 31, related to a comment about minimum lot size that is now revised with the current plan. Commissioner Greek commented there were no answers to the responses. The responses are not answered adequately. He felt the questions asked were very specific. There should be a more definitive number provided. Dick Vogel, Van Dyke Engineering, 1403 Batavia, stated on the basis of 250,000 yards anticipated on the project, the trucks yield about 14 cubic yards of compacted import per load. Typical anticipated production rate on a project of this nature would be approximately 200 loads per day. If allowable, it could be expedited by double spreading on the loaders at the pit location and making the operation go more quickly. That is based on an average of 250,000 cubic yards to end up with 17,900 truck loads. Dividing the 200 loads per day, it would be a 90 day working operation based on a five day, 8 hour day working week, or a 4 1/2 month import operation. Mr. Burnett added there have been some refinements to the plans. Some of the original work that went into this was 1 1/2 years ago. As the plan has continued to unfold and evolve, some of the information has changed. The planning criteria with respect to grading has always been to keep it to a minimum. Information has changed wherein the instance of the Draft E.I.R. they used some worst case scenarios; as the plan has been refined, it has become a better case scenario. The cubic yardage has now diminished from 300,000 to 250,000 yards. Commissioner Scott said one of the conditions in the staff report required a bike trail from Cambridge to Tustin. He believed one of the questions raised at the last study session was to sacrifice some of the parking to extend the greenbelt over to Tustin so that condition could be met. He did not see it on any of the plans where that condition is met . Chairman Bosch responded that was true. Questions 17 & 18 made reference to that. Although the greenbelt may have Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1989 - Page 29 been increased from the right-of-way with part of the landscaping, that primarily the excess went into balancing the lot sizes to increase the minimum lot size. It was also anticipated that the greenbelt would extend past the commercial portion so the bike lane could be taken off and there is still not a greenbelt past the commercial portion. John Killen, 271 S. Grand Street, in response to the bike trails, they have made two or three adjustments. They have met with Bernie Dennis and other staff members to discuss the right-of-way, width and the ability to pull the bike lanes off of LaVeta onto the open space adjacent to the Rosewood connection, as well as the greenbelt on the southerly side of the property. The overall goal was twofold: one to try to create more open space adjacent to the edges where the residences occur on the northerly and southerly residential sites, as well as to extend the bike lane/pedestrian access east/west through the property in the form of a meandering path in the open space itself. The bike trail is referred to on Pages 11 and 12 of the PC "Circulation Plan". Mr. Dennis thought the problem was that they did take the bike trail off the street and put it in the meandering configuration. He believed, per discussion, as long as they replace the bike trail, the street section could be reduced. That is what has apparently been done on the plan to terminate the bike trail back into the minimal street section and not extend it onto Tustin. There are two options: either widen that section of the street to accommodate the bike trail adjacent to the commercial development, or continue the bike trail behind the curb on up to Tustin Street. Mr. Killen responded that was their intent. The graphic is intended to show the extension of the bike trail to Tustin. If that requires a widening of the park way adjacent to the restaurant site, they will be able to accommodate that through conditions. They have an excess of parking on the restaurant site which would allow them to eliminate two or three cars in that center parking island and create the width required to extend the bike trail/sidewalk to Tustin. Those speaking in opposition Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, was concerned about the plan because of the 4,000 square foot lots. They have increased them from 3,700 to 4,000. He made reference to the lots in East Orange and it has led the City Council Steering Committee and the Irvine Company to agree there will be no 4,000 square foot lots in the East Orange development. Orange should not set a precedent for this development standard. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 30 Gregory Hill, P.O. Box 380, Running Springs, attorney representing The Santiago Creek Homeowners Association, addressed the issues noted in his letter dated October 9, 1989. He summarized some of their concerns. The City has recently adopted a General Plan and now a developer wants to change it. Regarding the Draft E.I.R. a number of different issues could be addressed: Project description, alternatives to the project (i.e., golf course), 7,000 square foot lots, and mitigation measures. Ralph Masek, President of Santiago Creek Homeowners Association, voiced the concern of confusion for surrounding property owners. Many issues have not been resolved. The City needs to address questions regarding the General Plan, the 4,000 square foot lots -- why make changes to benefit only a few people, should the City permit covering the Santiago Creek and putting it in box culverts. Wayne Spring, 1243 Fairway Drive, spoke about the sound ' levels and how it would affect the residences along his street. LaVeta should not go through. He was also opposed to the 4,000 square foot lots. The lifestyle of the residents will be destroyed if this project were approved. Dorothy Huduchek, 3196 North Hearthside, said this property is listed on the Santa Ana River/Santiago Greenbelt Plan. The County adopted the plan in 1971; the City adopted it May 18, 1976. The implementation was adopted by the City in February, 1977 and is still in effect with the County by Resolution 77144. Why not re-zone the property to open space? Bob Siebert, 1308 Fairway Drive, addressed the traffic issue. It is difficult to get out on Tustin now. A traffic light will not be a good thing for the neighborhood because of the extra traffic. Forrest Sweener, 927 East Fairway Drive, said there was not enough open space in the City of Orange. This ground 20 years ago was not fit to have homes built on it. He thinks their property values will go down because of this development. RPhuttal Mr. Burnett said that contrary to what has been suggested, the site is not the R-1-7,000 or R-1-6,000 zone that has been suggested. Different housing alternatives are contiguous to the golf course site. Their request requires an increase in density of approximately one dwelling unit per acre in excess of the current General Plan; to permit lot sizes of less than 7,000; and to re-zone approximately 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 31 acres of Tustin frontage for commercial use. If approved, the plan would deliver: improvement of more than 3,000 feet of Santiago Creek to a standard set for the 100 year flood; it extends LaVeta Avenue 3,000 feet west from Tustin to Cambridge and provides traffic control at both intersections; it removes the 21 homes presently condemned and abandoned and corrects the existing soils compaction problem. All costs will be borne by the project. The project further provides 1 1/2 acres of landscaped greenbelt area, a commercial retail center expected to generate approximately one million dollars per year in sales tax and create employment. The project will also increase the property tax base of the City by more than 70 million dollars and provide a reasonably priced in-fill housing option that otherwise would not exist in the City. Development of this site under the current R-1-7 zoning could not support the cost of infrastructure the plan provides. Development under the R-1-7 zone would result in a reduction or loss of the landscaped greenbelt area. The cost of land acquisition and improvements for the LaVeta extension would be passed on to the taxpayers. Clean up of the 21 home site would not be possible and increased housing prices in the project would result. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greek stated normal procedure was to begin with the E.I.R. process, but he disagrees with the answers he received. He would only be asking for more clarification and perhaps skirting the issue that the developer is asking for - a review of the plan. He had the same concerns as the audience: lot size, traffic, the need for LaVeta (is it really needed?). The Commission sought staff's advice on how to proceed and in what order? Mr. Herrick said normal procedure begins with review of the E.I.R.; before any project is approved, the environmental study must be approved. He doesn't know if there was any constraint in going the other direction. Commissioner Greek was still undecided about the need for the LaVeta extension. If it is needed, why isn't it built to a standard secondary highway cross section as opposed to this modified section? Mr. Dennis stated the street started out as a conventional 64 foot secondary highway within a 2 or 4 foot lesser right-of-way section. The cross section was 64 feet. The Commission asked that every effort be made to provide additional landscaping and the requirement was placed to Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 32 provide a bike trail within the project area. Pursuant discussions led staff to believe capacity was needed. Staff opted for the narrower section to end up with a five lane facility. They traded the street section off for landscaping. Chairman Bosch added he helped pursue that issue because his concern was that you have an adequate street section for vehicular safety and capacity. Bike trails is an expressed concern and if it's to share major streets, why not get it off and increase the landscaping. Is there a way to dramatically increase the available greenbelt through the site? One way to get the bike trail outside the curb, but he doesn't know why that should affect what the standard lane widths would be on a street without a bike trail. Mr. Dennis said the changes to the cross section is a reduction in the section. The original plan showed on street bike lanes, four travel lanes, left turn lane, and a raised island. The bike lanes/bike trail went up onto the sidewalk area, the raised islands became painted islands, which allows a reduction in the number 1 lane width because they are not running next to a barrier. The curb lanes have always been at 14 feet. The shrinkage in right-of-way was from 75 to 70. This is not a standard secondary street. Commissioner Master felt the lot sizes were not acceptable, nor the routing of the street. Chairman Bosch stated this was a difficult project. The applicant does have private property rights and the existing zoning he could work to. The question becomes, is there a better plan than this? He concurs with Commissioner Greek's concern that there is no solid evidence that the LaVeta extension is necessary or that there might be some other mitigations that could be performed other than the LaVeta Street to take care of some of the traffic problems in the community. He has heard a lot of talk about the 4,000 square foot lot being too small and the precedent it might set. He is also concerned, but his response to that is that the Commission has not seen adequate design for housing units of 4,000 square foot lots. That's part of the problem. It relates to Floor Area Ratios, development standards set for the lots, relates to expectations on how big a house we have to provide for all aspects of the community and the sale price of that. He was not convinced that 4,000 square foot lots can't be handled. He is willing to look at smaller lots for a site where a precedent will not be set. The trade off is retention of open space in a significant way. He was hopeful to see a redesign of the project that not only would increase the smallest lot size, and add to more open space and greenbelt area. There is Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 33 still excessive parking relative to code minimum requirements in the commercial areas, which is beneficial from the point of view of flexibility of use of those buildings, but it doesn't accrue any gain to the greenbelt. The project is overburdened with too much public infrastructure requests. The greenbelt plan alluded to does include a cross section of Santiago Creek that shows placing it in box culverts with a park over the top. That is the significant difference. He prefers the culvert with the greenbelt on top than the 3 sided concrete open top box with chain link fences down the sides. We're overburdening it with the street on top of that. It appears the applicant can't get to the economic trade off, which he has to have. He prefers to have the greenbelt in lieu of the lot size and in lieu of the street. Commissioner Greek highlighted the responses he felt did not get adequate answers: Site plan floor area ratios, greenbelt areas, narrow parcel width for driveways, parking questions, lot size conflicts with the East Orange General Plan, strip zoning on Tustin (commercial and depth), depth of the garage and front yard setbacks, density of development (190 units), greenbelt area extension, problem of parking at the restaurant adjacent to the residential units, LaVeta extension, quantity of dirt cover for the culvert, and the difference between 250,000 yards vs. 360,000 yards should be resolved. Mr. Herrick suggested that any motion to the E.I.R. should address findings with respect to the adequacy of the study of impacts and mitigation measures. Comments concerning the site plan may or may not be directed to particular findings of adequacy with respect to mitigation measures. Mr. McGee stated the normal sequence of events is as listed in the original staff report. The Environmental Impact Report is the first action to be taken. As a reminder, it is an advisory document to all of the other actions taken. The Overriding Consideration is to come to a conclusion whether this Environmental Impact Report is prepared consistent with CEQA requirements and does provide you with adequate information to come to a decision. Irregardless of what the position may be on the project itself, that is the first decision the Commission is required to make. Chairman Bosch stated his concern about the Environmental Impact Report is in the Overriding Considerations about the adequacy of response to the need or and mitigation of the LaVeta extension. With regard to the Flood Control issues, given all the testimony heard from different sources, it appears that to the extent the Commission could rely upon proper design and approval processes that it is reasonable Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 34 to assume that the information will result in a proper drainage structure. The key concern is the impact of the street. Discussed ensued between Commission and Legal Counsel regarding the Environmental Impact Report. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council find that E.I.R. 1143 has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA but that the Statement of Overriding Considerations with appropriate findings is not satisfactory and it does not adequately address the full scope of the impact nor necessary mitigation measures to off set specific impacts identified in the E.I.R. as iterated by the Commission's discussion. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Mr. Herrick was approached by the applicant who requested a continuance for an opportunity to address the concerns of the Commission. The Commission thought it was a mistake to grant a continuance. They have voiced their concerns at previous meetings and those concerns were not addressed. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny General Plan Amendment 1-89 "B", Zone Change 1068, Tentative Tract Map 13901, Conditional Use Permit 1589 and Administrative Adjustme nt 8923. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: Commissioner Bosch ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch voted no not because he disagreed that LaVeta is wrong or some of the other issues, but he would have liked to see another chance to get a suitable project through. He did not find the one before them appropriate, but on the other hand, he wanted to work for another chance. Mr. Godlewski stated this item will proceed to City Council for final action. P~_anning Commission Minutes October 9, 1989 - Page 35 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission adjourn. AYES: Commissioners Bosh, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m. /sld