Loading...
_10012018-367Planning Commission October 1, 2018 1 FINAL Minutes Planning Commission October 1 2018 City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson, Simpson, Willits, Correa STAFF PRESENT: Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney Bill Crouch, Community Development Director Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary REGULAR SESSION 1.1 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Glasgow called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Glasgow led the flag salute. 1.3 ROLL CALL: all Commissioners were present 1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None 1.5 CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: None 1.6 PLANNING MANAGER REPORTS: None 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: 2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2018. Motion was made to approve the August 20, 2018 minutes as written: MOTION: Commissioner Gladson SECOND: Commissioner Correa AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Simpson, Gladson, Correa and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission October 1, 2018 2 3. NEW HEARING: 3.1 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 0048-18, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0948-18, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1859-18 The applicant proposes a tentative tract map to subdivide a 7.44-acre site allow for an equestrian community consisting of six single-family residential lots on the property currently occupied partially by the Mara Brandman Area located at 6146 East Santiago Canyon Road. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 29-18, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange recommending City Council adoption of Tentative Tract Map No. 0048-18, Minor Site Plan Review No. 0948-18, and Negative Declaration No. 1859-18, to subdivide a 7.44-acre site allow for an equestrian community consisting of six single-family residential lots AT 6146 East Santiago Canyon Road. For the record, all of the Commissioners disclosed that they met individually with the applicant. Commissioners Correa and Willits also met with members of Orange Park Acres residents; however they have not made any decisions regarding their vote. Robert Garcia, Senior Planner provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. Commissioner Correa stated he had concerns with the Initial Study and particularly the aesthetics, biological and geological aspects of the project. The removal of trees will impact the air quality and aesthetics and the Initial Study does not indicate the type, age, height and width of the trees and how many trees would be removed. He stated he also wanted to know what kind of wildlife would be affected by the removal of the trees. Commissioner Correa stated regarding the geology of the soil, he didn’t know the degree or width of the slope nor how much of it encroaches into the neighboring properties and whether or not it will affect the structures when grading begins. In general, he was not pleased with the Initial Study or the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Gladson stated she wanted to see more information about the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan in relation to the proposed Tentative Tract map. She stated that the lack of information about the trees raises the concern as to whether or not the lack of information about tree removal represents a CEQA deferment. The Commission may not have what they need to know to make a proper decision. Commissioner Gladson stated the Land Use section of the Negative Declaration is scant on its discussion of the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan and she would like to Planning Commission October 1, 2018 3 know more about how the project complies with that Specific Plan; specifically Item B in the Land Use section of the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Gladson stated the traffic needed further review because there are presently traffic issues on Santiago Canyon Road. There is no traffic study attached to the Negative declaration and the commission could not rely on documentation that does not exist. This is another form of deferment. Commissioner Willits expressed his concerns about left turns on Nicky Way and asked if the applicant should consider making a right turn only. Frank Elfend, representing the applicant stated this project consists of six lots, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation, Zoning and Orange Park Acres Plan. He indicated that a biological survey was conducted at the site. Mr. Elfend addressed the issues contained in a letter from Mr. Bradley dated September 24 and in an OPA email. On August 31, the Tentative Tract Map was provided to OPA and Mr. Bradley in accordance with the City Resolution outlining the 15-day project review process of the Orange park Acres Committee. Comments were not received from OPA until September 24. Letters were received from Mr. Bradley, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Jacklin; therefore it proves that they did have time to review the documents. He also provided samples of the notification that was published in the September issue of the Foothill Sentry which contained the Tentative Tract map. Mr. Elfend indicated that since 2015 there had been communication with OPA, Mabury Ranch and The Reserve regarding the development of this property. They have had over 40 meetings with the community to date. In the last three meetings, which occurred on June 4, July 19, and August 27, 2018 the Tentative Tract Map was discussed and at the last meeting they provided copies of the map to the group. Jason Brandman, Vice President of FirstCarbon Solutions, the environmental consultant, stated the applicant will abide by the City's tree and landscaping guidelines. A biological survey identifies the types of trees that will be impacted. Page C -51 makes reference to the Migratory Bird Act which protects species; the project is less than significant with regard to aesthetics or biological resources. Commissioner Gladson asked if the biology study was in an appendix. Mr. Brandman responded that the Initial Study had the analysis of the types of trees being removed; the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance would guide the protection of those trees; therefore, there is no CEQA deferment regarding the tree removal impact. Commissioner Correa stated he was confused about the biological studies, and specifically if there had been a biology study why it didn’t appear as an Appendix to the Negative Decloration. Mr. Brandman responded they studied the biological resources of the site which is in the Initial Study on page 13. Planning Commission October 1, 2018 4 Kyle Maberry, the applicant’s Traffic Engineer, stated given that there are only six homes on an existing roadway, the findings in the Initial Study are appropriate. Nicky Way will be used the same as it is today. The existing traffic volume on Nicky Way is under 10 peak hour trips. The project will generate four AM peak hour trips and six PM peak hour trips. The level of service will be adequate. Commissioner Gladson asked about any proposed changes to the existing conditions on Santiago Canyon Road. Mr. Maberry responded that in the City of Orange, any traffic impact would have to exceed a 1% increase in the level of service; in this case it is a nominal amount of traffic and it will not meet the impact threshold. Chair Glasgow opened the public hearing. Lucy Busby, 1489 N. Portsmouth Circle, expressed concerns about the easement and mature trees along Nicky Way and hoped it will remain untouched. The proposed street lights will affect the rural feel that they currently have. Ms. Busby asked that there be no street lighting. Jim Catheart, 6440 E. Gray Lane, Vice President of the Orange Park Association and was representing the Orange Park Association Board and representative of the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee. During the week of September 17, the committee met with the City and asked them to not rush this matter and to allow more time for the OPA Planning Committee to review the documents to ensure conformance with the OPA Specific Plan. Mr. Bradley also sent a letter on September 24 to the City Planning staff requested an extension. Mr. Catheart stated the informational meeting the City had with him and Mark Sanford earlier that week did not satisfy the proper timeframe for the review period. He stated nothing in the correspondence showed that Milan and the OPA Board have met since Milan delivered the documents. Isolated communications between individual members of the OPA Board or OPA Real Estate Committee are not a substitute for meeting with the full Board, nor has a Brown Act compliant public meeting been held and therefore the OPA Board is unable to provide comments to the City. Bonnie Robinson, 5907 E. Valley Forge Drive stated she did not have objections to the development itself; although she would like more clarification on the specific ways in which the biological resources and traffic would be affected by the proposal. She fears that this is a piecemeal proposal and that it is part of the much larger project at the Sully Miller site across from this site. She feels the neighborhood is being bullied by Milan Capital, through ramping up dirt hauling and stockpiling operations on their site just before they present a proposal to the City. She also stated there had been no representation from the Colony neighborhood on any of the committees meeting with the applicant. She asked that all of the meetings between community members, the developer and City staff be open to everyone and that the City abide by the Brown Act; in other words no more liaison committee meetings with a limited number of Planning Commission October 1, 2018 5 representatives. William Day, 20211 Anapola Avenue spoke in support of keeping the arena. Teresa Sears, (address on file) stated the applicant was over inflating some of the things that have happened in the community meetings. The applicant does not have the community's approval and is acting unilaterally hoping that they can steamroll the community opposition. She feels Commissioner Gladson made a very good point in asking about the proposal’s conformance to the OPA Specific Plan. The committee’s goal is not stop the project, but to make it better by allowing the OPA Planning Committee to review it by granting a continuance. Laura Thomas, 7211 E. Clydesdale is a past president of the Orange Park Acres Advisory Committee. In the past, when the committee received projects from the City and the County, the OPA Committee had to follow rules and post notices in accordance with the Brown Act. They have reviewed documents submitted by the Planning Department staff, not the applicant, to ensure that all the facts are similar. She asked that the commission continue the item in order to give the OPA Committee more time to review the documents. Sherry Panttaja, 11101 Orange Park Blvd. expressed concerns about the safety of the horse trails along Santiago Canyon Road and losing this site as an evacuation area for large animals when there are fires or other emergencies. The arena is also used for recreational purposes by many groups. She also feels the subdivision proposal is being used in negotiations for the bigger project of Sully Miller across the street. Nick Lall, 6231 E. Mabury, is on the Board of Directors of Mabury Ranch and expressed concerned about the impact of the $2 million to relocate the arena that is part of a global project. Snouer Uppal (20408 Amapola Ave.) expressed her concerns about the youth losing the arena to ride and train with their horses and would like to save it. It provides a positive environment for area youth. Michael Grannich, 6050 E. Chapel Lane expressed his belief that this is a bargaining tool by the applicant for the community to get the trails it wants connecting to Santiago Oaks across the street. Chair Glasgow closed the public hearing and asked the applicant to approach and respond to comments. Mr. Elfend asked the City Attorney to explain the application requirements and procedures in the City’s Resolution for OPA Committee review. Planning Commission October 1, 2018 6 Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney. explained the review process. Per a 2006 Resolution, the City does not hold the OPA Committee to the Brown Act; it is up to them if they choose to do it. The president of OPA is the contact person to whom all project documents are delivered to, either prior to or concurrent with submissions to the City. The application was deemed complete with a recommendation of approval from City staff after it made its way through the City’s SMART Committee on August 29. The project applicant submitted the plans to the OPA Board President, Mr. Bradley, on August 31. The procedure requires the OPA Board to submit written comments to the Community Development Director within 15 days of receipt of the preliminary plans or design. In this case, the 15 days occurred on a weekend, therefore the comment period was extended until Monday, September 17th. Mr. Garcia, added staff realized it had not received any communication from OPA related to written comments as described in the 15 day procedure. He reached out to the president, Mr. Bradley who indicated that the OPA Board would not be providing any comments. Mr. Sheatz pointed out a catch all paragraph in the Resolution that states the Community Development Director and/or any City reviewing body, may in its unfettered discretion, determine a project application to be incomplete if the project proponent fails to make a good faith effort to comply with these procedures. However, compliance is not a prerequisite to consideration or approval by the City. The idea behind that is, if the City had not heard anything from the OPA Board, it could move along. However, a project proponent, which is where the burden falls on getting the information to the OPA Board, still has their due process rights. Therefore, they can move along through the City process within the 15 day time period. The catchall provision ensures that the non-action of the Board does not hold up the project proponent. Mr. Garcia, Senior Planner explained the application was submitted on August 31, 2018 which started the 15 day review period; the cut-off date was September 17th. Commissioner Gladson asked the applicant if they considered calling the OPA Board to remind them that review period was closing in and didn't they allow them more time to review the documents. Mr. Elfend explained there have been ongoing communications with OPA since 2015 so they've had ample time. Furthermore, the City received letters from Mr. Bradley and Ms. Thomas and other members of the community, so comments were submitted. The community has always been aware that the arena site would not be there in perpetuity and a possibility that it would be developed. There are only six lots being developed and he's not sure that anything would change through further dialogue. In response to Ms. Robinson's comment he invited her to participate in the process; on May 5, 2017 he received an email from the Mr. Otto the City Manager indicating that Planning Commission October 1, 2018 7 Ms. Robinson did not want to be part of the process. In regard to Ms. Sears' comments, he stated for the record, that the Mabury Ranch Association and The Reserve submitted a letter to the Sentry a few weeks ago in support of the 128 unit plan that is proposed by Milan. Mr. Elfend stated they would like to have a decision this evening because the issues of traffic and biology have already been addressed; it is only six lots which has been in the plan for six years. Commissioner Willits asked if the applicant intends to abide by the City tree regulations. Mr. Elfend responded yes. Chair Glasgow inquired about the eucalyptus trees in the easements on Nicky Way. Mr. Elfend responded that those trees will not be affected by the project. Commissioner Simpson asked if the applicant is willing to work with the community on the streetlights. Mr. Elfend stated yes. Commissioner Correa reiterated that he feels this warrants a more detailed biological study/survey and has concerns about the Negative Declaration not addressing the community's concerns. He wants to see the specific criteria that was used to come to the conclusion that there are no environmental impact. Chair Glasgow asked staff if the studies that were conducted are customary and if the City would determine which trees can and will be cut down when the time comes. Robert Garcia, responded that the Negative Declaration was performed, and given the size of the project, the studies were found to be sufficient. Through compliance the Tree Removal Ordinance, the applicant will have to submit subsequent detailed plans outlining which trees will be relocated/removed prior to the issuance of any grading permit. Commissioner Gladson asked staff if a third-party peer review of the document had occurred with relation to tree protection, biological or other sensitive areas. Mr. Garcia stated there was no third-party review due to the size of the project being so small. Commissioner Willits asked the City Traffic Engineer to provide the City's opinion on traffic impacts and will they be monitoring the equestrian trails. Doug Keys, Traffic Analyst explained the project only has six units and according to City trip generation procedures, 57 daily trips will be generated the from the project. It would equate to four trips in the morning and nine trips in the evening peak hours which is considered to be insignificant. The City’s Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines use 50 peak hour trips as the criteria to initiate a traffic study. In this case, it does not Planning Commission October 1, 2018 8 generate 50 trips, even with the existing development that is there; therefore no traffic study was required. As for the left turn moves, the improvements that are proposed at Nicky Way will provide a very good right-of-way differentiation for residents and people entering into the Santiago Canyon Road arterial. The equestrian trails are under the purview of the Community Services Department. However, the proposed equestrian trail has the protections that the City requires for equestrian trails. Commissioner Simpson asked the City Attorney if the community could request a continuation during the 15 day comment period and if anyone asked for a continuance. Mr. Sheatz responded the project proponent or the OPA Board could request a continuance. The Community Development Director has an unfettered discretion to determine that the project application is incomplete. In this instance, it was taken out of his hands due to the passage of time and was agendized for the Planning Commission's review. Mr. Garcia stated no one asked for the project to be continued during that 15 day comment period. Chair Glasgow asked if the trails will tie into the OPA trails in front of Salem Lutheran. Mr. Garcia responded yes. Commissioner Simpson stated three entities in the City have this particular notification process; OPA, Old Town Preservation Association and the Barrio Association and the language in the resolution is clear. A process was afforded to OPA and the opportunity was not taken. They had ample time and he could not support a continuance. Commissioner Correa stated he would not support the project because the Negative Declaration and EIR warrants greater depth. He feels that the OPA met the deadline due to brief comments that were submitted via email regarding concerns about the Negative Declaration on September 17 by Mr. Bradley. Mr. Garcia clarified that the 15 day review period ended on September 17. The correspondence from Mr. Bradley was his personal correspondence and not on behalf of the OPA Board. The email was received at approximately the same time that he placed a phone call to Mr. Bradley related to the lack of communication from the Orange Park Acres Board. Commissioner Willits stated this project met the zoning, was consistent with the OPA Plan and General Plan and there was only a minor adjustment for one of the lots. This met all of the requirements for support. It is unfortunate that OPA missed the window because they have a wealth of knowledge and would've been a great resource for the Planning Commission October 1, 2018 9 project. Commissioner Gladson stated she felt that it's not all about the timing; she didn't have what she needed to make a decision that it complies with the OPA Specific Plan. She needed to see the CEQA elements which were missing and would prefer a continuance. It was questionable if the map meets the grading requirements of the OPA Specific Plan or if the new lots provide for view protection. She needed the information to make a decision. Chair Glasgow stated the Commission had to trust that staff's recommendation; they would not recommend a project that did not conform. The Commission had to trust that if staff states it conforms to General Plan, it also fits within OPA's Specific Plan. Furthermore, they are looking at a tract map, not looking at building and the applicant won't start grading tomorrow. It is no different than what was done for the Irvine or Olson companies. There was no reason not to move forward and recommend approval to Council. Commissioner Gladson stated she needed more time to verify the information. A motion was made to continue the item subject to concerns regarding the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan's compliance and to obtain clarification on trees. MOTION: Commissioner Gladson SECOND: None AYES: None NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED. A motion was made to Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 29 - 18, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange recommending City Council adoption of Tentative Tract Map No. 0048- 18, Minor Site Plan Review No. 0948-18, and Negative Declaration No. 1859-18, to subdivide a 7.44-acre site allow for an equestrian community consisting of six single-family residential lots AT 6146 East Santiago Canyon Road. MOTION: Commissioner Willits SECOND: Commissioner Simpson AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Simpson and Willits NOES: Gladson and Correa ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission October 1, 2018 10 4. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular Planning Commission Meeting will be held on October 15, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers A motion was made to adjourn at 9:07 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled on Monday, October 15 2018, at 7:00 p.m. MOTION: Chair Glasgow SECOND: Commissioner Simpson AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Simpson MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.