2005 - July 18
C;)C;50o.G.d.3
APPROVED
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
INRE:
July 18, 2005
Monday-7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina
None
Leslie Aranda Roseberry
Ed Knight, Principal Plannner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Tom Mahood, Assistant City Engineer
Angie Andrelus, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(I) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR
MEETING OF MAY 2, 2005 AND THE SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ON JUNE 7,
2005 (BOTH WERE CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 6,2005, PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING).
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioner Pruett
Commissioners Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina
Moved to vote separately on the minutes.
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner Pruett
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Imboden, Pruett and Bonina
Commissioners Bilodeau and Enderby
Moved to approve the Minutes ofthe Regular Meeting of May 2,2005.
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner Pruett
Commissioner Enderby
Commissioners Imboden, Pruett and Enderby
Commissioners Bilodeau and Bonina
Moved to approve the Minutes ofthe Special Study Session of July 6,2005.
Page 1
APPROVED
(2) FINAL SEIR 1278, FINAL EIR 1716, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-
0001, ZONE CHANGE 1218, ZONE CHANGE 1219, PRE-ANNEXATION
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PLAN (ROMP),
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SHII AND EOPC AREA 1, CONCEPTUAL
GUIDELINES FOR EAST ORANGE AREAS 2 AND 3, TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 16199, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16201, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
16514, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2488-03 - SANTIAGO HILLS II
(SHII) AND EAST ORANGE PLANNED COMMUNITY (EOPC).
Chairman Bonina read the item from the Agenda. He further listed the recommended
actions that the Planning Commission would consider from the Staff Report.
Ed Knight, Principal Planner gave the staff presentation and added that this is primarily a
residential project of approximately 4,000 dwelling units. He indicated that there were
ten Planning Commission resolutions recommending action for the City Council to
consider on this proj ect.
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) 1278/Final EIR 1716-
Mr. Knight began by stating that the Supplemental EIR was prepared to update the minor
changes to the original EIR prepared in 2000 on SHII Project. With regard to the East
Orange Project, he stated that the project is vastly different from the original concept of
1989, so a new EIR had been prepared. Area I EIR was made part of the TTM 16514.
Areas 2 and 3 were done at a program level since TTM's have yet to be prepared for
these areas.
He detailed the process for issuing the various documents, which requires holding a
review period to receive comments from those concerned, as well as preparing responses
from staff. He added that a Statement of Overriding Considerations was also prepared to
address three areas not able to be mitigated to a level of insignificance: visual resources;
air quality; and two intersections on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
In response to Commissioner Bilodeau requesting the location of the two intersections,
Mr. Knight responded that the two unmitigatable intersections were Jamboree and Portola
in the City of Tustin; and Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon in the City of Anaheim.
General Plan Amendment 2003-0001 -
Mr. Knight indicated that the East Orange area has been integrated into the Citywide
General Plan to include all graphics, entire city sphere of influence and identifYing the
study areas of both SHII and East Orange. This included amendments to the Land Use,
Open Space and Conservation, Circulation, Noise and Safety elements, along with a
minor change to the Historic Element.
Mr. Knight further stated discussion on Jamboree Road at the northern section of its
intersection with Santiago Canyon Road had taken place; and that the Orange County
Transit Authority had indicated the deletion of that roadway was fine.
Page 2
APPROVED
Commissioner Pruett asked for clarification on the changes occurring with the General
Plan, mentioning The Irvine Company's donation of land for open space.
Mr. Knight confirmed that the Irvine Ranch Land Reserve, adopted in 2001 had a
profound effect on development in East Orange. Areas north of Irvine Lake and South of
Santiago Canyon Road had been removed as urban designations and are now open space
which caused the changes to the arterial roads. This involved other cities contiguous to
the project.
Chairman Bonina asked about land use designations for religious uses in the project area,
e.g., churches, synagogues, etc.
Mr. Knight indicated there is not a specific designation for religious use of the land;
however, with a conditional use permit and proper zoning this is a permitted use.
East Orange Planned Communitv Development Plan and Zoning Map -
Mr. Knight stated that in 2000 the Planned Community Regulations had been adopted,
but with the changes to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways there are minor changes
proposed. Also the school site identified north of Chapman Avenue is no longer there
with the Orange Unified School District entering into a new school mitigation agreement.
He detailed the East Orange Planned Community Development Plan and Regulations.
Chairman Bonina requested clarification of the zoning around the lake area with regard to
the commercial-recreation designation. Could there be a more intense commercial
development in that area, like a strip commercial or similar.
Mr. Knight indicated that this type of commercial operation, e.g., video store, dry cleaner,
are not supportable by this zoning district, but rather a restaurant type of use is.
Pre-annexation Development Agreement for Santiago Hills II and East Orange Planned
Communities -
Mr. Knight indicated a development agreement is a document between the developer and
the City providing time and assurances that the city could not make changes without the
approval of the property owner. The exchange for this is the applicant provides
significant benefits to the city, such as: dedicated land and improvements to parks in
greater value than what would be normally required by the Quimby Act; dedication and
improvement of eight miles of paved and unpaved trails; offer of a lease for an equestrian
facility; dedication of land to construct a fire station; added traffic fees; affordable
housing commitment; payment of deficit in SHII; water quality enhancement feature in
Peters Canyon Reservoir. He indicated that the term of the agreement is 15 years with an
option to extend another five.
Chairman Bonina asked about the city assisting in the formation of the financing districts
and requested clarification how the city would be involved, e.g., staff, costs, etc.
Page 3
APPROVED
Mr. Knight indicated the applicant would use either community facility districts or an
assessment district to fund public improvements of the subdivision which would involve
staff time, bond counsel costs, etc.
Chairman Bonina, referencing the Development Agreement, asked about the reference to
the developer ensuring the purchase of construction materials in the City so the sales tax
remains here. He also asked about the Development Agreement being assignable,
requesting information on what qualifications would be required of the assignee.
Mr. Knight indicated that the applicant will respond to the tax issue.
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney responded that the assignee would be required to
show that they had the ability to follow through with the requirements of the
Development Agreement. He added that there is give and take as to who would be the
assignee and the City's assurance of their capabilities.
Run Off Management Plan (ROMP)-
Mr. Knight indicated that the ROMP is a storm water drainage plan and water quality
program which has been approved by the County of Orange and recommended for
adoption by the Peer-Reviewer. He also added that the Serrano Water District has
entered into an agreement with the Irvine Company for project design features to protect
Irvine Lake-a municipal water source.
Mark Anderson, RPF Consulting, gave the presentation on the ROMP. He indicated that
each phase of the development was addressed to determine which phase would have the
most impact. He stated that the project is located within a 65,000-acre watershed of
Santiago Creek. He described the flow of water from Irvine Lake to the Santa Ana River.
He spoke on the runoff entering either Peters Canyon Reservoir, Irvine Lake, or Santiago
Creek at Irvine Park.
Mr. Anderson spoke on the mitigation measures put in place to ensure no increase in peak
flows leaving Peters Canyon Reservoir and added that unlike Irvine Lake, the reservoir
has issues of concern. He spoke on erosion prevention measures being considered. He
also stated that working with the County of Orange the water quality objectives of the
ROMP have established best management practices in treating storm water and well
flows. Other points of importance in the ROMP are protection of natural habitat and
wildlife areas; create or enhance the wetland and riparian area between Jamboree Road
and Chapman; enhancing water quality in Peters Canyon Reservoir, as well as solutions
such as comprehensive water quality management practices-site design; minimizing
runoff potential; source control to eliminate pollutants; and treatment of runoff.
He continued to the plan to protect the Oak trees in the canyons; and for the golf course
to drain onto itself rather than Irvine Lake. He added that the proposals have been
reviewed by the Irvine Water District and Serrano Water District and both districts have
approved this plan. He also indicated that the ROMPS assure that the project does not
cause any impact to Irvine Regional Park, Irvine Lake, Handy Creek or Peters Canyon
Page 4
APPROVED
Reservoir. It assures that no water quality issues will be added to what presently exists at
the reservoir. With the County's acceptance of the water aeration system-they will then
maintain it. He reported that the Orange County Coast Keepers sent a favorable letter
after reviewing the plan.
Commissioner Bilodeau clarified the plan to shift the water shed area to the north; avoid
park inundation issues by installing pipes and culverts to direct water through the park;
and asked about whether there would be more water behind Villa Park dam.
Mr. Anderson explained that the County and the Corps of Engineers have agreed that the
discharge would not exceed 6,000 csf. The County has an operation plan. They operate
Irvine Lake, Villa Park Dam and the gravel pits as a unit. The plan functions at 5,800 csf.
The new operation due to the project will increase the flow by 22 csf, well below the
maximum indicated in the operational plan.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked about water quality and indicated his concern for the
quality of the water being diverted behind the dam which drains into the Santiago Water
Pits operated by the Santiago Water District and is the major recharge area for all of
Orange County. He questioned whether the quality would be the same or better.
Mr. Anderson responded that all water being discharged is treated first. He explained
that the treatments are beyond those required by the County.
In response to a request of Chairman Bonina, Mr. Anderson explained the chart entitled
"Key Elements of Water Quality Management Plan".
Commissioner Pruett asked ifhis understanding was correct that the difference now is the
runoff to Peters Canyon Reservoir is substantially reduced by diverting more water to
either behind Villa Park Dam or further down into Santiago Creek than when Serrano II
was approved.
Mr. Anderson responded that when the zoning was approved for Serrano II back in 2000
there was only an idea how the drainage would occur. Lacking a detailed plan the
planners envisioned a larger area draining to Peters Canyon Reservoir and the use of
more extensive detention facilities on site to meet the same objective. With more drain
lines, more money and more storm drain facilities, flows have been created and
elimination of the need for multiple detention facilities on site has occurred-more
desireable by the Flood Control District.
Commissioner Pruett added that the impact reduces the flow to Handy Creek. He also
clarified that the flow through the park was not previously addressed, but this plan
addresses any possible drainage problem through the park.
Mr. Anderson indicated that the County had cautioned that the expectation was no
impacts to Irvine Park be created by the project. He added that the existing runoff
through the park will be intercepted by the drainage system and diverted around the park.
Page 5
APPROVE
Commissioner Pruett clarified the strategies implemented will create open space with
environmental benefits. He also clarified that the swales are large green spaces; and that
the water quality treatment system is low maintenance.
Mr. Anderson agreed and explained the maintenance required, along with the plan to
inspect for, and address, higher levels of debris or invasive species taking root.
Chairman Bonina asked about the length of time to raise the standard of the water quality
in Peters Canyon Reservoir once the aeration system is installed.
Susan Paulson of Flow Science responded that ideally the installation of the aeration
system should take place prior to the water quality problems setup. She established there
is a seasonal cycle, which she explained and added that if the aeration system is installed
before the cycle, results will be seen in as early as a week.
Design Guidelines for Santiago Hills II and East Orange Area I - Conceptual Design
Guidelines for East Orange Areas 2 and 3 -
Ed Knight, Principal Planner explained the guidelines on each project. He explained that
the guidelines give:
. Neighborhood designs,
. Landscape setbacks,
. Building setbacks,
. Use of private recreational facilities relating to native open space;
· Architectural design-Spanish Colonial and Cottage Monterey craftsman;
· Home types--conventional single-family detached, duplexes, single-family
attached, etc.;
. Sign standards.
Commissioner Pruett asked with approval of the guidelines, will any of the projects come
back for final approval or be approved at the counter, what is the process?
Mr. Knight explained that the process for the conventional detached, single-family
home-typical homes, a site plan review is performed by staff and then goes to the
Design Review Board who make a finding and approve that they are consistent with
guidelines. For the attached homes, the process requires staff review, Design Review
Board review, Planning Commission review and Council approval.
Chairman Bonina asked when the East Orange area 2 and 3 guidelines become more
detailed.
Mr. Knight responded that when the tentative tract maps are submitted, those areas of the
guidelines will be revised
Page 6
APPROVr,p
Tentative Tract Maps 16199. 16201 and 16514-
Mr. Knight explained TTM's 16199 and 16201 are the Santiago Hills II Project and TTM
16514 is the East Orange Planned Community Area 1. The Maps show street layout, lots
for the homes, and are prepared in two levels. The A level shows division of acreage to
signify low, medium and residential district, lot numbers and number of units. The B
level shows conventional subdivision areas, specific streets, each individual lot, lot sizes,
etc. He detailed the notable features of each tract map:
Tract Map 16199 - South of Santiago Canyon Road.
. The knoll located in this area will be preserved as native open space;
. Merchant marsh area, now containing a riparian area;
· Local park for this site and local trail system connecting to the County trail
system.
Tract Map 16201 -
. Open space area adjoining Irvine Park will be offered in dedication to the park;
. Many of these areas will remain as native with trees preserved in place and all the
homes built will be shielded from the park;
· Elementary school site has been eliminated-the lot is now a single lot with 16
units on it.
Tract Map 16514-
. Large area of open space offered to conservancy - if a conservancy is not
interested, then the Homeowners Association (HOA) will take care of the land;
. 20-acre sports park.
Mr. Knight indicated the HOA will be utilized to take care of many of the features of the
developments. There will be a master HOA and sub-HOA's. The master HOA will have
the responsibility to care for the landscaping areas around the development site, along the
arterial highways, as well as medians and the sub-HOA will take care of roads and
landscaping within their own He indicated that the Irvine Ranch Water
District will in this area.
The City has indicated they will take responsibility for the water features if the Irvine
Ranch Water District cannot. This will require a funding source such as a community
facilities district to generate sufficient funds to take care of those issues.
Mr. Knight stated with regard to public infrastructure, the Irvine Ranch Water District
now provides water and sewer to all of SHII and most of East Orange Planned
Community Area I; however, there is a portion of Area I that is in the Serrano Water
District. Water Reservoirs will be built to serve this area-one 600,000-gallon reservoir
northerly of TTM 16201; and in TTM 16514 a 4+ million-gallon reservoir. Reclaimed
water is not a part of this project. Public Financing will be used to develop the public
infrastructure-arterial highways. In the TTM's, the funding source will be a
Community Facilities District (Mello Roos) or perhaps a more traditional assessment
district.
Page 7
APPROVED
He added that TTM 16199 would be the first phase built, followed by TTM 16201,
followed by Area 1, Area 2 and then 3 ofTTM 16514. He suggested that Area 2 and 3
would be approximately four to six years from this point in time. The Fiscal Impact
Report showed in 2000 a deficit for the SHII and a surplus generated out of the East
Orange area. At the end of both cycles and in today's dollars that is proj ected to be a
$35,000 surplus-which he indicated to be a small amount.
Commissioner Pruett asked for clarity regarding the process for Area 2 and 3 given their
time frame of four to six years in the future.
Mr. Knight responded that these tract maps would be similar to the ones presently being
considered and after performing an environmental evaluation and a supplemental EIR
will be prepared, then put through the usual process for EIR's-Notice of Preparation;
Notice of Completion; Staff considers this information and then the projects proceed on
to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. Knight responded that TTM 16514 in East Orange Area I contains the overpass in
response to a question from Chairman Bonina. And indicated that the overpass was to be
built in the early stages ofthe development ofthe tract.
Mr. Knight responded that the amount of the HOA dues was unknown in response to a
question from Chairman Bonina asking about the range of the HOA dues. He added that
the dues will be more expensive than other projects because of things such as the fuel
mod requirements and whatever water quality features they need to maintain.
Chairman Bonina asked about using a community facilities district v. an assessment
district for financing public infrastructure.
Mr. Knight indicated that they each have benefits, but also restnctlOns on ways the
funding can be spend. He indicated that the City's engineering department is working
with the applicant to define a mix of both districts to cover the needs.
Chairman Bonina asked about the tree management and preservation plan.
Mr. Knight stated that there is a program for each of the areas. This allowed for
evaluation of every impact area and determined how many native and non-native trees
due to development, how many transferred or transplanted and proposed a plan to replace
20 to 1 for each tree removed. The programs were developed based on the City's tree
ordinance. He indicated that a final plan will be prepared which will lay out a five-year
maintenance plan for each tree planted.
Conditional Use Permit 2488-03 - Lot 341 ofTTM 16201 -
The application was filed by the City of Orange Redevelopment Agency for the
affordable housing plan. The zoning is medium density-the most dense zone adopted.
The CUP request is for a density bonus of 46 additional units for a total of 128 dwelling
units. Originally the EIR looked at 50% of the site being low-income housing. The
Page 8
APPROVED
current program is that all 128 (100%) of the units will be available to low-income
households. The applicant will contract with a non-profit housing corporation to
construct and manage the project. There will be a density bonus greater than 25%
permitting the additional 46 dwelling units and the waiver of development fees-fire,
library, police, TSIP fees, as a financial incentive.
The affordability agreement would have to be approved by the City Council and would
be in effect for a minimum of fifty-five years ensuring that the units would retain an
affordability status.
Chairman Bonina asked about the non-profit organization managing the affordable
housing program and the property being 100% rental housing v. a component for sale.
Mr. Knight explained that if a project offers more than 50% of the units as affordable, the
law requires a citywide election. To avoid this burden of expense, a non-profit
organization can be utilized to manage the program. He added that the rental project
would be easier to manage and control the occupancy of the units.
Mr. Knight concluded his report by including miscellaneous information on the project
relating to comments from the Commission and Council brought up at the study sessions.
He noted: that questions arose in the SHI traffic analysis-the estimates done in 1984 had
been very conservative and the traffic conditions now are lower than what was
anticipated at build-out; clarified information on Jeffrey Arroyo modeling; the local park
will allow on-street parking for the park at TTM 16514; the Royal Toad study revealed
none on site; acceptance has occurred by the County of Orange regarding the aeration
system; It has been determined that the Street D overpass will not create a significant
impact to travelers on the corridor or homeowners; Black Walnut trees will not be
removed; correction of lot numbers TTM 16201, relating to the shift due to the water
retention basin; language on the fiscal impact report has been amended; updated
executive summary for the pre-annexation development agreement; as well as copies
have been distributed of all correspondence received from the public.
Chairman Bonina asked about plan to annex Irvine Lake and the County landfill and
whether it would create ramifications for the City. Does it represent liability or legal
issues?
Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz responded that it would not create problems and
clarified that the Lake could be annexed; however, the landfill remains with the County.
Traffic & Circulation Studv-
J. D. Douglas of Kimley-Horn & Associates, presented the report. The report evaluated
two areas: the added traffic to the roadway system and the changes to the County of
Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
SHII was evaluated in 2000. The current SHII plan would generate 500 fewer trips than
previously certified. The current East Orange Areas 1, 2, and 3 will generate 27,000
Page 9
APPROVED
trips. The difference in traffic generated by SHII new v. old plan plus EO I, 2 and 3
amounts to 26,500 trips. This figure was the basis of the evaluation, in addition to the
freeways, freeway ramps, streets and 126 intersections in the area. He reported on the
standards of analyzing impacts, as well as which cities were affected. He described the
mitigation of impacts at Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Rd., Prospect at Chapman,
and Santiago Canyon Road with interchange ramps of toll roads 241 and 261, including a
segment of Santiago Road between planning area 1 and 2.
Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road in Anaheim, Cannon Street and Santiago
Canyon Road in Orange and the intersection of Jamboree and Portola in the City of
Tustin. The study looked at intersection widening to mitigate the impacts.
Chairman Bonina asked Mr. Douglas for copies of the chart showing the locations he
referenced be displayed at the future meeting.
Commissioner Bilodeau clarified that the applicant is not required to address the
intersections being impacted that are outside the jurisdiction of the City of Orange. He
requested staff provide the technical appendices on the traffic study for analysis purposes.
Commissioner Imboden asked if the study takes into account drivers taking a different
route knowing of traffic impacts ahead of time. He then restated that if the issues are not
mitigated then adverse impacts occur.
Mr. Douglas stated that the purpose of a traffic study is to identity the impacts causing
delays or the need to look for an alternate route; and the purpose of the mitigation
measure is to identity improvements to make the operation better to avoid an impact.
Chairman Bonina reiterated his request to revisit the issue with maps showing the
intersections of concern at the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN BONlNA OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Kendall Elmer of Austin Foust Associates, the traffic, engineering and transportation
study consultant, revisiting the two intersections located in other cities that appeared to
have unmitigated impacts, responded that the study does identity specific improvements;
and reported that the working cooperative group are all in agreement on the
improvements to be made. The EIR did not report on the issues at length due to their not
being in the Sphere of Influence of the City of Orange who has no authority to address
the impacts directly.
The Irvine Company Senior Vice-President, Dan Miller, presented the report on the
development, stating that many workshops and community meetings have revealed most
of the information on the proposed project. He then spoke on the size of the development
in comparison to the size of the open space involved and the length and activities that
have been part of the process, as well as the benefits of the project.
Page 10
APPROVEn
He stated that East Orange is less than 2,000 acres in a sphere of influence of 22,000
acres equating to 90% of the land involved remaining as open space permanently. The
project will finalize the remaining buildable area, leaving a hundred thousand acres of
open space.
He stated that the project was initiated in 1984 at which time the General Plan was
adopted. The project consisted of 12,000 residential units and 8 million square feet of
commercial/retail/office floor space. He indicated that in the 1990's talk resumed with
the regulatory agencies to revisit the project, but from an environmentally friendly
perspective. The foundation of the talks was to keep to the National Community
Conservation Plan (NCCP). This plan established protection for multiple habitat types
and 39 species within the reserve. He indicated that the current project being considered
fully adheres to and enhances the habitat and open space ideals and content and goals of
the NCCP.
Mr. Miller displayed a chart comparing the original plan v. the current plan's number of
units, area size and total acreage involved. He talked of the scoping sessions to prepare
the EIR and address the concerns of all involved.
He touched on the mitigation agreement reached with Orange Unified School District that
was adopted without any dissenting votes or comments. He also added that the parks and
trails were agreed on after three workshops conducted for the public and adopted by the
Parks Commission. He added that the landscape plan was approved quickly as well. He
stated that 60 outreach sessions were conducted, as well as a weeklong open house at
Chapman University. He detailed the meetings conducted with HOA's coalition
ENOUGH. The concerns resulted in additional trails being developed. Meetings also
occurred with environmental groups which expressed concerns on preservation of
character; maximizing public benefits; traffic and schools; providing trails and parks;
fiscal balance; and the control of water runoff/quality.
Mr. Miller stated that the fee ordinance resulted in $112.5 million being generated for the
City, but to maximize the benefit to the community, all improvements made as a result of
the project amounts to $245 million in public improvements:
. Realignment and widening of Chapman and Prospect;
· Realignment and widening of Cannon and Santiago;
· Widening and improvements to Santiago Canyon Road;
. Widening and improvements of Jamboree;
. Redoing the toll road interchange at Santiago Canyon Road;
· Rubberized asphalt from Cannon to Newport Blvd. option;
. Additional traffic signals;
. School facilities costs covered;
. New fire station;
. Library fees;
. Parks Improvements, including a sports park;
. Trails;
· Improvements to five sub-station I in Santiago Hills I;
Page 11
APPROVE>>
. Fiscal soundness with a minimum of at least $35,000;
. Water Quality Aeration System;
. Equestrian Facility Option;
· Conveyance of2,770 acres to complete Limestone Wilderness Park;
. Developer agrees to obtain a sales use tax subpermit to maximize the sales tax in
Orange.
Mr. Miller stated that the Irvine Company has commited to 160 conditions of approval
and 230 measures in mitigation monitoring plan. He thanked the City staff for their
cooperation.
Commissioner Imboden requested a copy ofthe Irvine Company's presentation.
Public Speakers -
Tom Davidson, 6122 Santiago Canyon Rd., commented on no commercial, retail space
denying the City sales tax revenue; further traffic being generated by non-residents to the
retail establishments; no equestrian housing; ROMP technology issues.
Peter Wetzel, 7217 E. La Cumbre, commented on trails and the need for a grade
separated crossing at Street A at its crossing of Santiago Canyon Rd. Also, opposed
HOA ownership and maintenance of trails and suggested the need for the City to own and
maintain the trails.
Florice Hoffman, 7256 E. Crowne Parkway, commented on no affordable housing for
working people; increase of traffic on street with no bus service.
Scott Breeden, Silverado Canyon Rd., commented on the change from urban or suburban
to rural as you drive east on Chapman, past the toll roads. He requested no change to the
area.
Karl Greenblatt, Address on file, commented on the traffic increase and lack of benefit to
the City-only the Irvine Company.
Mike Balsamo, Orange County Building Association, urged approval of the project,
increasing construction jobs; cited population growth numbers as figured by the
universities; and commended plan's 90% open space, sports park and state-of-the art
water technology plan.
Allen Baldwin, Executive Director, Orange County Community Housing Corp.,
encouraged approval of the housing needs for low wage workers; commented on the need
for multi-family housing; requested zoning plan on the property to comply with the
General Plan.
Julia Jones-Ufkes, 20121 E. Clark, asked if plan adopted in 1989 updated every five
years as CEQA requires and urged a no vote on the project.
Page 12
APPROVf?>
Juan Pablo Serrano, 224 N. Olive St., commented on City funding roads for the
developer; wild fires and earthquakes.
Tom Harpenas, 8424 Heather View, commented on the proposed homes being
inappropriate for the hilly area; as well as retail needs and schools not taken into
consideration.
Keith Nagayama, Attorney for Public Law Center, objected to the project due to lack of
affordable housing for low and very low income persons; and in response to a question
from Chairman Bonina, requested 20% of all annual housing production be for the low,
very low and moderate-income persons.
Eileen McCarthy, Attorney for Public Law Center, commented on the lack of affordable
housing not being in compliance with Housing and Land Use Elements of the General
Plan, nor the Government Code regarding Least Cost Housing.
Dennis McHale, 17416 Moody Dr., commented on the sewer plan, lift stations and
infrastructure to pump sewage.
Bev Mileham, 29761 Silverado Canyon Rd., commented on the increase of people as
residents and workers will create more traffic problems and the quality of life in the area.
Chalynn Peterson, 14931 Wildcat Canyon Rd., commented on her concerns with traffic,
noise, light pollution, environmental impacts, and quality of life.
Cesar Covarrubias, 1033 E. Cumberland Rd., representing the Kennedy Commission,
commented on lack of affordable housing.
Elizabeth Bamach, 973 Dylan Way, Anaheim, commented on traffic problems; and cited
that if the development were not built then there would not be a need for the fire station.
Jack Eidt, 28144 Las Brisas del Mar, San Juan Capistrano, commented on the
development amounting to urban sprawl and the unnecessary waste of wilderness land;
expensive infrastructure and grading; pollution; and suggested the development be
planned as several villages.
Chairman Bonina invited Dan Miller of the Irvine Company to respond to comments and
questions.
Mr. Miller stated that the need for more low-income housing would require more land
and the use of more land would drive the housing costs up. He added the cost of land
along with the building and environmental regulations is what drives the cost of housing
up. He stated that this project has preserved the balance of providing housing while
maximizing open space.
Page 13
(, ~"P"" 0\"'"
.n P "d, I '. '
r-........ kl...... Fr,1
Commissioner Imboden asked about the issue of affordable housing, specifically the
negotiations with Mercy Housing? Then asked if a contingent agreement with them
before the project is approved can be expected?
Mr. Miller stated he hoped to have a conceptual or Memorandum of Understanding
(MOD) with them on the project. The Irvine Company is working with them to reach an
agreement. He stated that the approval of the conditional use permit is for the purpose of
allowing the affordable housing that is the incentive to complete the negotiations. He
indicated that after agreeing to an MOU, the next step is to put a financing plan together
and then get the tax credits that the Irvine Company is confident will happen.
Commissioner Imboden clarified that the earlier proposal for the project included a much
larger commercial component, but that is now lacking. He asked Mr. Miller to share his
thoughts on the project being a balanced community without a commercial component.
Mr. Miller stated that the existing retail center in SHI is underachieving. He stated that
the first McDonald's had closed due to lack of business. He indicated that a commercial
center needs a sizable retail center to attract the shoppers-which would require a large
center being built, creating more traffic impacts. He indicated that the current plan is
fiscally balanced-the residents will shop in the City keeping the sales tax in Orange. He
referenced the future plan to annex the County area allowing more sales tax to stay in
Orange.
Commissioner Enderby asked about the plans specifically around Irvine Lake, whether it
will stay as is. He also asked about homes being built on lakefront property.
Mr. Miller responded that the Serrano Water District and the Irvine Ranch Water District
own the lake, hence the City has no control or authority to change it. He added that there
exists a Recreation Management Agreement with the Serrano Water District for use of
the recreation facilities-which management of will remain with these districts. For this
reason, no homes will be built at the lakefront.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked Mr. Miller to highlight the differences between this
project and the initial Santiago Hills I project.
Mr. Miller responded that SHI was built in 1989 and improvements to the design have
occurred in the layout, architectural design, landscaping-more native plants to reduce
water use, more trails and parks. He added the huge improvement to the water quality
system is another improvement.
He commented on the affordable housing issue-the City of Irvine has a 15%
affordability rate, but that is not citywide. This is not true of certain areas in the hills and
away from public services. He indicated that the low-income housing is built near city
services, transportation corridors, and social services. The Irvine Company master
designs the entire City of Irvine. He compared that scenario to the City of Orange in
Page 14
APpDtrh~ ".,.'
.... -'"'\ ~.J: ", ~;
which they are only developing a piece of it in the hills where low-income housing is not
usually built. He stated that you cannot compare apples and oranges.
Chairman Bonina requested further information on the widening of Santiago Canyon
Road and the construction of a separated crossing. He also asked about the safety
consideration for the currently planned, at-grade crossing.
Mr. Miller stated that this was discussed extensively with the Park Planning and
Development Commission. He stated that the public safety community had problems
with the construction of the over-crossing to be used as a multi-purpose trail for
equestrian, mountain biking and hiking. He indicated there was a liability issue and it
would be very expensive, taking a lot of land to make it work, it would have to be ADA
compliant; and the City did not want to own or be responsible for the over-crossing. He
further added that Mr. Davidson and Mr. Wetzel had worked with the Irvine Company on
the safety considerations that will be worked on to ensure the safety of the crossing. He
mentioned additional signals on Santiago Canyon Road slowing the traffic down.
CHAIRMAN BONINA CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Chairman Bonina directed commissioners to assemble their questions to be answered at
the next meeting.
Commissioner Pruett asked for a simple response to issues raised by the public during the
public hearing:
· The grade separation crossing on Chapman - Mr. Miller already responded and
provided an explanation of the grade crossing;
· Creating a community facility district to maintain trails-what is the city's view;
. EIR, NO.7-better explanation of the alternative;
· CEQA-Does the approval of an EIR require a five-year review;
· The comments regarding the Housing Element not being consistent with the
General Plan;
. The comments regarding "Least Cost" and whether the project is in violation of
the Government Code;
· Whether the Housing Element needs to be amended.
He commented on the history of trying to manage run off water. He stated that the issue
of managing run off, wastewater as well as storm water is new technology. He
commented that the ROMP being planned for this project is required to comply with
federal regulations-Clean Water Act.
He added that the comments in favor of building more affordable housing in the City are
coming from families that live in the city and that the children of these families go off to
college and then can afford to buy these homes and live in the City. He compared these
to the comments received from those who don't want any housing built. He then stated
that we all have to give a little and take a little to maintain a balance of meeting the needs
of all.
Page 15
AI>PRo'^,.n=n
Commissioner Imboden commented on having questions about the fiscal considerations
and stated that he will explore these at the next meeting.
Commissioner Bilodeau commented that the two intersections, Imperial Highway and
Santa Ana Canyon Road in the City of Anaheim and Jamboree Road and Portola in the
City of Tustin are not mentioned in the Statement of Overriding Conditions. He also
commented on the economic study and stated his interest in a possible commercial center
in the proj ect area.
He further commented on a court ruling on a recent development in the canyons
regarding the traffic impact methodology. He will be reviewing the technical appendices
of the traffic study, and stated that the traffic study methodologies of the County and City
are different.
Chairman Bonina requested that the commissioners' questions be addressed at the next
meeting. He also stated he will to reviewing the economic study coming forward; and
requested the traffic study map be available as well.
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioner Enderby
Commissioners Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina
Moved to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of August 15,2005.
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioner Pruett
Commissioners Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina
Moved to adjourn to the special meeting of August 8, 2005.
The meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m.
Page 16