Loading...
2005 - August 15 t';)500~ Gt. ;),3 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: August I 5, 2005 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina None Ed Knight, Principal Plannner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Tom Mahood, Assistant City Engineer Angie Andrelus, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Keith Nagayama, Public Law Center, spoke on the need for affordable housing; Cesar Covarrubias, Kennedy Commission, spoke on the need for affordable housing. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: (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 (EO PC). Principal Planner, Ed Knight gave the staff report providing additional information on areas of concern raised at the July 18, 2005 hearing. He began with the CEQA issues by stating that the rejection of EIR Alternative 7 resulted in the transfer of 1,250 dwelling units in East Orange Areas 2 and 3 to Santiago Hills II and East Orange Area 1. Mr. Knight moved on to updating environmental documents, addressing a speaker's statement that the 1989 General Plan for East Orange had not been updated for CEQA as required by state law. He noted environmental documents do not expire, so do not need updating, with the exception ofthe Master EIR. He added that General Plans do not expire, but state guidelines encourage an update as needed; and that the Housing Element must be updated at least every five years. He then addressed the development phasing Planning Commission Minutes August I 5, 2005 Page I program, stating that there is planned phasing included in the EIR, as well as for the public improvements. Mr. Knight commented on another suggestion made to use community facility districts (CFD) to maintain all the public trails located in East Orange. He stated that further analysis would be needed to determine if this is an appropriate use for a CFD, adding that the City is conservative in its approach toward public financing. He added that the City may use a CFD to maintain the water quality features. There was also concern for public access to the trails to which Mr. Knight informed that the tentative tract maps spell out the access conditions. He stated that the CC&R's state that the trails will be open in perpetuity and that the conditions cannot be rescinded or altered except by permission of the City. He stated that the final maps describe the public trails which will be public pedestrian easements open to public ingress and egress; and that the maintenance will be provided by the homeowners associations. Mr. Knight next addressed the pedestrian grade separation at Street A, stating that initially the plan was for the street right-of-way to be in excess of 120 feet; and the handicap access and grade differential between the two sides of the street-the underpass-to be in excess of 200 feet. This created security concerns for the Police Department. Based on these concerns, the plan was dropped. He then described the signal controls that will be put in place at that crossing, indicating that the controls will be in place for the handicap, pedestrian and equestrian users. He added that in this area there are many at-grade crossings and that the Police Department records show no accidents at this location involving vehicles and horses. He added that these controls provide sufficient safety to bikers, hikers, equestrians and pedestrians. Mr. Knight responded to a question by Chairman Bonina, stating that the equestrian controls will be at a height that riders would not have to dismount the horse to affect the controls. Mr. Knight then detailed the plans for the commercial uses in the area and listed the existing shopping areas and their locations. He indicated that Alternative 4 which had six acres set aside for commercial-retail had been rejected due to traffic impacts, causing air quality and noise impacts. He stated that staff also studied various commercial scenarios, noting that commercial uses generate a lot more traffic than residential uses. He indicated that staff submitted an amendment to the East Orange planned community regulations for the commercial-recreational zone to add retail-commercial and also professional services-professional offices; and requesting that the Planning Commission recommend that to the City Council. Commissioner Imboden asked what percentage of trips associated with the proposed commercial center would occur anyway as a result of the residents obtaining services outside the project. Planning Commission Minutes August15,2005 Page 2 Mr. Knight responded that ten trips a day are associated with each residential unit. He added that a commercial center itself causes trips into it and out of it that are greater than the residential use and that most ofthe trips would come from EO 1,2 and 3. However, with the development of the alternative 4 proposal there would be increased traffic from Silverado and Modjeska as well Commissioner Bilodeau requested a time frame for the decision being made on the addition ofthe retail overlay zoning; and if at the time of the decision, environmental impacts would be addressed. Mr. Knight responded that it would be several years before an actual project would be brought forward and studied. He added that by adding the use, the potential is put in place for this type of use ifthe market exists. Mr. Knight stated that the traffic analysis and planning on roads in other cities have resulted in mitigation measures, but without the City of Orange having authority over these roads, a Statement of Overriding Consideration of a significant impact was prepared. The City of Anaheim provided comments not disputing the improvements; however, they did not commit to the improvements. The City of Tustin will be provided funding as a result of approvals in the City of Irvine to make the improvements affecting their roads, but has not formally agreed to make them. Mr. Knight then spoke of the improvements to be made to the intersections in the City of Orange at Cannon/Santiago and Chapman/Prospect. The applicant will be paying their fair share ofthe costs, and in addition Public Works has had these projects planned in their Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Mr. Knight then spoke of the lawsuit against the County's proposed project in the Trabuco Canyon vicinity and the fact that the City did not use HCM (Highway Capacity Model) for the preparation of the traffic analysis and therefore their case does not affect the project. When a City plans within its sphere of influence, it uses the City General Plan, and the Orange General Plan does not use HCM as a traffic analysis method, but the volume to capacity ratio. He addressed the question whether the computerized traffic model took into consideration that in heavy traffic, some motorists would use alternative routes, stating that the model does take into account this scenario. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if the City has identified funding in the CIP for the improvements to the intersections within the City of Orange affected by the project. City Traffic Engineer, Tom Mahood responded that in addition to the Irvine Company, the Transportation System Improvement Program, the Gas Tax and the Orange County Transportation Authority are additional sources for funding. Mr. Knight referred to a memo from the City Attorney regarding the City Housing Element, stating that the City has met its obligation to provide affordable housing, by designating 128 units as affordable for very low-income families. He indicated that there Page 3 is a substantial density bonus; all impact fees will be waived; and the Irvine Company has substantially reduced the value of this property which has an estimated worth of $12 million. Additionally, there will be 580 condominiums built in the medium-density zoned area. These condos are not restricted, but could be affordable to medium-income households. It was determined that as part of this project going forward there is not a requirement to amend the Housing Element. He also stated that the City did not anticipate any RHNA transfer from the County as part of the process or the annexation of this project. Chairman Bonina announced that these were the answers to questions asked at the meeting of July 15, 2005. He then stated that Mr. Knight would now address new information on the proj ect as a result ofthe discussion at the last meeting. Mr. Knight spoke of the elimination of the elementary school site. He stated this location now holds 16 residential units plus a 4.7-acre park site and that the Irvine Company is proposing an alternative that would change the tentative tract map and the Development Agreement (DA) to reduce the size of the park from 4.7 to 3 acres. The balance of the area would remain as low-density residential in SHII. In exchange for the 1.7 acres, the Irvine Company would pay the City $4,250,000 toward the Gymnasium/Community Center to be built at Grijalva Park. He detailed the payment timelines and the phase of the project to be completed with the funds. The Irvine Company will also build a private recreational facility in the 1.7 -acre area and an additional four dwelling units. He indicated that the Park Commission, voting 4 to 0, recommended this change to the Planning Commission and the City Council. In concluding his presentation, Mr. Knight added that the Commission has been provided the changes to the traffic mitigation measures that were in the 2000 SHII EIR and detailed how they were translated to the current EIR. He added that letters from the Coast Keepers organization regarding the ROMP and from Jones and Stokes regarding the four dwelling units and the results of the change were received. He stated that the Commission has also been provided a conceptual description of how the off-road trail would work at Santiago Canyon Road, between areas 1 and 2, being below the grade of the street. CHAIRMAN BONINA OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING- He stated that the issues open for discussion were: · The proposed amendment to the draft Development Agreement, including reduction of park size; · The increase of $4,250,000 for the construction of Grijalva Park's Gymnasium/Community Center; . And the four additional dwelling units. Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes August15,2005 The Irvine Company Senior Vice-President, Dan Miller, indicated that the City's highest priority is the construction of the gymnasium at Grijalva Park; and that the Irvine Company agreed to the plan based on its benefits to the residents of the proposed project in addition to the residents citywide. He added that overall the project has exceeded the Quimby requirement for dedication of parkland. Speakers - Edward Amador, 28222 Thisaway, and Chalynn Peterson, address on file, submitted documentation on the Arroyo Toad and traffic concerns. Andrew Ashford, 1758 Windes Dr., expressed his comments for the residents desiring more park space than a gymnasium in another area of town. Alex Mintzer, 465 N. Christine St., submitted documentation on his concerns. Carole Mintzer, 465 N. Christine St., expressed opposition to the guidelines to accepting public comments on the project. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz explained that at the first public hearing, testimony from anyone who wished to address the project was taken. When a public hearing is continued to address issues that come up as a result of the discussion, the testimony allowed is then limited to addressing the new information not available at the first public hearing. He added that written comments is still acceptable. John Ufkes, 20121 E. Clark, submitted written comments. Toni Encheff, 9571 Bryrunar Dr., commented on the need for open space. Carolyn Noble, address on file, commented on whether residents were consulted on wanting a park v. the gymnasium. Linda May, 14892 Kitterman, Silverado, commented on the need to plan for a rural area. Julie Jones Ufkes, 20121 E. Clark, commented on the danger of the crossing over the toll road and creating a balance for all of the parks. The Irvine Company Senior Vice-President, Dan Miller, reiterated that the plan for the gymnasium and community center was the City's who approached his company for the exchange of cash for the parkland. CHAIRMAN BONINA CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING - Commissioner Bilodeau asked for a clarification of the traffic mitigation fees. Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes August15,2005 City Traffic Engineer, Tom Mahood indicated that the Traffic System Improvement Program fees amounted to $2.1 million with an additional Supplemental Transportation Fee included in the DA amounting to $4.2 million. Commissioner Bilodeau added that the fees generated as part of the project should be spent in the project area. He added that the suggestions put forth have been for rubberized asphalt, traffic signal synchronization on Chapman Avenue, and additional crossing on Santiago Canyon Rd. for equestrian riders. He suggested a study session for the City Council to prioritize the issues for purposes of spending the money. He commented on the complexity of the traffic studies in which many assumptions are made. He added that in 2025 the conditions are not going to match what the studies say. He asked the traffic consultant whether they took into consideration calibrating their model based on how SHI projections have worked and apply their findings to the proposed proj ect. Kendall Elmer, Austin Foust Associates, was the firm that prepared the traffic analysis. He stated that the existing traffic conditions are used to calibrate the model and added that SHI was accounted for. He added that the projections made when the SHI development was being developed are very close to what was predicted-26,900 predicted compared to 26,600 actual, a difference of300 vehicles. Commissioner Imboden asked about an aspect of the Fiscal Report, Table 2A that gives a breakdown of anticipated reoccurring costs and surpluses, ending up with a net gain to the City of $35,264 after complete build out. He questioned whether there is a margin for error; requested a better understanding of the timeline; and addressed the initial offset payment to the City, asking how this number was settled on. Principal Planner, Ed Knight responded that the fiscal analysis was based on this year's budget, using real costs associated with providing service on a per capita basis, and anticipated revenues. He acknowledged that there is a margin for error, citing that it could be more than $35,000 or a break-even proposition. He noted some of the direct costs were associated with police services, construction of the fire station, community services personnel, overhead, the real estate market, etc. Commissioner Pruett added that there is also a 10% contingency set aside. This amounts to $700,000 included in the fiscal analysis as well. Stan Hoffman, Hoffman and Associates, performed the fiscal study. He indicated that the City Finance Director and a consultant reviewed the report. The City insisted on including a contingency to cover the areas of uncertainty. He explained further aspects of projecting the costs of the new fire station, adding that it will benefit the local area as well as the new developments. He included that the project numbers would have been more positive if the project had included a retail center, although the existing markets and retail in the area will capture some sales tax. Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes August15,2005 Mr. Knight added that the fiscal report did not include the proposed golf course or hotel planned for area 2. He indicated that the golf course would generate sales tax and the hotel transient occupancy taxes. The Irvine Company Senior Vice-President, Dan Miller, reiterated the fact that the Irvine Company is paying the City $400,000 at the onset of the project to help the City through the establishment of the project. Commissioner hnboden requested the Commission discuss the potential inclusion of retail in this project. He questioned whether standard retail was being traded for recreational-retail. He also requested clarification that land already zoned for recreational uses is being used with this element being added to it-but additional land is not being added for the recreational-retail use. Mr. Knight responded that it is not a trade, but taking the land use zoning district of commercial-recreational and adding some additional uses to it. The list ofland uses doesn't guarantee that the project will be built unless the market warrants the need. He noted the types of recreational-retail establishments could include a marina at the lake; private or public equestrian facility; hotel; restaurants; uses associated with the Irvine Lake facilities--caf6 or pro shop with the golf course; lounge at the hotel, as well as a pizza place; dry cleaners, etc. Responding to a question from Commissioner Bonina, Mr. Knight added that open space and park areas are not included in this land use designation-it is urban designated land. Commissioner Imboden asked how much land was being included in this potential site for a recreational-retail establishment. Mr. Knight responded that it was a couple hundred acres. He then directed attention to a map and outlined the area proposed, adding that the site is around the lake for the hotel, marina and other recreational-retail projects. Commissioner Imboden stated he was looking for a balance that he is not seeing in the potential establishment ofrecreational-retail projects. He is concerned with losing some recreational usage. The Irvine Company Senior Vice-President, Dan Miller stated that at the time the tentative tract maps for area 2 and 3 are considered, there will be a better understanding of the development of the commercial recreation use and associated feasibility studies will be available. He indicated that if the market directed establishment ofretail as part of commercial recreation operations it will be addressed. He reiterated that at this time, the conceptual proj ect is what is being considered. Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes August15,2005 Chairman Bonina stated that public hearings would be conducted at the time the tract maps are being considered for approval with these issues being addressed and thoroughly studied. Commissioner Imboden asked if one revenue was not being traded for another, adding that he believed an increase was possible; and that he was looking for a balance. Commissioner Bilodeau stated his concern for this new community being proposed not having the opportunity to capture gas tax revenues. He expressed concern that the commercial overlay was being limited to pockets around the lake. He added that he understood the proposal to allow the commercial overlay be distributed throughout Areas 2 and 3-with area 3 having the room for a gas station fronting Santiago Canyon Road. Mr. Knight responded that it is not an overlay, but rather uses on a district. He indicated that the uses in a residential area are restricted to residential uses only, not commercial uses. He added that the change of the use would have to occur from residential to commercial if so desired. Commissioner Pruett stated his understanding that the hearing was basically to address the zoning and planning issues to give the developer and the City an idea of what to plan for. He then asked if four or five years from now when the tract maps were being considered and the zoning needed to be changed, that the opportunity would be there to change the zoning. Mr. Knight responded in the affirmative. He said that the issues at the General Plan and zoning level were the focus of the meeting. Chairman Bonina stated he did not want to risk allowing the entire area 2 & 3 to be exposed to commercial opportunity and put at-risk the park & the open area. Commissioner Pruett stated that the traffic fees need to be spent on mitigating the traffic issues in the EIR. He stated that the City Council will make decisions on the use of the fees. He then addressed the housing issue, stating that the housing element is being followed. He added that the representatives putting forth their comments on the need for affordable housing in this proj ect are not taking into account the maintenance costs that are going to be significant in maintaining the ROMP, and open space land. He stated that putting low-income housing in this development would not be fair to the low- and medium- income residents. He commended staff in what they are proposing for the East Orange area and added that the best location for low-income housing would be the EI Toro area. He agreed with the advocates for low-income housing pushing for it, but stated that the East Orange area is not appropriate for that kind of housing. Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes August15,2005 Mr. Pruett added that the ROMP is an excellent project. He was pleased with the letter from the Coast Keepers organization indicating they see the merits of the ROMP and support it as achieving high standards in attempting to protect the ocean and beaches. He again commended staff on the excellence ofthe project. Chairman Bonina addressed the question from a speaker, Mrs. Noble, asking about the ownership and operation of the gymnasium. City Manager, John Sibley stated that the gymnasium complex was also going to have a community center, soccer field, play areas, aquatic center and an amphitheatre on the 42- acre park site at Grijalva. He added that Grijalva Park is at the center of the entire City and will serve the residents ofthe East Orange area as well. He indicated that the Community Services Department would be tasked with oversight and management of the complex. He added that recreation classes would occur here, as well as sports leagues. He addressed the trade off of parkland for the money to build the complex at Grijalva Park and detailed how the dollar amount was determined. He added that the City is above the Quimby requirements for parkland in the East Orange area even with this change. He added that the project proposes 35 acres available for park and recreational purposes. Commissioner Enderby commented on the proposal to give up 1.7 acres of park to address a need the City has had for many, many years. He stated that this proposal is a win, win situation for all City residents. Chairman Bonina thanked his colleagues for their diligence in studying the issues and becoming knowledgeable on the massive amounts of information they had received and the input from the public regarding the project. He indicated that the facts and analysis that have occurred and the information provided to the Commission from staff has been helpful. He also thanked the applicant for engaging the community and going beyond the minimum to plan and develop a project using state-of-the-art development standards. He further commended the community for their input, which he felt the project was made better by. He commented on the Irvine Company bringing this project to the City, adding that the vision put forth for the City has been developed and purposely designed by governing bodies who have considered this project over the years. MOTION: SECOND: AYES: Pruett Enderby Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina Moved to approve Resolution No. PC 25-05 - Recommend certification of Final SEIR 1278/Final EIR 1716 to the City Council; Page 9 Planning Commission Minutes MOTION: SECOND: AYES: August15,2005 Pruett Bilodeau Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina Moved to approve Resolution No. PC 26-05 - Recommend adoption of General Plan Amendment 2003-0001; MOTION: SECOND: AYES: Pruett Imboden Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina Moved to approve Resolution No. PC 27-05 - Recommend an amendment to the Santiago Hills II Planned Community Regulations and recommend adoption of the East Orange Planned Community Development Plan and Zoning Map; MOTION: SECOND: AYES: Pruett Enderby Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina Moved to approve Resolution No. PC 28-05 - Recommend adoption of pre-annexation Development Agreement for Santiago Hills II and East Orange Planned Communities; Chairman Bonina commented that when the City Council considers the Development Agreement they be made aware of the need to consider parameters for assignability options of the DA. MOTION: SECOND: AYES: Pruett Imboden Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina Moved to approve Resolution No. PC 29-05 - Recommend adoption of the Runoff Management Plans (ROMPS) for Santiago Hills II and East Orange Planned Communities; Chairman Bonina commented that the ROMP is a state-of-the-art technology and the development is truly fortunate to have as part of the project. Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes MOTION: SECOND: AYES: August15,2005 Pruett Enderby Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina Moved to approve Resolution No. PC 30-05 - Recommend adoption of Design Guidelines for Santiago Hills II and East Orange Area I and conceptual Design Guidelines for East Orange Areas 2 and 3; MOTION: SECOND: AYES: Pruett Enderby Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina Moved to approve Resolution No. PC 31-05 - Recommend approval for Tentative Tract Map 16199 for Santiago Hills II; Chairman Bonina requested that the City Council consider allocation of parking at the park for TTM 16,199; MOTION: SECOND: AYES: Bilodeau Enderby Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina Moved to approve Resolution No. PC 32-05 - Recommend approval for Tentative Tract Map 16201 for Santiago Hills II; MOTION: SECOND: AYES: Bilodeau Imboden Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina Moved to approve Resolution No. PC 33-05 - Recommend approval for Tentative Tract Map 16514 for East Orange Area 1; MOTION: SECOND: AYES: Bilodeau Pruett Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina Moved to approve Resolution No. PC 34-05 - Recommend approval for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2488-03 for an affordable housing project located on Lot 323 of Tentative Tract Map 16201 Santiago Hills II. Chairman Bonina endorsed the 128 rental units and recommended that the City Council look for inclusion of 'for sale' and 'ownership' possibilities of the affordable-housing units. Page 11 Planning Commission Minutes August15,2005 ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:10 p.m. to ajoint Study Session with the City Council on August 23, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Page 12