Loading...
2003 - May 5 MINUTES C.I.. 5" en' (;-.,1. ..i. APPROVED eVc/YY/ Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: (1) May 5,2003 Monday ~ 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Brandman, Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith Alice Angus, Community Development Director Jim Reichert, Planning Manager/Secretary Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Khanh A. Le, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None CONSENT CALENDAR: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 7, 2003. MOTION Moved by Vice Chair Smith, and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to approve the Minutes from the April 17,2003 meeting as submitted. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: INRE: (2) Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith Conunissioners Bonina, Romero None None MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARINGS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-01, ZONE CHANGE 1208-00, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15750, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 249-02, VARIANCE 2113-02, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 30-02, AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1647-00 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES,INC. The project is the subdivision of 109 acres into 183 dwelling units with lot sizes ranging from 6,000 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft., providing a 6 acre park site, adding a bridge for a recreational trail over Santiago Creek and reserving land for a grade- separate recreational trail crossing for Santiago Canyon Road. The proposal includes a project alternative that dedicates 2 acres for a private equestrian center and reduces the size of the proposed 20,000 sq. ft. parcels to 8,000 sq. ft. The zoning classification for approximately 12.60 acres located in the central area of the northerly half of the site is zoned Residential, single-family, minimum lot size 8,000 sq. ft. (R-I-8), while the remainder of the subject site is zoned Sand and Gravel (S-G). This item was continued from the October 7, 2002, October Planning Commission Minutes API :VED 21, 2002, November 18, 2002, December 2, meetings. May 5, 2003 2002, and January 20, 2003 NOTE: Environmental Impact Report 1647-00 was prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Article 7 - EIR Process. The Planning Commission's review will include consideration of a statement of overriding consideration for environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommendation to the City Council on General Plan Amendment 1-01, Zone Change 1208-00, Tentative Tract Map 15750, Minor Site Plan Review 249-02, Variance 2113-02, Administrative Adjustment 30-02, and Final Environmental Impact Report 1647-00. Chair Pruett addressed the agenda item. Commissioner Brandman asked to be excused from this agenda item due to her past activities with various organizations that may present the image of a conflict of interest. Staff Member Chris Carnes presented the staff report for the project. He stated that this application is a revised proposal by Fieldstone Communities for the development of the Sully Miller Property. The applicant has revised the project from last December's by: 1) Reducing the number of dwelling units overall from one hundred eighty-nine (189) to one hundred eighty-three (183) units; 2) Reducing the number of dwelling units on the part of the property to be developed north of Santiago Creek, from eighteen (18) to seventeen (17) units; 3) Decreasing the pad elevation for that portion of the project north ofthe creek by approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet; 4) Increasing the size of the proposed public park from four (4) acres to six (6) acres; 5) Revising the proposed recreational trails across the property by adding a new trail across the western boundary of the property to connect from Santiago Canyon Road to Santiago Creek, adding an area at the southeast comer of the property for a possible future underpass or overpass for Santiago Canyon Road, and including in the proj ect a bridge for recreational trail purposes across the channel general described as the middle ofthe site and across the creek bed. 6) Including revetment walls along the northwestern portion of the channel. Revised project includes revetment walls the entire the length ofthe channel and includes additional walls across the eastern boundary of the shared boundaries with Santiago Oaks Regional Park; 7) Expanding the proposed bike ways by including a trail across the easterly boundary bikeway so that at some future date it can be connected to a bikeway from Santiago Oaks Regional Park; The revised project includes an alternative project, which is similar to what is being proposed except for a two (2) acre community owned horse arena, horse stables, and RV storage facility at the southeast comer of the site. The alternative project also includes replacing the R-1-20 lots with R-1-8. The revised project does include reducing the size ofthe lots that are at the southwest portion ofthe project area from a minimum of eight 2 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED May 5, 2003 thousand (8000) square feet to six thousand (6000) square feet. The enlarged park site means that the area proposed to be designated for low density residential south of the creek channel is reduced from approximately fifty-five and one half acres (55.5) to fifty- three (53) acres. The revised project does not affect the area north of the creek channel nor what was proposed along the creek channel-permanent open space. The revised application also revised the request for deleting the underpass/overpass area at the southeast corner of the property and also complies with what is required by the master plan of recreational trails by putting a bridge across the creek channel. The revised project complies with all the requirements of the Master Plan of Recreational Trails and the Master Plan of Bikeways. The corresponding zone change includes the larger park site to be zoned R-O and also changes the westerly portion of the property from R-1-8 zoning to R-I-6. The proposed zoning is compatible with the proposed general plan amendment. The project has been redesigned so that all the lots except for one comply with the development standards for residential development. The application for an administrative adjustment has been withdrawn. The project still includes a variance request for a minimum lot depth for one lot located in the center of the property adjacent to the creek channel. The applicant has prepared, in response to the revised project, additional environmental information that was added to the final environmental impact report 1647-00. The additional environmental information did require public review for a forty-five (45) day review period. Part ofthe report packet includes the comments that have been received on that document and the response to those comments. Since the Planning Commission considered this project last year, two (2) issues have ansen: I) SMARA, the State Mining and Reclamation Act-questions have been raised regarding whether the review of this project should be delayed until it was determined if a reclamation plan was required because this property was formerly mined. As oftoday, it has been determined by the state that they are not going to require a reclamation plan for the project. This was separate from the commission's review and does not affect the review of the project. 2) Questions regarding dam inundation maps that are out of date. Since they would need to be updated regarding changes in dam operation and changes in topography in the area since they were originally prepared in the 1970's, the city's consideration should be delayed until those plans have been updated. The county has responded that the dam inundation maps are accurate for their purpose, which is to prepare emergency plans for this area, and by state law and county policy they are not used to make land use decisions. Therefore, the maps being out of date does not affect the city's review ofthe project. The revised project has been reviewed by the agencies that previously reviewed the project. The city's Staff Review Committee has reviewed the plan and found that the revised environmental information was prepared in compliance with CEQA. The city's Orange Park Acres Planning Committee, which reviews all projects in the Orange Park Acres planning area of East Orange, has reviewed the proposal and recommended 3 Planning Conunission Minutes APPROVED May 5, 2003 unanimous approval and included in their recommendation that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the alternative, which designates two (2) acres for a community recreational arena, community horse arena, and horse stables; they feel that this continues the Orange Park Acres equestrian atmosphere. The Planning Commission tonight is being asked to make a decision on the environmental impact report on its completeness on reviewing the project and also on being in compliance with CEQA. The Commission is being asked to consider two (2) issues that have to do with the site being located in a dam inundation area, and that the construction and grading process can not meet environmental standards or can not be mitigated to levels less than significant. The Commission has to adopt a statement of overriding consideration and the draft of those documents are included in the packets that list if the Commission finds there's benefits by this project such as the parks being dedicated in the providing the open space along the creek channel, then they can make a statement that the significant impacts regarding this site being in a dam inundation area and regarding not meeting air quality standards during construction are mitigated by the benefits of the project. Additionally, once the Planning Commission makes a determination on the environmental impact report, the first items to be considered are the general plan amendment and zone change. These are considered separate from the project. The Commission can consider what the applicant has proposed tonight or other land uses or zoning classifications that are considered within the range of the environmental documents and that could bring the existing land use designation and zoning into conformance. The property, because of the RA general plan designation, is not presently in conformance with the community plans' open space designations (to remind the commission, the property is designated RA because it was formerly mined). The Planning Commission, if they deem to approve the zone change and general plan amendment, then considers the Tentative Tract Map application, the Variance application, and the minor site plan review application. These are considered as a packet since the design of the tract is contingent on the approval of all the applications. Ifthe Commission should deny the Variance application, it would require revision to the alternative tract map. In a departure from the recent policies of the Community Development Department in providing resolutions to the Planning Commission, staff has only provided a draft list of conditions in the event the Planning Commission should recommend approval on the Tentative Tract Map Variance and Minor Site plan review. If the Planning Commission makes a decision to approve those applications, staff will prepare resolutions based on the decisions ofthe Planning Commission and present those at the following meeting on the consent calendar. To remind the commission, if the application for the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are denied, the application stops at the Planning Commission unless it's appealed to the City Council. In addition, if the Planning Commission makes a decision to deny the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment, then there's no need to make a decision on the Tentative Tract Map Variance or Minor Site Plan Application. Staff Carnes stated he has completed staffs presentation. Chair Pruett invited the applicant to present their project. 4 APPROVE I} Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 2003 Mr. Steve Cameron (14 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach) is representing the applicant. He had a slide show presentation showing the revised plan and focused on the differences between the old plan versus the new plan. The details of the changes to the project are included in the staff report, on pages 2-05 through 2-12. As part of his presentation, Mr. Cameron wanted to address some issues he felt were important: I) School- the school district may have interest in a school on this land; 2) 100 year Flood plain - he would like to assure people that city will not allow them to build in a flood plain; 3) Dam inundation plan - attachment 6, county explains that DIZ is used for emergency evacuation, not for land use. Mr. Cameron presented some samples of homes built or being built in Dam Inundation Zones. 4) Land use - general plan and zoning, current zoning is R18, S-G, R140, nothing is zoned for open space. The rezoning request will result in more land being zoned open space. 5) SMARA - surface mining and reclamation act does not apply. Mr. Cameron stated that he and the applicant have reviewed the staff report and the conditions set forth and are in agreement with all conditions except for two: 1) condition fifty-two (52) and fifty-seven (57). The way those conditions are written prevents the applicant from accessing their property through Mabury Ranch for any construction operation. He feels that may possibly be illegal because they are public streets. Mr. Cameron also stated that there are only two (2) issues left that the applicant and staff still differ in opinion on, and that is the two conditions he mentioned, and the variance request. Mr. Cameron summarized the benefits of the new plan. Questions from the commissioners to Mr. Cameron: From Vice Chair Smith: 1) In the document exhibit D from the Planning Center, which is the Mitigation Monitoring Program, page 4-19, it mentions that a mitigation measure for homes that are with in the area of the gas emission. Vice Chair Smith is wondering how many homes that is and what part of the project is included. Mr. Cameron replied that includes the homes on or near the Villa Park landfill. If needed, the homes within 1,000 feet of the former Villa Park landfill have mitigation measures to reduce the likelihood of gas concentration within the structure. 2) In what form will the park be presented to the city? Mr. Cameron replied that the park would have irrigation and turf grass. Vice Chair Smith asked ifthe applicant has given thought to putting parking, restrooms, and hardscape to that park. Mr. Cameron replied that the applicant believes it has already being generous by donating the six (6) acres. 3) Will the horse arena be only for private use? Mr. Cameron replied that he doesn't know. 5 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 2003 4) Vice Chair Smith asked Mr. Cameron to explain the statement that since the grading process cannot be done because of the DIZ, the Commission has to give a statement of overriding consideration. Mr. Cameron replied that he doesn't think it has to do with the grading, but because ofthe DIZ, there are certain impacts that cannot be mitigated because it's located in the DIZ. 5) Is the statement "There is not a way to access the park when traveling east on Santiago Canyon Rd." correct? Mr. Cameron replied in the affirmative. From Commissioner Romero: 1) When will the retesting ofthe landfill occur and what is the likelihood that gas leakage will happen later? Mr. Cameron replied that the testing would be done after the grading is done and monitoring probes will be installed for long term monitoring. 2) What about seepage at a later point in time at a further distance, how will you remedy that problem? Mr. Cameron replied that he believes there are two (2) things involved, one is that one ofthe requirements is to install a bentonite, a hard durable material, to prevent seepage from happening; the second refers to the nearby fire station that had a gas problem before the County had a gas extraction system, and possibly that's why the gas extraction system was required later. By law the County has required the gas extraction system to make sure things like that don't happen again. Commissioner Romero continued to ask ifit is correct to state that the applicant's liability would end and the County's liability would begin once the testing is finished? Mr. Cameron replied that is correct. But ifthe home within the thousand (1000) -foot areas were found to have gas leakage, then the applicant would install additional protection underneath the homes. 3) In regards to the creek, have you received all the requirements from the county? Mr. Cameron replied that they have a good understanding of the requirements, but he doesn't think that they've received everything. Commissioner Romero stated he asked this because during the first meeting, either Mr. Cameron or someone in his party had made the comment that the association would retain the liability and that's what the applicant had desired because ifthe county had accepted liability back then, it would be a concrete channel. That was why the applicant desired not to go that direction and the applicant wanted the liability to remain with the association. But now the applicant is moving in the direction where the county would be accepting liability. Commissioner's Romero question comes back because Mr. Cameron had made the comment earlier that it would a bed of concrete like the Collins channel. Mr. Cameron replied that he doesn't recall making that comment, but the proposal now is not where they wanted to end up because it is significantly more expensive or more difficult than what the county had wanted them to do. But regardless of what they wanted to do, the county and city had their ideas and they are being held to a higher standard. He believes the county realizes that it is not the right thing to do to take a beautiful scenic creek and turn it into a concrete channel. Commissioner Romero stated that the County could still require it to be a concrete channel and he asked Mr. Cameron, if they did, would the project still progress. Mr. Cameron replied he doesn't think they will require that and if they did, the applicant would have to go back and get all sorts of different permits, so that is not the direction that the applicant or the county want to go. 6 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED May 5,2003 4) On page 2-08, it states that there will not be any import material north of the creek; on page 2-09, it states that material will be mixed with imported material for the south side, how much of import material is expected? Mr. Cameron replied that four hundred thousand (400,000) cubic yards of dirt would be required for the south side. 5) Regarding the import of material for the revetment wall, what is the estimation of the material required for that wall? Mr. Cameron replied that the estimation is around three hundred fifty (350) incoming truck trips. From Commissioner Bonina: 1) On the north side, would it be accurate to state that the grading process will be balanced, so there will be no import or export that would impact the community streets? Mr. Cameron replied that is correct, that the only import material required is to build the revetment wall along the north side. 2) Will the revetment wall on the northwest side be designed to be like the south side or will it be more of a concrete type of design? Mr. Cameron replied that it would be more of a concrete type design, but it is expected that it will not be exposed; it will be covered with vegetation. 3) Concerning the discussion of the park being more improved, you feel that you've done enough by the dedication of the six (6) acres and the drainage ofthe park. Mr. Cameron replied that the applicant's view is that they're doing a lot with other things. There were no additional questions from the commission, so Chair Pruett asked for public comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDED (In Alphabetical Order): In Favor: Kati Anderson (1392 N. Stallion St.); Tom Anderson (1392 N. Stallion St.); Bob Bennvhoff (19642 Morada Dr.); Wayne Bouchard (232 N. Cambridge); James Bradv (6810 E. Sycamore Glen); Tom Davidson (6122 Santiago Canyon Rd.); Jay Felgar (603 E. Oakment); Scott Flora (972 N. Big Sky Lane); Tom Godlev (Assistant Superintendent, Orange Unified School District); Faith Grimm (7622 E. Appaloosa); Kara Johan (6526 E. Sycamore Glen); Fran Klorstad (20131 E. Chapman Ave.); Deborah Lakson (5847 Rockinghorse Way); Chuck McNees (one file); Dorothy Neblett (1633 River Birch); Sid Neblett (1633 River Birch); Bernard Reves (3845 Fernwood Ave.); Pam Rosenberv (1634 River Birch); Deann Shannon (232 N. Cambridge); Julie Taverna (2636 E. Grove Ave.); Don Vogel (on record); 7 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED May 5, 2003 Peter Wetzel (7217 E. La Combre) COMMENTS INCLUDED: . In favor of project because of Field stone effort and reputation. . Horse arena and trail system is important to the equestrian community. . In favor of project with revision two (2) because it's the best plan that has come along from all the different proposals. . Fieldstone proposal has been carefully screened and considered, it meets best practice and will keep the equestrian environment of that community. Commissioner Bonina asked how important is the overpass over the creek, and the public speaker replied it would be extremely important. . In favor and feel strongly about arena and trails. . With or without this project, new schools will be required for the city. This project is right at the location where an intermediate school is required. Fieldstone is aware and is open to discussion. Commissioner Romero asked ifthere is any preferable land space. The public speaker replied that it's preferable to have an elementary school on the west side of Orange, a high school on the east side; and four (4) intermediate schools, one (I) being on this location. Commissioner Romero asked ifthere was a time line set yet. The public speaker replied that it would be around 2006. . Commended the Planning Commission for their actions and duties. This project has a good amount of open space, has good access to trails and creeks; and is a wonderful opportunity for the city of Orange to turn an eyesore into a jewel. . Everyone would be welcomed at the community arena. Looking forward to having a community center that is open to the whole city. This is the best project that Orange has seen in years. Will help enhance surrounding property value. Arena and community center will enhance area. . In favor of project because developers have taken into consideration neighborhood issues. Orange is a great city to live in and should open city up to other people to come and live. . In favor or project and glad to get rid of Hanson Aggregate. But don't want horse stable in back yard--will create nuisance. . In support of Fieldstone. . In favor of project, but not ofthe stable. . In favor of open space, but want to keep it an equestrian area. Fieldstone working with everyone. Lets pass this project and get it done with it. . Project has been revised in the last couple of years and has been improved because Fieldstone has listened to comments from the community and answered all legitimate concerns. . This project is an excellent use for the land; it also takes care of flooding danger. Vice Chair Smith commented that OPA has always wanted to maintain a rural environment but is now willing to accept another 200 homes into the area, she was wondering why. The public speaker replied that the spot has been open for years, and this project is the best proposal yet. He stated that they would like to keep that lot rural, but he doesn't think it is possible, that eventually, someone will build on it. He would rather have Fieldstone and this particular project than anything else that could possible come up. . Concerned about who is going to maintain the upkeep ofthe stables and RV parking. 8 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED May 5,2003 Opposed: Bill Bouske (270 N. Maleva S.); Arlen Craig (3402 E. Vine Ave.); Sue Craig (3402 E. Vine Ave.); Marilyn Banahl (20351 Lewis Dr.); Joe Greenwald (6134 E. Shenandoah Ave.); Shirlev Grindle (5021 E. Glen Arran); Kellv Herbeck (6121 E. Shenandoah); Stefanie Holcomb (6336 Bryce Ave.); Seved Jalal (5612 Mountain Ave.); M. Jaycox (6515 Sycamore Glen); John Jordan (6122 E. Bryce Ave.); Nick Law (Mabury Ranch); Ronald Levine (6303 E. Bryce Ave.); Dan Martin (6519 Sycamore Glen); James Obermaver (6219 E. Shenandoah); Susan Obermaver (6219 E. Shenandoah); Catherine Paker (6145 E. Mabury Ave.); David Pipera (6705 E. Oak Lane); Frank Storti (6007 E. Bryce Ave.); Nick Terpstra (1475 Jamestown Way); Mel Vernon (2301 E. Hoover); Joe Vincent (6121 E. Shenandoah); Mike Walker (5739 E. Valencia Dr.) COMMENTS INCLUDED: . There is money for a park on this property. . School issue; no parks in walking distance to my house. . OP A changed mind because they got a park and money to build their hobby. There should not be traffic through the area. Most people who are opposed to project had to go home because they have children, which is who the project should be for. The amount of open space north of the creek should be considered. Why can't stable be put on the 7.5 acres. . Disappointed by limited repackaging of project: I) appropriateness of project; 2) development north of Santiago creek, impact of more traffic on road, destruction of sewage; 3) park site-should be designated as passive; 4) gas mitigation issue. . Public health is issue; air quality during construction. . Gave brief stories of people being burned because of methane gas. County states there is 5% gas in Villa Park landfill, adjacent to the site. . Bad site for project; area was carved out by water. That area is a streambed. . These are lofty concepts; decision-making projects should include all those lofty projects. How will it affect community? Children will lose if this plan goes through. Want to save land for potential recreational use. . Traffic on Santiago Canyon Rd. and Jamestown Way to Yorktown intersection is dangerous. The curve needs to be less severe. 9 Plaming Commission Minutes APPROVED May 5, 2003 · This parcel was supposed to be open space. Creek would run through the center of proposed site. Public safety is immitigable. Air quality during construction is an issue. There's asbestos in area. · Problem with building a residential development on this site. Two (2) findings: 1) project site is not suitable for residential- DIZ and next to landfill. Presence of ground water under site. 2) Major health problems because oflocation next to landfill, landfill was unregulated at the time it was filled. Gases from landfill are toxic. · Fieldstone owns OPA's voice. Project will violate general plan. · Traffic issues, this project will bring more cars than horses. Proposed park will only have forty (40) parking spots. This could create more traffic at local schools. Construction will also cause more traffic. . There will be more negatives than positives for project. · Don't want plants and animals to lose their habitat. . Watershed is an issue. Please don't change the zoning. . Against current plan because of the location of the stable. Preferred the old plan because it had the buffer lots. . Safety issues because of methane gas from landfill. . Safety issues due to construction traffic. · Safety concerns-methane gas, creek bed, DIZ, park next to highway/large street. Mr. Cameron addressed some issues that were brought up: I) Landfill- EIR was exhaustive in its discussion of safety and health risks of landfill. Documentation addresses that problem. Commissioner Romero asked who is liable for the methane gas. Mr. Cameron replied that the county would be responsible for the methane gas through the gas extraction plan; but the applicant will have a redundant system in case the county's system doesn't work. And if necessary as dictated by the health agency, the applicant will place slabs under the homes for mitigation. Commissioner Bonina asked ifthere is mitigation for the park areas? Mr. Cameron replied that there is and it is mitigated the exact same way as the areas that will have homes on them. 2) School- the Orange Unified District estimated this project would generate ninety-six (96) students. The school district may want to put a school on this site, or they may not after they've done their research. We think that once the district has done their research, they may find out that this will not be a good location for the school. But we will start the discussion process. 3) Park - questions concerning the park were all addressed at the Parks Commission meeting. A lot of concerns that people are expressing now are decisions that were not made by Fieldstone but rather by the Parks Commission. 4) Safety and traffic issues have thoroughly been studied and reported. 5) Study of ground water under site, detailed in the environmental report, indicates it will be safe to build homes. 6) Riparian habitat area that will be impacted is only 0.56 acre. That area will also be mitigated on a one to one ratio. The mitigation measures state there will no grading during the nesting season. 7) The great park concept. People are waiting for someone to come and buy this area and build a great park. As a businessman, I would not buy this land for ampark because it does not have any benefits. 10 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED May 5, 2003 Questions for the applicant from Commissioner Bonina: 1) What are the mitigation measures proposed for Santiago Canyon Road? Mr. Cameron replied there are three (3) mitigation measures that they were required to do based on the environmental report: 1) install a traffic signal at the project entrance; 2) make intersection improvements at Cannon and Santiago Canyon Road, that include installing a right turn lane on Santiago Canyon Road turning right onto Cannon, and a requirement of fair share contribution to improvements on Cannon going north in a west bound turn lane on Santiago Canyon Road; 3) and additional improvements further west at the intersection of Wanda and Katella. 2) Can the stable be put somewhere else? Mr. Cameron replied that study has not been done, but it could be possible. 3) Who's going to operate the community center? Mr. Cameron replied that money will be given to OP A and they will build it and operate it. Questions for the applicant from Commissioner Romero: I) On page 2-30, paragraph 3, 2nd sentence, it says that flood control district has not seen the report, has anything changed since then? Mr. Cameron replied the letter was to accept the conceptual plan, but they will not approve the final project until they get engineering plans. 2) In the last meeting, p. 2-40 shows my comment that you did not want to go to the flood control district because of a potential massive concrete drainage channel like on Collins. Mr. Cameron replied that perhaps his understanding oftheir issues has changed, or they have changed. Commissioner Romero felt his question was not being answered, although Mr. Cameron tried to. Chair Pruett suggested that at a later point, they would ask staff to address this issue and hopefully to clear it up, as perceptions of requirements change as the project progresses. Questions for the applicant from Vice Chair Smith: I) Mitigation monitoring matrix, exhibit D, p.4-22 shows the hydrology and quality of water. It says, "No building permits shall not be issued by the city until FEMA revises its FIRM to remove all proposed residential areas onsite from the one hundred (100) year flood zone. Could you explain that? Mr. Cameron replied that it means that FEMA needs to update their 100 year flood plain, which has been done, which is called a LOMR and it was sent to Mayor Murphy in January of this year indicating that what needed to be done has already been done. 2) What is FIRM? Mr. Cameron replied that it relates to flood insurance, and that condition has already been met and that letter is included in the analysis from FEMA. 3) Is there a possibility of adding restrooms and hardscape to the park--the gift to OP A has to be much more expensive than adding the restrooms and hardscape to the park. Mr. Cameron replied that he is hoping that the commission will make the recommendation to the city council tonight, and that could be a part of the recommendation. 11 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED May 5, 2003 Chair Pruett closed the public hearing and brought the discussion to the commissioners. Chair Pruett wanted to address Commissioner Romero's question that previously was not answered. Commissioner Romero restated his question, quoting page 2-30, paragraph 3, 2nd sentence says that the OCFCD staff has not reviewed the detailed revetment wall plan nor confirmed that the proposal was designed to their standards. Where does the city stand, or is the city aware of the County's stand? Mr. Hohnbaum replied that the best explanation is that since the last time this commission met and discussed these issues, there were two (2) outstanding issues in regard to the county and the creek. I) The county said they needed total protection for the creek, the developer proposed revetment along the south side and a small portion of the north side. Since that time, the developer has come forward and offered that up, total protection being revetment of some form on both sides of the creek, north and south, for the entire project length. 2) The other issue, getting into the way the revetment will be designed, is also stated in the December 19,2002 letter that Mr. Cameron was referencing. The city is very concerned that this section of the creek be preserved as a Riparian area. The county does not have any problems with that as long as that area is designed in accordance with that type of a no maintenance type of zone. In order to accommodate the county's needs in addition to the revetment, there's something called the "N Value", it's a hydraulic coefficient that determines what kind of roughness is in the channel. In this case, they are assuming the channel will be continuously choked with plant life. Therefore it would require a very high N Value. The concrete channel would require a very low N Value. Mr. Cameron has agreed, at least in concept, that they would line both sides of the creek and would use, in the design, a very high N Value that would be relative to a choked channel, that would never be maintained as far as removal of the plants by the County, it would be maintained as a natural Riparian channel. Those are the two (2) things that have changed since the last time this project was discussed. The staff at the city and at the county both agree that this is a good approach. The letter and the staff report indicate the detail of this has not been worked out. That's true, we generally know where the 1 OO-year plain is, how high the wall is, and where to place them; but those designs and details have not been completed. But the County does agree with the solution proposed. Commissioner Bonina asked in the event that this whole structure does not work out, then what is the alternative, if any. Mr. Hohnbaum replied that if the condition fails to be met, the development would not be allowed to proceed. Commissioner Bonina asked Mr. Sheatz for clarification if this is the case, legally. Mr. Sheatz replied that it could be, if it is stated as a condition, if it is the desire and intent. But looking at page 2-30, paragraph 3, referencing back to condition number forty-five (45), and reading condition number forty-five, it does not tie anything to this approval. It says that it has to be done, but the question you're asking me is if the project can go forward if this condition is not met; the answer is that it can, based on the way the condition is written at this time. There's not a trigger attached to this condition, but it can be addressed. Commissioner Bonina continued to ask that ifit is stated as a condition, does it have to be met. Mr. Sheatz replied that it does, but the timing could also be an issue, depending when it is enforced and how it will be enforced. 12 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED May 5,2003 Chair Pruett asked if it would be correct if the city will not issue occupancy permits for those buildings if in fact those buildings were built in that situation. Mr. Sheatz replied that this is not necessarily true because it has not been tied to occupancy, and that is his concern. Mr. Hohnbaum commented that along with what Mr. Sheatz stated, the commission can improve on condition number forty-five by stating, "Prior to issuance of building permit, this condition will be met." That could be the trigger point. Commissioner Bonina asked Mr. Hohnbaum ifhe is aware of the traffic accidents mentioned by some public speakers on Santiago Canyon Road, whether he can speak on that, and whether the city is in agreement with the mitigation proposal. Mr. Hohnbaum replied that he is aware of those accidents with fatalities-it is the characteristics of this area. Because the traffic load will go up, staffis conditioning the developer to mitigate to their fair share extent some of these issues. The city has projects funded in the seven year CIP plan to make some of the improvements at Santiago Canyon, Cannon, Serrano, Santiago and Hewes. This project will have to pay 100% ofthe installation and operation of the signals. This will mitigate the traffic generated by this project. The speed limit for that area is posted at fifty (50) miles per hour, and there are reports of speeding, but that is an enforcement issue. The city is aware of the congestion and is working on that issue. The city is aware of the mitigation proposal and believes it is a fair share contribution. Vice Chair Smith asked how the gas emission from this landfill compare to the gas emission from Yorba Park? Does anyone know what the gas emission at Yorba Park--it's not a useable park. Mr. Hohnbaum replied that Yorba Park is a city park and the monitoring ofthe methane found that they exceeded the 5% methane emission. To mitigate that, the city had to install a gas recovery system to bring the emission down. Y orba Park is about forty (40) feet deep and eight (8) acres in size. The Villa Park landfill is probably twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) acres in size and over one hundred fifty (150) feet deep. Both Yorba Park and Villa Park are municipal trash sites, built during the same time frame, mid 1960's. At the Villa Park landfill, it appears that from time to time there are emissions above the 5% rate. In Yorba Park, in the last six (6) months, we have not had any reading above 5%, so the gas collection system is working. Chair Pruett asked ifthere would be a sewer line on the bridge across the creek. Ifthere is a failure, how would that be dealt with? Mr. Hohnbaum replied that details have not been perfected yet, however the sewer line and any other utilities that would need to go to that site would be hung off of the bridge. It is designed to be a pedestrian bridge, not a vehicular bridge; it would be designed to carry that load as well as the pedestrian and equestrian load. The city would require the sewer line to be placed within a sleeve, it helps suspend it, and helps protect it. If there is a leak, the sleeve will protect. In the case questioned by the public speaker that ifthere is a flood gushing towards the bridge and breaks the sleeve, then there is nothing that could be done; it would be a catastrophic failure and the contaminants in that sewer line will enter the water stream. But building the bridge above the 100-year flood plain will be a requirement. 13 Planning Conunission Minutes APPROVED May 5, 2003 Commissioner Bonina asked if the sewer line will literally hang from the bridge, or will it be built into the structure of the bridge. Mr. Hohnbaum replied that it would literally hang off of the structure. Chair Pruett asked staff to explain the one lot that is requesting the variance. Mr. Carnes replied that the lot in question is along the street, and the code requires a minimum depth of 100 feet. The code specifically defines it as what's parallel to the public street. The applicant has made an interpretation that they want to call the east property line the front, use that as the twenty (20) foot front set back, and use the street side which the code would require a ten (10) foot feet back. Even doing that and using typical floor plans from the Serrano Heights development, it would be very difficult to fit a house onto that property and it would change the streetscape. This is not what staff has recommended; it is the applicant's interpretation of the code. Chair Pruett asked about the administrative adjustment. Mr. Carnes replied that it has been withdrawn because all other properties have been reconfigured to comply with the city ordinance. The commission did not have any more questions for staff, so Chair Pruett asked for comments from the commissioner concerning the project. Vice Chair Smith stated that this is a very difficult project. She has met with the applicant and members ofthe community to discuss this project in detail. Mr. Philip Bettencourt and Mr. Phil Cameron have been very pleasurable to work with, they have been honest with all their transactions. This project is a tough project for her because this is a fabulous project, but Orange is pressed for open park space. Her concerns include: I) 6000 sq. ft. lots - not in keeping with OPA lots; 2) Dangerous aspects of the site - flood plain, gas emission, DIZ, loss of open creek areas. 3) One hundred eighty-three (183) conditions for the project, which tells her to look twice. She does not feel this is an appropriate site for a school. 4) Would like to challenge Mr. Cameron on his comment that "some people will fight anything". She believes people oppose it because they're concerned about their communities. 5) She agrees with one of the public speakers who stated, "Site is wrong, not the builder" and she cannot recommend this project. But ifit goes through, she would want to recommend that the park have restroom and parking to get the park started. Commissioner Romero wanted to applaud Fieldstone for their work. He also is not in favor of project because of the general plan. Fieldstone has done a great job trying to mitigate this project. But his concerns are: I) To benefit a small percentage of the city is a negative, not a positive to the city. 2) Residential property is a negative financially to a city. We could be like Villa Park, but does Villa Park have all the amenities of a city that Orange does-a library, a police force, a fire station, etc. He does not agree with the comment made by a public speaker that "This will not cost the city." It will cost the city later. 14 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED May 5, 2003 3) He also feels for the residents in the Reserve, being so close to the proposed stable, which could be very odorous if the wind direction is right. 4) Hc docs not feel it would be a negative if a school is to be built on the eastern section of the property, despite his past experience with the school district. 5) The landfill concerns him quite a bit. He didn't hear, or ask, for the percentage of methane and other chemicals, ifit differs between Villa Park landfill and Yorba Park. His concern is as time progresses, what kind of seepage will be realized down the road. 6) The creek is also a concern. He would love to see the creek being improved the way Fieldstone has proposed. Mr. Romero summarized that with all the concerns; he cannot support the general plan amendment. Commissioner Bonina again would like to applaud Fieldstone and the residents of the surrounding community for following the process. He believes the process works and the project presented is much better than before. He wants to look at what is present now: 1) A poor operating neighbor; 2) Public doesn't have access to the property; 3) If there is a flood, there could be major problems. The proposed project would, on the positive side: I) Provide access to an active park in the city; 2) Provide trails for the city; 3) Provide permanent dedication of over forty (40) acres of open space; 4) RV parking; 5) One hundred eighty-three (183) homes; 6) Control of potential flooding. On the negative side: 1) He is uncomfortable with the environmental issues of the park and of the home; 2) Confused concerning the community center, who's going to develop it, who's going to manage it, and what's the time line; 3) Traffic issues have not been addressed; 4) Does need improvement to the park; 5) The bridge crossing or underpass has to happen as the overall part of the site. Chair Pruett expressed his comments: 1) This project serves the horse community, and they are part of the community. He hopes that they don't lose sight of the big benefit to the community as a whole. There is a large amount of commitment given to the horse community to enjoy that type ofrecreation. Someone made the comment that children will be deprived if this project is approved. But the equestrian community is a part of the community and there could be many children who could benefit from this type of activity. The benefit is expanded by the addition of the park that is being proposed. 2) There are many conditions, issues, and the mitigations because this is a challenging project. Regardless of what's going to go here, there will be many mitigations required because of the site. 3) People say there is money for a park; we just have to ask for it...I don't see that. 15 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED May 5. 2003 4) Concerning the school, he did attend a meeting with the school district today and he feels the school is heading in the right direction. He doesn't know if this will be a good site, but he thinks the district is trying to improve the standards of the schools in the area. In summary, he is very comfortable with the issues as addressed by the measures being taken. He feels that additional consideration should be given to the construction traffic, condition number forty-five (45), and the park restrooms and parking for the parks should be considered. Other than that, the general plan amendment, with its current designation of Resource Area, is it appropriate to leave it as IS. Staff Member Carnes reminded the commissioners that they need to take action on the Final Environmental Impact first. Commissioner Bonina stated that he is not comfortable enough to make a decision tonight. He would like to see the applicant address the issues that were brought up and make a decision later, specifically, the community center, the park, the bridge, further information on environmental issues, and condition number forty-five (45). Chair Pruett added that if a continuance is in order, then he would also ask the applicant to look at possible alternative locations for the stables. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina, and seconded by Vice Chair Smith to reopen the public hearing to ask the applicant ifhe is agreeable to continuing the project. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Smith, Romero Commissioner Brandman None None MOTION CARRIED Chair Pruett asked if the applicant is open to continuing the project, indicated he would not be available at the next Planning Commission meeting on May 19, but the commission has discussed having a special meeting on May 14, unless the applicant would need more time, in which case it would have to wait till the June 2, 2003 meeting. Mr. Cameron responded that he would be agreeable to a continuance and he would prefer to have the next meeting on May 14,2003. Chair Pruett closed the public hearing. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina, and seconded by Vice Chair Smith to continue this agenda item on a special meeting on May 14, 2003 at 7:00 pm in the chambers. 16 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: May 5, 2003 Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Smith, Romero Commissioner Brandman None None MOTION CARRIED Chair Pruett stated that this item would not be re-noticed, so anyone who wishes to attend will have to remember the date. INRE: INRE: NEW HEARINGS: None ADJOURNMENT MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina, seconded by Vice Chair Smith to adjourn to a meeting on Wednesday, May 14,2003 at 6:30 pm for an administrative session, followed by a meeting for the continuation of the previous agenda item. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Smith, Romero Commissioner Brandman None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 12:00 am May 6, 2003. 17