Loading...
2002 - October 7 C,?~O' C--/ 3- APPROVEP MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: October 7, 2002 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Jeffry Rice, Planning Manager/Secretary Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Khanh A. Le, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2002. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to approve the Minutes from the September 16, 2002 meeting as submitted. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith Commissioner Romero None None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: (2) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16405, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 230-02, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1701-02 - HAL BAERG A proposal for a 6-lot subdivision located 500 feet south of Santiago Canyon Road midway between Orange Park Boulevard and Cannon A venue in Orange Park Acres (Tentative Tract Map). The purpose of the Minor Site Plan Review is to ensure that all the lots being created will have access to a public street. The subject site has two General Plan land use designations: The central and southerly portion of the site is designated ESTR (Estate Low-Density Residential, 0 to 2 dwelling units per acre) and the northwesterly 30,000 sq. ft. portion of the site is designated LDR (Low-Density Residential, 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre). The Zoning Classification for the central and southerly portion of the site is R-I-40 (Residential, single-family, minimum lot size 40,000 sq. ft.) and the northwesterly 30,000 sq. ft. portion of the site is zoned R-I-15 (Residential, single-family, minimum lot 15,000 sq. ft.). The site is located at 19706 E. Santiago Canyon Road. This item was continued from the August 5, 2002 and the September 4, 2002 meetings Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 7, 2002 NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1701-02 was prepared for the project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq. The public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration was July 15 throngh August 5, 2002. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 22-02 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 16405, Minor Site Plan Review 230-02, and Negative Declaration 1701-02. Chair Smith addressed the agenda item and asked if there were any oppositions from the public concerning this project. Since there were, Chair Smith asked Mr. Rice to read the full staff report. Mr. Rice read the full staff report as summarized above for the public. Chair Smith asked the applicant or the representative to come and address the commission. Mr. James Brennan (191 S. Orange St., Orange, CA 92866) approached the podium. He stated that he has nothing further to add to the presentation (this agenda item is a continuance from a previous meeting) other than expressing that he and the applicant has read the staff report and understand and willing to comply with the conditions set forth. Chair Smith asked for public comments, which included: SPEAKERS IN FAVOR (in alphabetical order): Bob Bennvhoff (J 0642 Moraca Dr., Orange) COMMENTS INCLUDED: . Speaker was opposed to the project because of the proposed location of the trails, but is now in favor because he has spoken with the applicant and feel that the applicant is working with the community to resolve the issue. SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION (in alphabetical order): Tom Anderson (1392 N. Stallions St.); Pete Berchiolli (5847 E. Valencia Dr.); Richard Bve (5829 Valencia Dr.); John Cox (1774 N. Kimbark Ln.); Tom Davidson (6122 Santiago Canyon Rd.); Chuck Me Neese (11211 Orange Park Blvd.); Jeff Peterson -- (10712 Morda); Marty Poort (11021 Meads Ave); Mark Sandford (on file); Nick Terpstra (1475 Jamestown Way); Derry Whitnev (5920 Valencia Dr.). COMMENTS INCLUDED: . Does not want trails next to roads, recommend against trails. . Concerned that there is a lot of traffic on Jamestown Rd. where there are a lot of children heading to a grade school. . Want to purchase a home in this development, but against the location of the trails because do not want horses in driveway, or horse poop in yard. . Hope the commissioner will address the drainage problem in the neighborhood. 2 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 7, 2002 . Suggest the trail to run on the backside of the development, between lots four (4) and five (5)--comes down B Street, crosses the Cui de Sac, goes down between the two properties- and then join with the existing trails on the north side of the property. . Propose trails to go between lots three (3) and four (4), behind lots one (I) and two (2), and going to lot three (3). . For the development, but disagree with where trails are proposed. . Trails running across driveways dangerous for children and cyclists. · These are not Orange Park trails, but it is part of Orange County's master plan trail. . In response to Commissioner Brandman's question, a speaker replied that the "dead" trail is not being used right now; there are eucalyptus trees and open space in place. . There are no easements on property for horse trails. . Trails are for hikers, bikers, and others, not just for equestrians. · In response to Commissioner Pruett's question, a speaker replied that it is possible to for equestrians to access lots four (4) and five (5) through a very steep hill between lots three (3) and four (4). The problem is a hill with an elevation of about hundred (100) feet. Mr. Brennan was re-invited to readdress the commission. He wanted to clarifY that the developer wiIl be addressing the drainage situation during the construction. He also wanted to add that the proposed trail alignment was developed based on conversations with the neighbors, wiIl fuIly comply with city requirements, and hoped to satisfY "everyone" but knows there isn't a way to satisfY everyone. Questions and comments from the commissioners included: Commissioner Romero: . Asked wiIl proposed trails will be asphalt. Mr. Brennan replied that it wiIl be per the city's requirements. . Asked why are the proposed trails where they are as indicated on the plans as opposed to the suggestions made by the various speakers. Mr. Brennan replied that a large issue is privacy for the home owners; therefore, the trails were suggested to not be in the backyards of the property. Commissioner Brandman: . Stated she lives in the Wilderness Community where there are trails in her backyard. Although she fuIly empathizes with the privacy issue, as a homeowner, she would prefer to have trails in the backyard than the front. . Asked whether she may make a recommendation in a motion to change the proposed trails. Mr. Sheatz replied that she may address that to the applicant anytime, and can be done tonight. Mr. Rice added that this is a recommendation to city council, so she may make a recommendation with the conditions as noted. Commissioner Pruett: . Stated he feels there could be a lot of possible solutions. He asked ofMr. Brennan ifhe has given consideration to creating access for the CuI de Sac off Jamestowne. Mr. Brennan eXplained that Jamestowne is a private road and the developer would not be able to do that. Mr. Rice also added that there is a twenty (20) foot gap between Jamestowne and the property. . Asked Mr. Brennan if he would be open to a suggestion that the trails are as described (Commissioner Pruett illustrated the suggested trail using the map on the waIl.) Mr. Brennan replied that he is not open to that suggestion because of the privacy issue. Commissioner Bonina: . Asked ofMr. Brennan ifthe street design needed to be reworked or redesigned with the redesign of the trails, compared to the last proposal. Mr. Brennan replied that the streets have not been redesigned; the trails will be incorporated onto the lots. He also wanted to clarifY the easement issue. The previous developer did attempt to purchase easement on other properties, but that was never accomplished. 3 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 7, 2002 . Commented that he knows of many properties with trails in backyards whom property owners do not have issues with privacy. Mr. Brennan replied that he also knows of many properties with trails in front of the property. Commissioner Romero: . Asked if the current trails proposal is the same as last time. Mr. Brennan explained that it is not; the last proposal was along the north and west side. Chair Smith closed the public hearing. Chair Smith invited Mr. Rice to explain the role of OPAC in the community and as a council appointed body. Mr. Rice explained that the OP AC was created by appointments by the Board of Supervisors and the City Council. The OP AC is an advisory body created to make recommendations to approving bodies, with regards to developments with in the Orange Park Acres community. In this case, the OP AC is the advisory body to the Planning Commission, who is the advisory body to the City Council. Chair Smith thanked Mr. Rice and brought the discussion to the commission. Commissioner Romero commented that based on everything he would recommend moving along with the proposal as recommended. Commissioner Pruett expressed concerns with trails going down CuI de Sac and driveways, where children may be playing. He suggested that the applicant's opposition to trails in backyards due to privacy may be dealt in a different way. Mr. Pruett would suggest the trails design should be as suggested through the discussion. Commissioner Brandman stated she agrees with Commissioner Pruett. She also suggested hearing from the OPAC and the maintenance group--who would be taking care of trails-before making the decision. If a motion was made with recommendations/conditions that the location of the trails not be as proposed, but as suggested by the various public speakers and the commission, she would support it. Commissioner Bonina concurred with Commissioners Brandman and Pruett. As the project is proposed, he would be against it. Chair Smith commented she agrees with Commissioner Romero. She felt that since the OPAC, who is the presiding body, did meet with the applicant, this proposal does include the opinions of the community, represented by the OPAC and of the applicant. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adopt resolution PC 22-02 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 16405, Minor Site Plan Review 230-02, and Negative Declaration 1701-02 with conditions: 1) To include conditions one (I) through thirty-five (35) included in the staff report's resolutions. 2) Modify condition number eight (8) to read, Tentative Tract Map 16405 shall provide dedication and improvements for a recreational/equestrian trail "along the length of the westerly property line of lot number (3), along the easterly boundary of lots one (1) and four (4), and along the southerly boundary of lots three (3) andfour (4)". The improvements are to be completed per development standards contained in the City's Recreational Trails Master Plan (adopted April 27, 1993). 4 Planning COnmllssion Minutes APPROVED October 7, 2002 AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett None Commissioners Smith, Romero None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS (3) ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2002-0003 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to amend Section 17.22.030 of the Orange Municipal Code to allow public parks and athletic fields as permitted uses within the recreational open space zoning district. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 33-02 recommending to the City Council approval of Ordinance Amendment No. 2002-0003. Chair Smith acknowledged agenda item and asked Mr. Rice to introduce item. Mr. Rice deferred to Ms. Karen Sully, Planning Manager, who is the project manager for this item. Ms. Sully presented the project. She explained that this is an ordinance amendment 2002-0003, proposing the amendment of Section 17.22.030 of the Orange Municipal Code to allow public parks and athletic fields as permitted uses within the recreational open space zoning district. As part of a code clean up item, staff has considered the appropriateness of the public parks and athletic fields on land designation for recreational uses. This ordinance amendment is being proposed to allow public parks and athletic fields as a permitted use within the recreation open space zoning district by removing the requirement as it currently stands for a conditional use permit. The development of actual public facilities on land zoned recreational open space would continue to be subject to review as part of the city's capital improvement program of the budget as well as concurrent environmental review. The design and operation of any new public parks and athletic fields will be subject to review by the city's Parks, Planning, and Development Commission, and the City Council. Staff is not proposing any changes to the current requirement for a conditional use permit for private parks or athletic fields, given that the operation activities and stewardship of a private park would be controlled by a private entity. The ordinance amendment furthers the implementations and goals of the open space conservation element of the General Plan relative to the provisions of parks and recreation facilities for the entire community. In conclusion, Ms. Sully stated the staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of the ordinance amendment to the City Council. Chair Smith opened the public hearing. Since there were none, she closed the public hearing. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to adopt resolution PC 33-02 recommending to the City Council approval of Ordinance Amendment No. 2002-0003. 5 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 7, 2002 AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2426-02 - D & SONS INTERNATIONAL DELI AND MARKET (SAM G. & DEMETRA I. DOUKAS) A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 2 I (off sale general) and Type 47 (on sale general - eating place) licenses for a market and delicatessen with off-site consumption of beer, wine, and distilled spirits and on-site consumption of beer and wine and make a finding of public convenience and necessity at I I 10 North Tustin Street. The General Plan land use designation is General Commercial (GC). The zoning of the site is Limited Business District (C-I). NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 35-02 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2426- 02 and make a finding of Public Convenience and Necessity for the sale of alcoholic beverages. Chair Smith recognized the agenda item. Commissioner Bonina asked to abstain from the project due to a relationship with the applicant. Chair Smith asked if there were anyone present who is opposed to the project. Since there were, she asked Mr. Rice to read the full staff report. Mr. Rice read the full staff report and added that the Orange Police has analyzed the project, stated they did not have objections but do have conditions for approval. Chair Smith invited the applicant to speak on her own behalf. Ms. Demetra Doukas (3945 Green Clover Circle, Orange) explained that her project is a Greek, Italian, Mexican, and American deli with a diversified cultural food and beer for people to eat in and take out. Chair Smith asked if Ms. Doukas has read staff report and willing to comply with all the conditions within. Ms. Doukas replied in the affirmative. Chair opened the floor for Public Hearing: SPEAKERS IN oPPOSmON (in alphabetical order): Ian Barbarow (418 E. Jacaranda Ave.); Philip Ces (I 135 N. Tustin St.); James Compton (J 933 E. Wilson #5); Joe Eaton (2237 E. Garfield); Ali Haiei (I 131 N. Tustin St.); Loren Palmroth (1231 E. Adams); Anthonv Rozanski (1977 E. Wilson #10). 6 Planning COnmllssion Minutes October 7, 2002 COMMENTS INCLUDED: · Likes the idea of a deli, but does not like another place for that could sell hard whisky. There is a lot of racket in that area already; does not support another site that could contribute to more people being able to take alcohol home. . Supports alcohol for onsite consumption in the deli, but do not support off site because of the children in the neighborhood. . There are over twenty (20) places along Tustin and Katella who sell liquor. Don't want another place that sells offsite liquor, which could also add to the already congested traffic. · Hope applicant will distinguish itself with its specialty food and not attract people with alcohol. . The surrounding neighborhood is a high crime area. APPROVED Chair Smith re-invited Ms. Doukas to speak. Ms. Doukas wanted to clarify that she is not trying to be a full liquor store; she has some specialty alcohols that she would like to offer to the public. She stated she will close at 9pm, will card everyone, and will follow all rules. Ms. Doukas added that she has attended the ABC class and have learned to protect herself and her customers. She also has children and grandchild, so she understands where the public speakers are coming from. She stated that she and her son would run the operation. Chair Smith asked Ms. Doukas if she will consider selling wine but not spirits. Ms. Doukas replied that it is not imperative to her operation, but would like to offer the specialty spirits. Commissioner Pruett expressed concerns for the off site sale of alcohol. He also noted that there should be some conditions along the line of the following, not already included in the staffs conditions, for offsite sale of alcohol: I) sale of alcohol ends one (l) hour before closing; 2) to deter a bar establishment, sale of alcohol should not exceed sale of food by a certain percentage, and these numbers should be reported quarterly. Chair Smith closed the public hearing and brought the floor to the commissioners for a discussion. Commissioner Pruett noted that the police report in the staff s report indicated that the Orange Police Department is looking at type forty (47) license and not a type twenty (21) license. Since the police's recommendations is based on only one of the two licenses that the applicant is applying for, Commissioner Pruett suggested the commission continue this item to get clarification from the staff. At the same time, the staff could also research the two possible conditions he brought up earlier. Chair Smith concurred. Mr. Sheatz addressed the commission and stated that if the commission could give the applicant an inclination of the commission's thoughts now, it would assist the applicant to know ahead of time so the applicant could approach the ABC with the appropriate applications, to save time. Chair Smith stated she is open to both offsite and onsite sale of wine, but not spirits. Commissioner Romero concurred with Chair Smith. 7 Planning Conmrission Minutes APPROVED Octob~r 7, 2002 Commission~r Brandman stat~d sh~ supports th~ sale of both wine and spirits onsite, but not offsite. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue this agenda item until the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting (October 21,2002) for clarification of issues mentioned. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith Commissioner Bonina None None MOTION CARRIED (5) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2002-01, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2413- 02, ZONE CHANGE 1213-02, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 227-02 AND VARIANCE 2109-02 - SYCAMORE PLAZA MEDICAL OFFICES (MIKE HARRISONrrRlCO REALTY) A proposal to allow medical offices and the relocation of a residential structure on a 2.25 aCre site addressed as 411 to 421 S. Batavia and 802 W. Culver Avenue within the Old Towne Historic District. The General Plan land use designation of the North and South parcels is LMDR (Low-Medium Density Residential, 6 to 15 dwelling units per acre). The zoning of the North parcel is OP (Office Professional District), the South parcel fronting on Batavia Street is OP (Office Professional District), and the South parcel fronting on Clark Street/Culver Avenue is - no change - remains R2-6 (Duplex Residential District). NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1695-02 has been prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq. The public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration is September 17, 2002 through October 7, 2002. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 37-02 and recommend to the City Council the approval of General Plan Amendment 2002-01, Conditional Use Permit 2413-02, Zone Change 1213-02, Major Site Plan Review 227-02, Variance 2109-02, and Mitigated Negative Declaration 1695-02. Chair Smith acknowledged agenda item, asked if there were anyone opposed to the project. Since there was, Chair Smith asked Mr. Rice to read the full staff report. Mr. Rice introduced the project and deferred to Mr. Ryan, the project manager, to present the project. Mr. Ryan eXplained the project, as presented in the staff report. He commented that he is excited about the project and the applicant has worked hard with the Old Towne Committee and canvassed the community to put together a project that is beneficial to the community. Mr. Ryan pointed to the drawings for illustration as he explained the project to the public. He also would like to bring to the commission's attention the typo on page 5-39, item four (4), it should read, "The project was considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plan 8 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 7, 2002 for the area it is located, in that medical offices are compatible to the existing mixture of offices in the surrounding area." Questions from the commission for staff included: . Commissioner Pruett asked that since the proposal is asking for a rezoning or parcel number two (2) to be zoned as OP, would the Ronald McDonald House be able to expand, if they elected to, under that zoning. Mr. Ryan replied in the affirmative. . Commissioner Brandman asked Mr. Ryan to clarify his comment that the house will be moved and whether the house will remain on the historic list. Mr. Ryan replied that his comment pertains to the house being relocated, but will still remain on its original historic site. He also confirmed that the house will remain on the historic list. . Commissioner Romero asked what the schedule of events for construction would be, also commenting that it seems like construction could be done before relocating the house. Mr. Ryan deferred to the applicant for the answer. . Chair Smith asked whether the DRC's comment for request that the applicant explore other possibilities for the texture finish on building was a condition or just a suggestion. Mr. Ryan replied that the DRC made that comment based on not having received the sample of the finish that is currently being presented. The applicant, based on the DRC's recommendation, has pursued the option by presenting this sample. . Chair Smith asked whether condition number forty (40) on page 5-44 or the staff has addressed the possibility of one of the trees get damaged during construction process and what the replacement plan would be. Mr. Ryan replied in the negative, but added that the staff did not consider that because the age expectancy of the trees is high. Chair Smith continued by asking what the life expectancy of the trees would be. Mr. Ryan replied they average around fifty (50) years old and could go up to one hundred forty (140) to one hundred fifty years old (ISO), provided they are cared for. . Chair Smith asked for clarification on the comment that the house will be retained in its "original site". Mr. Ryan explained that the house will be on the same site, but on a different part/location of the site. Chair Smith asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Mike Harrison (508 Ventaja, Newport Beach) thanked the staff and all involved for the assistance on this complex project. He stated he has reviewed all the conditions in the staff report and is willing to fully comply with them. He welcomed questions from the commission. Questions from the commission for Mr. Harrison included: Commissioner Romero: . Asked for the schedule of development. Mr. Harrison replied that the plan is to start construction of the medical office and moving of house at the same time. . Asked how the empty space where the house will be moved from will appear in the interim. Mr. Harrison replied that there is no visual proposal right now, but the plan is to re-grade the site, leave the orange trees, leave the driveway access, provide irrigation for trees, and possibly plant some trees for screening between the Ronald Mc Donald house and the empty area. . Wanted to clarifY whether the expansion of the Ronald Mc Donald has been decided. Mr. Harrison explained that he is on the committee, is not currently authorized to speak on the committee's behalf, but the opinion is the committee would like to have the option to expand, in which case, that location would be logical, but the committee has not approved anything officially and does not have a proposal yet. Rezoning to OP will allow for RM expansion, or other medical office building in future. Chair Smith: 9 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 7, 2002 . Stated she concurred with Commissioner Romero concerning the landscape or lack thereof, once the house is removed. She asked if the current landscape plans include landscaping plans for that plot ofland and would he be opened to include the landscape plans. Mr. Harrison replied that he is willing to include the landscape plans, but can not speak for the Ronald Mc Donald House committee, who is contracted to buy that plot of land after closing escrow. . Asked ifMr. Harrison would be opened to the condition that the commission requires a textured finish for the building. Mr. Harrison replied yes, and he believes it is already conditioned as such. . Also asked if Mr. Harrison would be opened to the condition that ifthe sycamore trees get damaged, there would be a replacement program. Mr. Harrison replied yes, he would want to take care of trees, would be amicable to replacing the trees if necessary, but would be concerned about the requirement for the size of the trees because of the difficulty of finding larger, more matured sycamore trees. There weren't any more questions for Mr. Harrison, so Chair Smith opened the floor for public comments. SPEAKERS IN FAVOR (in alphabetical order): Janet Crenshaw (464 N. Shaffer); Sherwin Gillman. MD (725 N. La Veta #100); Arthur Vevna (33552 Valle Rd., San Juan Capistrano); Ron Van Winkle (112 Lorna Ave., Long Beach). COMMENTS INCLUDED: . Delighted that the sycamore trees will be saved. . In support of the Ronald Mc Donald house and like seeing the historic house being saved. . Support project because it gives an opportunity for the Ronald McDonald house to expand, which is highly favorable. . Represented doctors in the area say there is a need for more medical office space in Orange. SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION (in alphabetical order): Sister Katherine Grev (480 S. Batavia); Erich Kopple (705 W. La Veta). COMMENTS INCLUDED: . Would like to see more data to show support of the claim that there is a need for more medical office building space. . Concerned about the eleven (II %) increase in traffic--doesn't sound like much, but is a lot if you live there. . Want to make sure the presentation of drawings is what will be built. . Concerned with the exterior treatment ofthe building (finish). . Would like to see a contingency plan if the sycamore trees get damaged. . Concerned about the loose wording for the buffer zone, hope to see the project coming back in front of the commission should another use be proposed for the space. Chair Smith affirmed to the speakers that the architectural plans that are being presented will be the architecture that will be constructed. Applicants are bound to their proposed plans, if approved. Chair Smith re-invited Mr. Harrison to conclude his application. 10 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 7, 2002 Mr. Harrison acknowledged Sister Grey's traffic concern, admitted it is a negative situation, but in light of the whole project, it is worth the inconvenience. He had nothing further to add. Chair Smith closed the public hearing and took the floor to the commission for discussion. Chair Smith asked the project management staff if it is possible to require the applicant to guarantee the condition of the landscaping on the piece of land where house will be removed, and how. Mr. Rice replied that there are community standards that applicant has to adhere to, but if the commission feels there is a need to set a standard for the landscaping, it can be added to the conditions. Chair Smith wanted to clarify whether the demolition permit would require the applicant to erect a fence surrounding the area. Mr. Pruett explained that although the applicant had requested a demolition permit, they are not demolishing the property, but rather moving it. They would have to demolish the foundation that the house previously sat on. Commissioner Bonina asked if a condition could be added to require the applicant to fence off the area during construction. Mr. Rice replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Pruett clarified a previous issue by noting that condition number eight (8) on page 5-58 does state that the textured finish is a required condition set forth by the ORe. Chair Smith commented that she is not completely satisfied with textured sample presented, she had hoped to see something with more texture. She added that she would also like the ORC to have an opportunity to see the sample. Chair Smith then addressed the issue of replacing the sycamore trees if they're damaged, commenting that it could be conditioned with the size specification of the trees being left to the ORC's discretion. Commissioner Pruett concurred, noting that the DRC had already addressed the landscape plans with specifications for plant sizes. Commissioner Bonina expressed concerns for the aesthetic and liability for the piece of will- be- empty land once the house is removed. Mr. Ryan eXplained that there is a fencing requirement for the relocation of the house. Chair Smith complimented the applicant for retaining the historic house for community and for the patience with the long process of getting to this point. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, and seconded by Commissioner Romero to adopt Resolution No. PC 37-02 and recommend to the City Council the approval of General Plan Amendment 2002-01, Conditional Use Permit 2413-02, Zone Change ]213-02, Major Site Plan Review 227- 02, Variance 2109-02, and Mitigated Negative Declaration ]695-02 with the following conditions: I) The textured exterior finish will keep in style with Spanish co]onial style, to the satisfaction of the DRC. 2) Final landscaping plans be submitted to the DRe. ]] Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 7, 2002 3) A sycamore trees replacement plan, should there be any unfortunate disasters, be set with a minimum box size to be approved by the ORe. 4) The existing landscaping on the undeveloped portion of the project shall be maintained and enhanced per approval of the DRC. 5) The perimeter of the site from which the house will be removed shall be fenced off until the site is developed. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith Commissioner Bonina None None MOTION CARRIED (6) APPEAL NO. 488-02 - HANSON AGGREGATES An appeal of the determinations of the Community Development Director that a concrete recycling operation is not a permitted land use on property zoned SG (Sand and Gravel). A result of the determination is that the operations of the existing facilities must cease and the equipment used for the operation of the business must be removed. The Genera] Plan land use designation is Resource Area (RA). The zoning of the site is Sand and Grave] (SG). The site is located at 4621 E. Santiago Canyon Road. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from California Environmenta] Quality Act (CEQA) review per State CEQA Guidelines Section ]5321. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Determination on Appea] No. 488-02. Chair Smith acknowledged this agenda item and asked Mr. Rice to read the appeal. Mr. Rice read the appeal from the staff report. Chair Smith asked the appellant to speak. Mr. Barry Ross (185] East I" St., Ste # I ]00, Santa Ana) is the attorney for Hanson Aggregates. Mr. Ross submitted a letter to the commission and asked it become part of the hearing. He presented his case seeking for reversal of the previous decision that Hanson's sand and gravel processing business is not a permitted land use within the sand and gravel zone based on: I) The staffs interpretation of municipal code section 17.32.0]0 is incorrect. a. The fist sentence of this section provides "These regulations are established to provide for the commercial extraction and processing of natura] resources in a manner that is most beneficial to the citizens of the City." He explained that this sentence states that commercial extraction and commercia] processing of natural resources are permitted uses. His client is engaged in the commercia] processing of natural resources. Sand and gravel is a natural resource. He gave the case of Bambauer v. Menfoulet (1963) 2]4 Cal.App.2d 871,874 as an example, which states, "]t is true that commercial gravel belongs to the mineral kingdom in that it is inorganic and it is formed by nature alone". He added that the sand and gravel that Hanson is processing is organic and it is formed by nature alone. Therefore, it qualifies as a natural source. Further, Hanson's business is performed "in a manner that is most beneficial to the citizens of the City." By recycling sand and grave] at this location, Hanson's business activity will result in a reduction of truck traffic, less materia] going into landfills and an increase in conservation of ]2 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 7, 2002 natural resources. Further, there is no indication that extracting cannot be conducted without processing or that processing cannot be conducted without extraction. b. The second sentence ofthis section provides "Sand, gravel, earth, and similar materials can be excavated only where they have been deposited by nature, which in some instances may be close to existing or planned urban development." Mr. Ross explained that since Hanson is not currently engaged in any excavation activity, the sentence is inapplicable to the present case. The sentence only applies when the business activity consists of excavation. c. The third sentence of the section provides "These regulations are intended to ensure compatibility between extraction operation and adjacent uses in a manner that will minimize adverse effects caused by the uses permitted." Mr. Ross stated that for more than fifty (50) years, the subject property was used for extraction (or mining) of natural resources. Processing (or recycling) started in ] 975 and continues to this day. Extraction stopped in ] 985. For the ten-year period of 1975-]985, both extraction and processing occurred. After 1985, only processing occurred. In ]992, Hanson acquired its ownership in the subject property and continued the previous use of processing of natural resources to the present time, a period of ten years. The absence of extraction activity during the past 17 years, including the noise and airborne debris affiliated with the process of extraction is more compatible with the adjacent uses and will certainly minimize the adverse effects caused by the business operations. It is noteworthy that stone crushing is performed only two (2) or three (3) times per year. In contrast, extraction would be performed on a continual basis. d. The fourth and last sentence of this section provides "It is also the intent of these regulations to provide assurance that as soon as it is feasible to do so that excavated areas will be maintained or modified in order to guarantee that the property will be suitable for a useful purpose." Mr. Ross argued that if the City prohibits Hanson's processing operation, there is no other use that can be made of the subject property. The sand and gravel zone uses described in Section 17.32.020 are incompatible with the current property and would not be supported or endorsed by the staff even in the absence of the Fieldstone project's application for a change in zoning to residential. With the Fieldstone project zone change pending, the staff certainly would not recommend any of the permitted uses on the subject property. The city's staff has informed Hanson that it will not support a change of zoning to manufacturing. ]fHanson's current use is banned, the property will probably remain fallow without any "useful purpose" until and unless a zone change to a residential use is developed. 2) The current use is incidental and auxiliary to the prior use. Mr. Ross reminded the commission that prior to ] 985, the use of the property consisted of excavation and processing of sand and gravel. After 1985, the use has been limited to processing without any excavation. The processing is incidental and auxiliary to excavation. Mr. Ross pointed out that even the staff report admits that the existing operation has "some similarities with permitted uses." Reference is made to the letter dated March 20, 2002, from Ken Barker, Environmental Manager to Alice Angus, Community Development Manager. Mr. Ross sited the case of Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) ] 2 Cal.41h 533, in which the property owner had engaged for many years in a hillside rock quarrying on a portion of the property. The property owner sought to engage in riverbed gravel mining on a separate portion of the property. The issue presented is whether this was an impermissible intensification of the prior use, or was this incidental and auxiliary to the prior use. The court held that although riverbed gravel mining is a distinct business operation from hillside rock quarrying, the new use is not an intensification of the prior use; the new use is incidental and auxiliary to the prior use. The majority opinion and especially the dissenting opinions of Justice Mosk and 13 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 7, 2002 Kennard explain the differences between the prior use of hillside rock quarrying and the current use of riverbed gravel mining which differences appear to be significant. Neverthe]ess, the court held that riverbed gravel mining is an incidental and auxiliary use to hillside rock quarrying. Mr. Ross continued to argue that if diverse uses such as riverbed gravel mining and hillside rock quarrying are considered to be incidental and auxiliary uses, then certainly commercial extraction and the commercia] processing of sand and grave] must also be considered to be incidental and auxiliary uses, especially since both such uses are expressly permitted in the first sentence of Section] 7.32.0]0 of the Orange Municipal Code. 3) Since the subject property is not suitable for any of the permitted uses other than sand and gravel processing, the city's prohibition of the current use will deprive the owner of substantially all use and value which will subject the city to ]iability for inverse condemnation. Mr. Ross sited the case of North Sacramento Land Company v. City of Sacramento (1983) ]40 Cal.App3d 576 to support his case. In that case, the only permitted uses on the subject property were agriculture or camping facilities. The property owner argued that the subject property was particularly suitable for the extraction of sand and gravel and it was particularly unsuitable for either agriculture or camping facilities. The property owner argued that the zoning regulation eliminated any possible use of the land and constituted unconstitutionally excessive regulation. The court held that the property owner stated a cause of action against the City of Sacramento for inverse condemnation arising out of its zoning ordinance. The court stated "a zoning ordinance may be unconstitutional and subject to invalidation when its effect is to deprive a landowner of substantially all reasonable use of the property." 4) Mr. Ross proposed a possible compromise. Hanson has entered into a sales contract with Fieldstone for the sale of the subject property. The sales contract is contingent upon Fieldstone obtaining land use entitlements from the City of Orange necessary for the project including a change of zoning from sand and grave] to residential. According]y, Hanson proposes that it will vacate the subject property and discontinue the current use within three years of the current date, whether or not the Fieldstone project is ultimately implemented. This proposal will allow Hanson to partially amortize the current value of its business while it attempts to locate an alternate business site without going out of business during the interim period. This proposal will cost nothing to the City other than the time required for the City Attorney and himself to draft an appropriate agreement to implement the proposal. Mr. Ross then concluded his presentation by stating he would be pleased to answer any questions the commission may have. Questions from the commission to Mr. Ross included: Commissioner Brandman: . Asked if Mr. Ross could reaffirm the statement he made that if the appeal is denied, then the company would go out of business. Mr. Ross replied in the affirmative, stating that if the applicant can not mine anymore because there is not anything left to mine, they can only process the material, so if the appeal is denied, the applicant will have to stop all his work, which will put him out of business. . Asked if the applicant has considered using the land for another purpose, such as farming like Mr. Ito Hiramatsu who is nearby. Mr. Ross replied that because the land has been used for sand and gravel for so long, it can not be used for farming without being re-cultivated first, which is costly. Commissioner Bonina: . Asked Mr. Ross to explain the difference between the different processes- mining/excavating, and recycling. Mr. Ross explained that the original business was to mine the land, the same is excavating, which is to dig for rocks and gravel in a refined state. Then crushing of that material is required, which is the product that is being sold. ]4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 7, 2002 Recycling is when road material is being brought in from outside sources and the same crushing process takes place. The crushed material is then recycled. Commissioner Pruett: . Asked for the definition of aggregate. Mr. Ken Barker (13550 Live Oak Ave., Irwindale) the applicant, replied to the question. He stated that the aggregate/material that is being brought in to be broken down is asphalt and concrete. He added the same exact crushing method is used to break down the asphalt and concrete as the rocks and gravel. The applicant has five (5) portable plants that are moved to different sites. . Asked of Mr. Ross when he's attesting that sand and gravel are organic materials and formed by nature alone in his argument, how asphalt and concrete, which is the material being recycled, can be classified in the same category, which makes his argument that the staffs interpretation ofthe Orange Municipal Code Section 17.32.101 faulty. Mr. Barker replied that asphalt is 95% sand and gravel, with 5% tar (the glue) and concrete is 90% sand and gravel. By those compositions, Mr. Barker felt that his business fits into the definition given by the code. Commissioner Pruett rebuttal that the materials that Hanson Aggregate are recycling are not materials in it's natural state, as dictated by the code, but are materials that have already processed at least once. Commissioner Bonina: . Asked ifthe land can be used for farming. Mr. Barker replied that it can not because the land that the plant sits on has been abused and would require a lot of work (recultivating) before it can be used for farming. Chair Smith opened the floor for public comments. Chair Smith also wanted to acknowledge a letter that was submitted to the city by Robert and Rebekah Tapie. SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION (in alphabetical order): Tom Anderson (1392 N. Stallion); Shirley Grindle (5021 E. Glen Arran); Kara Johan (6526 Sycamore Glen Dr.); Dan Martin (6519 Sycamore Glen Dr.); James Obermayer (6219 Shenandoah); David Piper (2765 E. Oak Ln); Pam Rosenberv (1634 River Birch Cir); Brent Schultz (6048 E. Teton Ave.). COMMENTS INCLUDED: . Concerns for health and safety because of all the dust that is in the air----<:an not keep windows opened, and layers of dust can be seen on kitchen counters. . There is a lot of traffic in and out of the area, could go up to thirty to forty (30-40) trucks on a given day, bringing in material. . Commented that applicant has not been a good neighbor, allowing the land to be used deplorably--weed-infested, lack of fencing around dangerous areas, and no attention to atheistic value. . Plants and vegetables can be grown in the area; some property owners on the same level as the plant have vegetable gardens in their backyard. . Recycling is admirable, but this heavy industrial operation of crushing concrete does not belong in a residential neighborhood. . There are some signs, but children still have access to dangerous areas. . The concrete are piled up in mounds and make loud noises when they're settling. . Around 1992, a "free dump" sign was put up and there have been a lot of recycling going on since then, which has created a lot of traffic. 15 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 7, 2002 . When property owners first bought their homes in the area, Hanson Aggregate as a mining business, which was acceptable to the property owners; but since it became a recycling business, it has become a nuisance to the community. . One hundred and twenty-one (121) people who came because of this project are represented by the Chair of the Environmental Committee. Chair Smith re-invited the applicant to conclude his presentation. Mr. Barker wanted to address a few issues: I. He understands that in their business of crushing material, it is dusty, but environmental rules and regulations are being followed. Thousands of dollars are spent each year to water the site to keep the dust controlled. 2. Net truck traffic is reduced by having the site at its current location, which is close to where the end product is being used. 3. Hours of operation has been reduced after the request by the city. 4. When there have been complaints, efforts have been made to address them. Commissioner Bonina asked that when Mr. Barker stated that his equipments are mobile, if that means the same work can be done elsewhere. Mr. Barker replied in the affirmative. Chair Smith closed the public hearing. Chair Smith directed the question of whether there is another zone in the city that will allow for this type of business operation to Mr. Rice; in which Mr. Rice replied there is, in M2 zone with a Conditional Use Permit. Comments from the commission included: Commissioner Brandman: . Commented that these are two different operations--excavating verses recycling. The change of use did not come into light until neighbors were negatively affected. She is not convinced that there isn't any other use for this site. Commissioner Romero: . In response to Mr. Ross' example of Hansen Brothers Enterprise v. Board of Supervisor, in that case, there were not visual problems that arose after the addition of operation to the business. In the case of Hanson Aggregate, there has been visual increased truck traffic. . He reiterated that Hanson Aggregate is not complying with code 17.32.010, which states that "sand, gravel, earth, and similar materials can be excavated only where they have been deposited by nature", and code 17.32.020, which states, "from raw material of materials extracted onsite". . Asked staff of the city code requirements for maintenance of property, whether Hanson Aggregate is also in violation of maintenance of property since there are dead Oleanders on the site. Mr. Rice replied that the city does have requirements that landscape be maintained to a certain level. So the city could ask the applicant address that issue. Commissioner Pruett: . Cited the possible important issues that were in support of previous decision by the Development Director: I. This operation is different from the original operation that was permitted. This different use has different impact--increase dust and by products, and increased traffic. 2. The city ordinance does allow rock crushing in M2 zone, so it is allowed in the city, just not in this current zone. 16 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2002 3. The argument that this activity is incidental and auxiliary use of the previous business is faulty. This use is distinctly different from the original permit, which makes it not incidental or auxiliary. . The fourth sentence of the code states, "It is also the intent ofthese regulations to provide assurance that as soon as it is feasible to do so that excavated areas will be maintained or modified in order to guarantee that the property will be suitable for a useful purpose." Mr. Ross argued that the subject property is not suited for any other use, but since the excavation operation has ceased by 1985, there should have been sufficient time since then for the land to recover, which may allow other suitable use. . Based on all the arguments, he does can not see how he can justify supporting the appeal. Chair Smith: . Expressed concurrence with the commissioners' comments and arguments. After the motion was carried, Chair Smith asked Mr. Rice to give instructions to the appellants for possible actions. Mr. Rice stated that the applicant may appeal by filing an application to the Community Development Department which will be scheduled for the City Council. The appeal must be registered in fifteen (15) calendar days. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to deny Appeal No. 488-02. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith Commissioner Bonina None None MOTION CARRIED (7) 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. A proposed 189 single-family residential units on 109 acres located north of Santiago Canyon Road, east of Cannon Avenue, south of the Mabury Ranch Community and west of Santiago Oaks Regional Park and the Reserve Development. The City's General Plan Land Use Map indicates that the subject site has three General Plan Land Use designations - I) Open Space (OS), 2) Resource Area (RA), and Low-Density Residential, 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre (LOR). 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). NOTE: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1647-00 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts for the project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommendation to City Council on General Plan Amendment 1-0 I, Zone Change 1208-00, Tentative Tract Map 15750, Minor Site Plan 17 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2002 Review 249-02, Variance 2113-02, Administrative Adjustment 30-02, and Final Environmental Impact Report 1647-00. Chair Smith addressed this agenda item and asked if there is anyone present in opposition to the project. A full reading of staff report was required. Mr. Rice introduced the project as above and Mr. Christopher Carnes, senior planner, the project manager to present the staff report and recommendations. Mr. Carnes presented the proposal, as outlined in the staff report. He concluded that staff does not have a list of resolutions because staff does not support the proposed land use. He then welcomed questions from the commission. Questions from the commission for Mr. Carnes included: . Commissioner Bonina asked Mr. Carnes to repeat the second (2nd) unmitigated issue. Mr. Carnes read, "If Villa Park Damn should fail for whatever reason, there are plans that are drawn up to show the areas that will be inundated with flood waters and the entire site south will be inundated with water." . Commissioner Brandman asked if she heard correctly when she heard that it is "unmitigatable?" Mr. Carnes replied in the affirmative. . Chair Smith asked if the oaks on the southeast portion of the property, are going to be left in the hands of the property owners instead of in a protected preserve. Mr. Karns replied yes. Chair Smith noted that needs acknowledgement. . Chair Smith asked for clarification concerning the under-crossings. Mr. Carnes explained that the city has two master plans, one is the bikeway master plan, which is a hard paved surface trail system; the second is a recreational trails master plan, which is a soft surface such as decomposed granite. On that master plan, it was added there would be two separate way crossings on Santiago Canyon Rd.~ne on the southeast comer, and the other connecting the trails from north to south. . Chair Smith asked for clarification concerning the trails going east and west that do not connect to anything. Mr. Carnes stated that the applicant is proposing a new trail on the recreational trails to continue what exist on the north side of Santiago Canyon Road along the frontage of the property. The second portion of the trails is to go north from Santiago Canyon Road to connect to the proposed trail on the south side of the creek channel. The trail south of the creek channel is not required by the city's master plan, and it is not permanently protected, so if the banks were to erode, that trail will disappear. The master plan does require crossing the site north to south-to go from Santiago Canyon Road to the existing trail on Mabury Avenue, which will require a bridge crossing across the creek. The recreational trails is not proposed to go anywhere, it dead ends at the applicant's westerly boundaries and the easterly end ofthe property. The bike trail on south side is requierd by the city's master plan and bike ways and they are proposed to connect to Canyon Avenue by building and grading on county owned land to the west. This trail also serves as dual maintenance road for the creek channel. But also the trails within the project boundaries will dead end as part of this project at the eastern end. This is a point of different opinions between the applicant and staff. . Commissioner Brandman asked if staff has a wish list or suggestion as to where there should be a bridge going acroSS the creek. Mr. Carnes replied that staff would like to see a bridge where the north south trails end at the creek channel and to go directly across, near the maintenance road, along Mabury Avenue. That way, there would be no requirements to maintain an equestrian trail along either side of the creek channel and the bridge can be designed on the outside of the flood planes. 18 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2002 Due to time constraint, the commission suggested that time be given to the applicant to present his project, then wait until the next meeting for public comments--there are over thirty-six (36) cards from the public who would like to speak. Chair Smith invited the applicant to present his project. Mr. Phillip Bettencourt, representing Fieldstone, presented the project. He gave a little history of Fieldstone. The goal is to develop a high quality community that is compatible with the surrounding residential uses, which provide a mix of lot sizes. Mr. Bettencourt explained the boundaries of the proposed site and their zoning. He also explained what would have to be done to rehabilitate the land for residential use because of the previous sand and gravel use. Master plan modification includes: I) Relocation of Maybury Avenue entry; 2) Multi purpose trail connection on Cannon Road; 3) Buffer at villa park landfill boundary; 4) Equestrian trail easement within equestrian lots; 5) Addition of new storm drain parallel to Handy creek. In summary the project involves: I) Remove existing industrial site; 2) Rezone sand and gravel to residential and open space; 3) Preserve neighborhood character; 4) Commitment to architectural diversity; 5) Provide recreational opportunity: a) Forty (40) acres of public open space along the creek, b) Two (2) miles of public trails, c) Constructed tax free to tax payers, d) New public park, Because of time constraint, it was agreed that the applicant would take all questions from the commission at this time and then addressed at the next meeting. Questions from the commission included: Chair Smith: I. Who will maintain the creek channels? 2. More information on the proposed gas extraction system and how it would work with the current system. 3. Explanations of the storm drain system. Commissioner Brandman: I. Given the number of units and acres based on Quimby Act, what is the formula of how big or small the park space connected to the project development should be? 2. Can this be changed or altered, if yes, by whom? 3. What is ratio per home and acreage and how is it decided? 4. Where is the open space and is the creek included? Is the creek classified as open space and can not be anything else? 5. Is there not the same kind of balance between open space and lot sizes? 6. Why is there not a better balance of lot sizes? For example, more larger-lots and less smaller-lots. 7. Concerned about the linkages of the trail system, specifically the bridge across the creek. 8. Believe Fieldstone could build a beautiful development if it would consider a blend of all the elements in the eastern part of the city. 19 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2002 9. Concerned about the proposed homes on north side of creek, adjacent to Mabury Ranch; would like to suggest leaving the grade where it is and putting in a pump station. 10. Why is the applicant unwilling to improve creek channel so that the county flood control will take it over and not leave it up to the homeowners association, who can not take care scope of project. II. Suggest considering a bio-swell to take care of the water purification situation. Commissioner Pruett: I. Would like applicant to address the issues that staff used to recommend for denial. Commissioner Romero: I. Would like applicant to address staffs comment that the two issues of air pollution and flood risk are not mitigatable. 2. Please address the general plan amendment that it must be beneficial to the whole city, not just the eastern portion of the city. 3. Please address the State's recommended ratio of three (3) acres per 1000 residents of park open space area verses Orange's existing status of two (2) acres per 1000. 4. Please address the staffs comment concerning the expectancy of the eventual erosion of the creek up to the wall. 5. Please give rational for your request for the administrative adjustment and variance. Commissioner Bonina: I. Please explore the possibility of installing a pump station at the Mabury site and also restricting the houses close to street to a one story instead of two stories. 2. Please clarify why the entrance ofthe property is as designed instead of aligning it with Jamestowne Street. 3. Please clarify the equestrian underpass on Santiago Canyon Road. Chair Smith: I. Please give rational for gate guard community verses an open community. 2. Please explore more accessibility to the park. 3. Please give rational for only 3.6 acres is given to open space, not counting the creek, which is not usable to the children. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to continue this agenda item until the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting (October 21,2002) due to lack of time to continue this item. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: INRE: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith Commissioner Bonina None None MOTION CARRIED ADJOURNMENT MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to adjourn to the Planning Commission regular meeting on Monday, October 21, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED 20 Planning Commission Minutes The meeting adjourned at 12:30am. APPROVED 21 October 7, 2002