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ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: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