2002 - October 21
APPROVED
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
October 21, 2002
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Romero, Smith
Commissioner Pruett
Jeffry Rice, Planning Manager/Secretary
Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN:
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2410-02, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION 1692-02 - ST. PAUL'S LUTHERAN CHURCH (JIM
BEAUDOIN)
The proposed project is a three-phase expansion plan at the St. Paul's Lutheran School
campus that would allow the existing school campus to expand to three classrooms per
grade. In addition to increasing the number of classrooms at the school, Master Plan
implementation involves construction of a new gymnasium/multi-purpose facilities,
renovations and expansion of existing play areas and athletic amenities, expansion of the
existing parking lot and drop off area, and driveway relocation. The new building area
totals 30,636 sq. ft. Student enrollment would increase from 475 students to 680
students, the number of faculty and staff would increase from 30 to 45, and the number of
on-site parking spaces will increase from 78 to 95. The General Plan land use
designation for the site is Public Facilities - School (PF - S). The zoning of the site is
Single Family Residential (Rl-7). The site is located at 901 East Heim Avenue. This
item was continued from the June 17,2002 meeting and August 19,2002.
NOTE:
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1692-02 has been prepared for this
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 May 29
through June 17,2002.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Continue item to the November 18,2002 meeting as per applicant's request.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman, and seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue this
agenda item to the November 18, 2002 meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Romero, Smith
None
Commissioner Pruett
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
October 21, 2002
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2425-02, VARIANCE 2112-02, AND
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 02-025 - IN-N-OUT BURGER RETAIL
CENTER (PHASE I OF II)
A proposal to develop a 2.22 acre lot by demolishing the existing Coco's restaurant and
constructing three buildings in two phases for a mix of fast-food restaurants and retail
spaces located at 2585 North Tustin Street.
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 36-02 approving Conditional Use Permit 2425-02,
Variance 2112-02, and Administrative Adjustment 02-025.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman, and seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue this
agenda item to the November 4, 2002 meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Romero, Smith
None
Commissioner Pruett
MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR:
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Smith, and seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue the Minutes
from the September 23,2002 and October 7,2002 meetings to the November 4,2002 meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Romero, Smith
None
Commissioner Pruett
MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS
3. 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 21 (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 or necessity at 1110 North Tustin Street. The
General Plan land use designation is General Commercial (GC). The zoning of the site is
Limited Business District (C-1). This item was continued from the October 7, 2002
meeting.
2
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
October 21, 2002
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 asked if there was anyone present who was opposed to this application.
Commissioner Bonina recused himself from the D & Sons International Deli and Market
discussion and action. Since there was opposition to the application, Chair Smith asked Mr.
Rice to do a full reading of the staff report.
Mr. Rice indicated the applicant had discussed these licenses with ABC. After the Police
reviewed the applications, they had no concerns with the licenses and the public convenience or
necessity for this type of market.
The public hearing was opened.
Marshall Wilkinson, 17842 Mitchell North, Irvine, represented the applicant. He said the plan
was to open an international market and delicatessen. He stated that less than 10% of the 4000
square foot store would contain liquor and according to ABC, there is no problem with obtaining
a Type 21 and Type 41 license.
Sam Doukas, 3945 Green Clover Circle, Orange, owner. He has opened two stores in the past,
both in the City of Orange. This market is a family oriented business. He is not trying to be a
liquor store and the sale of liquor would not exceed 10% of his business.
Chair Smith asked if Mr. Doukas had a letter from ABC indicating they approved a Type 21 and
41 license. Even though he did not have a letter from ABC, he did have proof of a Type 41
license, which he showed the Commissioners.
Mr. Rice received clarification from ABC that the applicant could apply for both a Type 21 and
41 license and that is the extent of what they applied for.
Mr. Doukas stated he is not pursuing a Type 47 license.
Seven people spoke in favor:
Peter Loukatos, 15712 Tustin Village Way
Antoine Triantos, 21842 Windsong Circle
S. Zois, 1214 Annadel Avenue, Rowland Heights
Peter Gabriel, 2749 N. Vista Bluff, Orange
George Doukas, 622 Las Palmas, Irvine
Sandy Dionisiou, 7132 Country Club, Anaheim Hills
Tom Stavrakas, 2218 E. Vista Canyon Rd., Orange
Many of them felt this market, selling ethnic food and liquor, was a convenience for them since
the only other Greek store was at Pico and Normandy in Los Angeles. It was stated that Mr.
Doukas is a good businessman, having established other successful businesses in the City.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
October 21,2002
Five people spoke in opposition:
Anthony Rozanski, 1933 E. Wilson, Orange
Jim Compton, 1933 E. Wilson, Orange
Ali Hajei, 1131 N. Tustin Street, Orange
Loren Palmroth, 1231 Adams, Orange
Phil Ces, 1135 N. Tustin Street, Orange
There was concern for the number of facilities selling alcohol within the area already. It was not
clear what this market had to offer that others don't and why did they have to have both on- and
off-site licenses. Also the market is located within a poor neighborhood with over 600
apartments nearby and there was concern for the women and children. Traffic congestion was
also a concern for that specific area.
Applicant's response:
Mr. Doukas said he wants only good things and he is not going to create any problems for the
City.
Commissioner Brandman was not comfortable with off-site sales and felt these items could be
purchased elsewhere. Also since this is a specialty store, not everyone would go there and it
would not meet the needs of the many, but just a few.
Mr. Romero asked Mr. Wilkinson if they were agreeable to all the conditions. He indicated they
were. This included the condition that anyon-site sale of alcohol would stop one hour before
closing and the sale of food would not exceed the sale of liquor.
Public hearing was closed.
Chair Smith noted the inconsistency on this application as it relates to the 9:00 a.m. time allowing
on-site consumption of alcohol when others, such as Zito' s, starts at 11 :00 a.m. Even though
Police had no opposition to this, it was felt it should be consistent on all applications.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve Conditional Use
Permit 2426-02, and make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity with conditions as stated
in the staff report, modifying condition 4: "Sales and service of alcoholic beverages shall be
permitted only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to one hour before closing, or 1 :00 a.m., whichever
is earlier. The consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of
11 :00 a.m. to one hour before closing, or I :00 a.m., whichever is earlier". This project is
categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Romero, Smith
Commissioner Brandman
Commissioner Pruett
MOTION CARRIED
4
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes
October 21,2002
4. 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 - 1) Open Space (OS), 2) Resource Area (RA), and Low-Density
Residential, 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre (LDR). The zoning classification for
approximately 12.60 acres located in the central area of the northerly half of the site is
zoned Residential, single-family, minimum lot size 8,000 sq. ft. (R-I-8), while the
remainder of the subject site is zoned Sand and Gravel (S-G). This item was continued
from the October 7, 2002 meeting.
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 1-01, Zone
Change 1208-00, Tentative Tract Map 15750, Minor Site Plan Review 249-
02, Variance 2113-02, Administrative Adjustment 30-02, and Final
Environmental Impact Report 1647-00.
Chair Smith asked if there was anyone present who was opposed to this application. Since there
was, Chair Smith asked Mr. Rice to do a full reading of the staff report.
Chris Carnes, Senior Planner, reported since the Planning Commission's last meeting, the
applicant and staff had met to review revisions to the project and to discuss responses to questions
from the Planning Commission. The revisions to the project included changing the application
for Zone Change 1208-00 by reducing the number of lots to be zoned R-I-20 from 13 to 10,
requesting to withdraw the application for Variance 2113-02 by asking the Planning Commission
to make a determination that the westerly property line for proposed Lot No. 189 be the front
property line, and revising the application for the Administrative Adjustment by realigning the lot
line for Lot Nos. 29, 30, 31 and 35. Also the tentative tract map and lot configurations have
changed. The Tentative Tract Map and grading plans have been revised by enlarging Letter Lot
"H" to incorporate additional native oak trees and the revetment wall along the easterly boundary
has been relocated to the land owned by the County of Orange and part of Santiago Oaks
Regional Park. The applicant has provided engineering drawings for a new location in the middle
of the site of the recreational trail bridge crossing over Santiago Creek, the relocation of the
revetment wall, the placement of a lot on Lot No. 189, and the possible location of an underpass
under Santiago Canyon Road. The applicant's botanist also evaluated the environmental impacts
of the bridge at the new location and determined that its impact would be similar to the bridge
location evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report. Staff has not had time to review the
changes to the project and will prepare comments and recommendations in the future. Mr.
Carnes also explained that staff prepared a table listing the specific applications and their
hierarchy, for the purpose of helping the Commissioners in making their project determination.
The order to consider the applications are General Plan Amendment first, Zone Change second,
and Tentative Tract Map and associated applications third. If the Planning Commission denies
5
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
October 21, 2002
the General Plan Amendment and accompanying Zone Change, its decision is final unless
appealed to the City Council. The City's Park Commission was scheduled to make a
recommendation on the proposed public park, recreational trails, and open space, however, their
meeting on October 17, 2002 was continued due to a lack of a quorum. The Park Commission is
tentatively scheduled to review this item on November 14,2002.
In response to a question regarding the Quimby Act, Mr. Carnes stated that the Quimby Act
authorizes cities to establish a park fee that is collected at the time of the tract map. In this case,
there are no standards set per the Quimby Act on how much land is to be set aside as open space
because both the community plans that apply to this property already designate this area as
passive open space. If the Commission should approve the General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change and Tract Map, then the Quimby fee would be collected off the lots as they are developed
or the City could accept the proposed park site in lieu of fees. The applicant and the City can
work out an arrangement that the park is dedicated to the City in lieu of paying Quimby fees.
Steve Cameron. 14 Corporate Plaza. Newport Beach, employed by Fieldstone. He stated that the
applicant's interpretation of the Quimby Act is different than the staffs interpretation and he will
have Ms. Hori address their view after the presentation given by Mr. Bettencourt.
Philip Bettencourt. 110 Newport Center Drive. Newport Beach, planning consultant to the
applicant. The master plan that was presented included a mixture of lots with the average lot size
of 10,500 square feet. Ten of the lots are to be zoned R -1-20 on the southeast side. The 18 lots
north of Santiago Creek are zoned R-I-8. The ten equestrian lots are sufficient in size to
accommodate a house and horse stable. They have taken a second look at the Jamestown
alignment for the proposed signalized intersection to the property. It was rejected due to the
concerns that the placement of a signal would increase traffic in the Jamestown community.
They are proposing to set aside 40 acres of public open space and acquisition which includes a
smaller portion of the 40 acres that is proposed exclusively for flood control purposes. They
think the plan is consistent with the Santiago Creek Open Space Plan. The project does not
include bridges even though they have analyzed an equestrian bridge. One of their environmental
determinations is to attempt to meet flood control objectives while keeping the look of a natural
channel. The County has indicated a willingness to accept the channel if it is built to County
standards or if the City would enter into a joint use agreement with the property owner. They are
proposing it be owned by either a homeowners association or a conservancy if the County's
acceptance does not work out. The applicant is documenting conservancy specifications. The
historical photographs are the resources used by Tetra Tech in the documentation included in the
EIR. They concur that large-scale erosion has not occurred and is unlikely to occur along
Santiago Creek as a result of construction of the revetment wall. The Mabury community built
along the creek has not experienced erosion. The City is currently responsible for any erosion
damage to Mabury Avenue and the other public facilities. Tetra Tech has concluded in their
studies that this will not increase potential for erosion along the north bank and have not proposed
further protection. Regarding the Villa Park landfill, they are coordinating with the County's
Integrated Waste Management agency regarding the extension of the landfill gas extraction
system that already exists. The County will be taking the existing system and enlarging that
system by installing additional probes or wells. Fieldstone will propose a passive ventilating
system. Following the recompaction of the site, they will do studies within a thousand feet of the
landfill boundary to determine the presence of any gas. If so, they would install an additional
extraction system if required by post construction analyzes. The storm drain system has been
redesigned to accept a new parallel structure to the existing Handy Creek boxes. The gated entry
plan has been reviewed by the City's Design Review Committee and it meets all public safety
standards. Even though this is proposed as a gated entry, all of the streets are being built to
public street standards and taxpayers will not have to maintain the street system and access has
6
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
October 21, 2002
been provided to the proposed public trail system along the creek. The only access to the park
will be pedestrian or bicycle. The park is in excess of the Quimby Act by 1.76 acres. The staff
insisted upon a four acre park alternative also be analyzed in the EIR because the City's
municipal park standards have that as the minimum size for a neighborhood park. If a four-acre
park was located it would be a loss of the four most southwesterly lots with the street network
remaining the same. They have not met with the Park, Planning and Development Commission
yet. On the southwestern border, the applicant has enlarged proposed lettered lot "H" to include
18 oaks and three adjacent residential lots can no longer be equestrian lots. 43.7 acres of the
property would be designated as permanent open space, which is 40% of the project site.
Santiago Hills' plan set aside about 22% of that property in zoned open space and this project has
set aside about 40% in zoned open space. The 10 equestrian lots would permit a 3600 square foot
single story home and a small stable plotted at the rear of each lot. The proposed public trail
connection to Santiago Creek would come from Santiago Canyon Road from the south to the
north. The recreational trail system would extend the regional trail system and it's been a priority
for them. They have discussed the possibility of a bridge crossing but they don't think it would
be appropriate to put that on these homeowners. The proposed link to the Santiago Oaks
Regional Park has been awkward due to the terrace above the park and getting the grade change.
The County and Fieldstone believe they have found a good link that will meet the approval of the
County staff since this is County property. The pad elevation of the test Mabury home is 429.
The applicant will consider single story homes for all of the lots along Mabury Avenue. The
applicant is not opposed to a sewer pump station alternative and they have built them before.
They are confident the grassy swale system will work and will meet the agency's approval. They
are trying to eliminate the Administrative Adjustments. Lot 189 was identified as a variance
which runs along the creek and they have shown an appropriate plot. Regarding the 100-year
flood land boundary, they have a Lomar Map amendment pending before FEMA. Flooding
resulting from the potential failure of the dam is an unavoidable impact for this project and
portions of the City. They have proposed an equestrian activated signalized stripped crossing at
Santiago Canyon Road that provides access from the trails network on both sides in addition to
the property. They have taken a more serious look at the crossing alternative, which would
provide a crossing of the road from the existing equestrian center site. It would start with the
existing Santiago Canyon Road grade as a fixed control and then add in the existing utilities that
are under Santiago Canyon Road already and then add an immovable sewer line onto the
property. After getting under the sewer, which is 18 feet deep, the underpass would get
approximately 33 feet below the surface of Santiago Canyon Road with this required tunnel. The
staff has indicated that the City would not own or maintain this tunnel under the public right-
away so it's not clear who will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep. In 1991, when the
subdivision map was approved on the south side, the City took a one-year prohibition on any
building permits on that side while they studied a tunnel. They see the provision of 40 acres of
public open space, a 3.6 public park, new trail alignments and connections, dedication of 7.6
acres of residentially zoned land to the Orange Park Community Corporation, the remediation of
a former sand and gravel extraction site, intersection improvements to Santiago Canyon Road and
restoration of the habitat area to County standards.
Susan Hori. 650 Town Center Drive. Suite 1250. Costa Mesa. represented Fieldstone
Communities. She explained that the Quimby Act is state legislation and its purpose is to limit
the amount of land that can be required of a developer of residential communities to dedicate or
to pay in lieu fees for local park purposes and establishes a ratio of 3 acres per 1000 new
residents. Based upon this interpretation, this project would require the dedication of 1.76 acres
of land. This project proposes a 3.6 acre parcel of property for park purposes and also the City's
EIR analyzes a four acre site. The City Council may modify the provisions of the Quimby Act
through a public hearing process. However, it cannot conflict with the provisions of the Quimby
Act or impose more requirements. To do so would conflict with State law and that would not be
7
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
October 21,2002
permissible. They are looking at a maximum of 3 acres per 1000. This property is designated
under the General Plan as a resource area and zoned for sand and gravel extraction and north of
the creek is zoned for residential for the proposed R-I-8 zoning which is consistent with the
current General Plan designation and zoning. In addition to the 3.6 acre park that has been
proposed, they are also proposing 36 additional acres of open space which lie on private property
that is not accessible to the public. As part of the project, they will be constructing new trails that
would allow the public to come into the site and utilize the creek and the open space that is
currently on private property. The project does exceed the Quimby Act requirements for local
park purposes and there is considerable open space that opens up private property for recreational
uses. She mentioned a letter that was submitted to the City Attorney last week and she's not sure
if the commissioners received it.
Chair Smith stated that the Quimby Act says that there should be three acres of park per 1000
resident and Ms. Hori is indicating it would warrant 1.76 acres. That would calculate to 2-3
people per home, around 500-600 resident. Chair Smith asked how many proposed residents are
calculated for these 189 homes and Ms. Hori calculated 576. Chair Smith asked how does the
north parcel already zoned residential figure into this calculation and Ms. Hori stated it is
included as part of the calculation. Chair Smith stated that most of the 40 acres included the
creek and both banks and she wondered if those 40 acres are accessible to the public as usable
open space. Ms. Hori explains that not all 40 acres are considered usable but the entire length of
the creek will have both a multi purpose trail as well as a recreational equestrian trail which
would allow the public access into the project.
Commissioner Brandman asked for clarification that if the creek is open space, is it open space
for looking or for using. Ms. Hori responded that it is passive open space so most of it is for
looking in order to protect the creek habitat.
Commissioner Romero asked for clarification on the Quimby Act in which the guideline requires
3 acres per 1000 for new residents. Ms. Hori stated it's 1000 persons and not necessarily new
people to the City of Orange. Commissioner Romero stated that it appears there is a very low
percentage of usable space for the horse trails. He believes that the use of the creek will be
prohibited as well as any of that open space. He does not agree with the comment that it opens up
considerable space for recreational uses.
Commissioner Bonina stated that 576 residents are projected based upon 189 houses so it
averages 2.5 per household. Ms. Hori explains that the multiplier is the number that is identified
under state and local standards. He asked if any comparison or review of the occupancy in
Santiago Hills has been done. Ms. Hori believes that development would have had the same
multiplier.
Mr. Reynolds agreed with Ms. Hori's description and characterization of the Quimby Act. The
ordinance the City has adopted is based upon federal census information and those multiplier are
what they have to work with. When the City does get land dedicated, they have to be sure it's
usable land and they may only get partial credit for it. It appears to him the applicant does have
the 1.76 acres based on the population as projected.
Ms. Hori stated that in the City's ordinance there is a definition of minimum park standards and
2/3 of it has to be level with no slopes so this property for the park meets those standards.
Mr. Reynolds explained to Commissioner Romero that when you look at a subdivision, you count
the number of units and the formula is based on the density of the project and the amount ofland
8
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
October 21, 2002
that is required can then be calculated. He explained that they couldn't burden one project with a
deficiency that is citywide.
Commissioner Brandman thought the 2.5 seemed a little low. Mr. Reynolds explained that the
Quimby Act allows us to use the federal census information and if we do not, we would have to
rely on our own independent study to determine what that might be.
Mr. Rice stated that there is a letter provided by the Orange Unified School District in response to
the environmental document where they have provided data about their March 2001 school
district demographic study showing a single family dwelling in this area generates 0.58 student
per single family dwelling.
Commissioner Brandman stated that not all students are at Orange Unified and asked if they are
required to stay with the Quimby Act and federal census numbers or can they do their own.
Mr. Reynolds explained they are required to adhere to state law on this and the multiplier is in
effect and it applies to the tentative tract map.
Mr. Rice stated that that is the maximum amount they can require the applicant to dedicate to the
City for a park according to the Quimby Act. It's different from the land use issue before the
Commissioners.
Commissioner Brandman felt that the majority is over 2.5 people per household.
Commissioner Smith stated that the applicant has doubled the Quimby Act requirement by
providing a park with 3.6 acres which is over and above what the state requires.
Mr. Bettencourt stated that the open space comparison with Santiago Hills was not a direct zone
to zone comparison. In the case of Santiago Hills II, there is only planned community text, where
here there is a tentative tract map. Regarding the creek corridor, only about half of the 40 acres is
required for flood control purposes, the rest is for habitat rich environment. Even though it is not
suitable for baseball fields or organized sport activities, it seems to be a resource that should be
preserved and protected and that's what they did.
Mr. Bettencourt rode the area on horseback and picked up continuing concern about access into
the park and uneasiness that the equestrian lots were not full service lots because of the
complexity of trail access. He has not met with the Mabury community yet but he will meet with
anyone that wants to talk to them about the plan.
Chair Smith asked about the oak grove on the southeast edge. She understood that many of the
oak trees would be left in individual lots without restriction to their removal. She had concerns
that many would be in private lots and not protected. She had read that there are over 1000 trees
to be removed from this site. Chair Smith questioned the maintenance of the creek. Neither the
County or the City wants to maintain it and the proposal of this project is that a homeowners
association would maintain it.
Mr. Bettencourt explained that in the original plan there was a common area lot in that portion of
the property that included 9 oak trees but now the lot has been enlarged to include 18 oak trees.
There is not a requirement in the subdivision ordinance or the tree preservation ordinance to do
that. There is a replacement penalty formula for the trees that cannot be preserved as a result of
grading. In response to Chair Smith concerns as to the homeowners maintaining the creek, he
indicated that the County would maintain the creek if it is constructed to County standards and/or
9
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
October 21, 2002
the City relieves the County of any contingent liability associated with erosion. The northern
portion of the boundary that is unprotected is private property. The County is not proposing to
maintain the creek because they are asking for a calculation using the Manning "N" value. Mr.
Cameron would take a look at developing specifications for a creek conservancy.
Mr. Cameron stated there are two issues. The first issue is who is going to maintain the creek
channel and second, who is going to be responsible for any erosion. The County has asked them
to use the Manning "N" value of .17 which is a coefficient of fraction of water moving through a
channel. It basically assumes no maintenance is done to the creek channel - no trees or
vegetation are removed. The responsibility issue has to do with the revetment walls and what
they are proposing to do to protect the creek from potential erosion. They have proposed to
construct a revetment wall along the entire southern border of the property along the creek and
the County is fine with that. The area of disagreement is on the north side of the creek, where
they are proposing to build a revetment wall adjacent to the eighteen lots that they would like to
build. The areas of the creek to the east and west of the 18 lots would not have revetment walls.
The County does not have any responsibility for any erosion in this area because they don't own
any of the property. The property is currently owned by private landowners and the City is
responsible for any of the erosion or damage to the public improvements on Mabury. Nothing
that they are doing on the south side of the creek increases the potential for erosion on the north
side of the creek so why shouldn't the City continue to have the responsibility for those
improvements that it currently has. That's the County's view as well.
Chair Smith saw this as an unresolved issue and wanted to know how much it would cost a
homeowners association to maintain the creek. Mr. Cameron said it would be very minimal,
maybe $10,000-$20,000 a year. There wouldn't be erosion due to the revetment walls and the
other areas would continue to be the City's responsibility.
Commissioner Bonina asked what the purpose of the conservancy is if no maintenance would be
needed in the creek. Mr. Cameron responded by saying there was a thought that perhaps a
homeowners association isn't the right entity to maintain the creek so maybe the answer might be
a conservancy.
Mr. Reynolds pointed out that a public agency like the City can be held liable for flood damage
when the improvements are approved and it's the City Attorney's recommendation that until the
County accepts the improvements and are built to County standards, the City Attorney's office
would not recommend approval of the project because the City would not want to be responsible
for indemnifying the County from any damage that may occur from flood damage. This would
ensure that the City would not have to bear the cost if these improvements are built to County
standards.
Mr. Cameron doesn't feel they are asking the City to take on any responsibilities they don't
already have in those areas of the creek that they are proposing to leave unprotected.
Commissioner Bonina asked if the County has proposed any alternatives other than the revetment
wall. Mr. Cameron said they would want a hard bank protection, which is a concrete channel on
both the northwestern and northeastern areas of the property. The County would require the rip-
rap originally built and approved for the Mabury community be brought up to existing
requirements and extend the revetment wall to the west of their property. It would be some type
of hard bank protection.
Commissioner Romero understands that the County is willing to accept maintenance of the
channel built to County standards and the County standard is the hard surface. Mr. Cameron
10
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
October 21, 2002
indicated there are two standards - there is the standard of the "N" value of .17 and the standard
of the hard bank protection. They are complying with the Manning "N" value of .17 and they
don't think they should build the revetment wall. Commissioner Romero asked if built per the
"N" standards, would the County accept it. Mr. Cameron responded yes and if the hard bank
protection is required on the north side of the creek, they would require both.
Commissioner Romero is told that what the applicant is proposing, the County would not accept.
Commissioner Brandman asked for confirmation that the revetment wall was underneath the
landscaping.
Mr. Bettencourt thanks the Commissioners for their time.
Open public hearing
Recessed until 9:40 p.m.
Spoke in favor
Jack Reimer, 2399 Carlene Circle, Corona
Dorothy Neblett, 1633 N. River Birch Circle, Orange
Vince Ferragamo, 6715 Horseshoe Road, Orange
Sid Neblett, 1633 N. River Birch, Orange
Wayne Bouchard, 232 N. Cambridge, Orange
John McCreary, 11161 S. Meads, Orange
Deann Shannon, 232 N. Cambridge, Orange
Don Vogel, 2632 E. Hillcrest, Orange
Ann Anderson-Mott, 464 S. Pine, Orange
Gary Stepp, 11442 Orange Park Blvd., Orange
Gary Poort, 11021 Meads Avenue, Orange
Marty Poort, 11021 Meads Avenue, Orange
Richard Waldren, 11322 Church Street, Orange
Al Odenath, 400 Flower, Orange
Jay Felgar, 603 E. Oakmont, Orange
Lawrence Carlson, 6315 E. Frank Lane, Orange
Mailei Bennett, 14541 Hyannis Port, Tustin
John Cox, 1774 N. Kimbark Lane, Orange
Chuck McNees, 11211 Orange Park Blvd., Orange
Jackie Pamplona, 1277 Kennymead Street, Orange
Julie Maurer, 7544 Saddlehill Tr., Orange
Art Pamplona, 1277 Kennymead, Orange
Laureen Danon, 11062 Meads Avenue, Orange
Kris Weber, 3 Hughes, Irvine
David Ginter, 4911 Warner Ave., Huntington Beach
Sybil Leffler, 10693 S. Orange Park Blvd., Orange
Charles Leffler, 10693 S. Orange Park Blvd., Orange
Scott Flora, 972 N. Big Sky Lane, Orange
Fran Kloustad, 20131 E. Chapman
Mark Sanford, Meads Avenue
Tom Davidson, 6122 Santiago Canyon Rd., Orange
Richard Siebert, 1388 N. Kennymead Street
Sherman Kaplan, 11411 South Orange Park Blvd., Orange
11
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
October 21, 2002
Tina Bartel, 11411 Orange Park Blvd., Orange
Graham Littrell, 7224 E. Wrangler Circle, Orange
Craig Olson, 699 Creekview Drive
Ken and Annette Dunn, 1490 N. Cabrillo Street (did not speak)
Comments:
. The project brings a lot to the City
. Looking for the improvement along Santiago Canyon Road and the continued trails
. Excellent opportunity to have a say in how Fieldstone will develop this area and they have
promised to keep open fields and provide a park for their community. They are donating the
property for the arena and proposing a community center.
. This project is a nice addition to the neighborhood
. The Fieldstone project would be an asset to the City of Orange
. The project will not only benefit Orange Park Acres but will benefit everyone
. Fieldstone is very sensitive to the communities they build in
. The partnership in developing this project will add to the communities with the equestrian
trail and the natural habitat
. The City doesn't have to put a penny out of their pocket to get public access to a community
center
. This would create new access to two miles of trail for horses, hikers and bikers
. This is a superior project compared to others in the past. It's felt Fieldstone is giving a lot.
. It would get rid of a pile of dirt currently on the property
. Fieldstone is an outstanding builder and stands behind their products
. It's a unique opportunity to enhance the lifestyle of Orange Park Acres
. Fieldstone is willing to bend over backwards by giving more than they have to, it can only
benefit the City.
. As a horse owner, they will be able to use the connection to Santiago Oak Regional Park and
it will provide safety
. Provide an equestrian favorable community
. Fieldstone bends over backwards to meet City requirements
. This adds two more miles to the trails and the City of Orange won't be responsible for taking
care of any of it
. Like to see horse trails and open space
. Would like to see the trail cross the creek from the south to the north side
. Fieldstone is offering 7Y2 acres of land on the south side of Santiago for an arena
. Fieldstone put in Y2 acre lots so they could have horses
. Anything down in the creek area would help it
. Superior to a high density development
. Turning the sand and gravel pit which is an eyesore into a development that could be the
pride of the area
. Shortage of free community space in the City
. Fieldstone has had many meetings with the Community leaders, they have been attentive and
as a result of those meetings, they have made many changes to the project
. Fieldstone is allowing Orange Park Acres to grow and still give them space
. This land plan is an asset to the local community and the City at large
. This is an opportunity to have the site developed by a company that is local, reputable, and
builds quality homes and is good to its employees
. Fieldstone will be employing hundreds of people to work on the project
. Increased home value in the area
12
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
October 21, 2002
. Santiago Hills II has almost 600 acres that was approved with almost 2000 homes going in.
They have a total of a 4-acre park. They took the rest of the Quimby money, 3 million
dollars, and shifted it over to the park on Prospect which only includes 3 soccer fields.
. Currently there is a lack of active parks in the area for children to play in
. Fieldstone is willing to donate the area used for the horse arena and $500,000 in seed money
towards the community center
. The community center would benefit groups such as girl scouts, boy scouts and other
organizations
. This area has the ambiance and will add to the property values and enhance the whole
neighborhood
. Appropriate and suitable use for this property, better than the existing uses which have been
an eyesore for many, many years
Neutral
Tom Anderson, 1392 N. Stallion Street
. Neither staff nor Fieldstone have satisfactorily addressed concerns such as the safe crossing
of Santiago Canyon Road from the arena to the Fieldstone site, a street level crossing would
be an extremely dangerous risk for all users; a trail system that goes nO where is of nO use;
bridging Santiago Creek with the multiuse trail is an absolute must; and both of the revetment
walls north and east provide nO protection for the trails from washout or minor erosion
Spoke in opposition
Kathy Moffat, 9891 Oakwood Circle, Villa Park
Dan Swoish, 6121 E. Mabury
Mike Walker, 5735 Valencia Drive
Howard DeCruyenaere, 2417 N. Park Blvd., Santa Ana (did not speak)
Bill Bouska, 270 N. Malena Drive, Orange
Stefanie Holcomb, 6336 Bryce Avenue
Joanne Lyding, 6241 Shenandoah
Nick Lall, 6231 E. Mabury Avenue
Ronald Levine, 6303 E. Bryce Avenue
Robert Siebert, 1308 Fairway Drive (did not speak)
Ted Endres, 1010 River Lane (did not speak)
Greg Holcomb, 6336 Bryce Avenue
Sue Obermayer, 6219 E. Shenandoah
Catherine Parker, 6145 E. Mabury Avenue
David Piper, 6705 E. Oak Lane
Robert L. French, Orange Unified School District
Karen Leach, 6209 E. Bryce (did not speak)
Shirley Grindle, 5021 E. Glen Arran
Brent Schultz, 6048 E. Teton Avenue
Tom Broz, 6306 E. Bryce
Jack Sprouls, 6049 E. Mabury Avenue (did not speak)
Michael Burkett, 1796 N. Mt. McKinley
Sue Craig, 3402 E. Vine Avenue
. This project will be bringing more students to the already overcrowded school district and
this land may be appropriate for the building of schools
13
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
October 21, 2002
. Long term impact of traffic on the streets
. Address concerns with construction and the amount of dirt coming down Yellowstone
. Impact on local schools because they are already overcrowded
. Increase of traffic along Santiago Canyon Road, the speed and number of cars traveling along
that street are more like a freeway and an additional stop light would make it even more
dangerous
. 3 acres of park is not adequate
. The land is not currently zoned for houses and maybe a park needs to be put there
. Interested in the creek and establishing a greenway with safe, protected multiuse trails
. Questions a legal, binding document between OP A and Fieldstone for the construction of the
arena
. It is time to rehabilitate the creek and houses could endanger the health, safety and general
welfare of the public
. 7 acres does nothing for the non-equestrian citizens and the project limits trails and greenway
options which benefit all
. Fieldstone has used fear tactics to coerce local residents into supporting this project
. Fieldstone is asking the City to change the General Plan, the East Orange Specific Plan, and
Orange Park Acres Specific Plan and forgetting the Santiago Creek Greenway Plan thus
asking the City of Orange to lose their open space
. This project is dividing neighborhoods by promising land and money to one group and
promoting an attitude of arrogance to others
. Fieldstone has not addressed Mabury's concerns during construction and the aftereffects.
. Another developer who allowed the homeowners association to maintain a creek next to their
development has cost millions of dollars to the County, water district and City in aiding the
homeowners association
. Does not benefit the overall community but only a small segment of the community
. A joint study session between the Planning Commission and City Council needs to take place
where everyone sits down in a public forum
. Planning staff has identified numerous problems with the project and the majority of those
have not been adequately addressed
. No reason Fieldstone should have anything rezoned if they are not willing to rezone north of
the creek
. No reason to take open space and turn it into houses
. Construction will entail using Yellowstone and will reqUIre a huge amount of trucks
operating dangerously
. The environmental impact is incomplete and inaccurate in that it did not include the 7Y2 acres
of the arena area and should be rezoned recreational open space, currently it's R-1-40
. Possible impact of the Villa Park dam and Irvine dam
. OPA committee's recommendations should be ignored because they have been compromised
. The project will only add to the overcrowding of the public schools in this area and a
dedicated school site is needed
. East Orange needs as much preservation as Old Towne
. Disappointment that OP A gave up on the community plan
. City should think a long time before approving homes in a dam inundation area downstream
of two very old dams
. Fieldstone discussion with the community has been a monologue
. Opposed not only to the north side but the whole thing
. No haul permit will be issued
. The park would only benefit 85 children
. Developer giving land which is unusable and undevelopable
14
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
October 21,2002
. There is some money perhaps from the federal government to really do something with the
creek
Mr. Rice stated that 19 emails have been received on the project. Chair Smith acknowledged the
receipt of a position paper from the Mabury Ranch Environmental Committee, emails, a
communication from the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance, letters from the Orange Unified
School District; and she has met with Fieldstone over the last two years and David Piper, as well
as speaking at length with Jim Obermayer and other members of the community, as have other
members of the Planning Commission.
Applicant's response
Mr. Bettencourt indicated that they would document the conservancy specifications at the request
of the staff. They do not feel County maintenance of the creek is the only option. They have
made a good faith effect to reach out to the parks staff and parks commission in terms of the
design elements but they did not design certain components within the park itself. The
environmental document has studied a four acre park alternative as well as the alternative that
was proposed. They did indicate to Mabury residents that they would study options for lowering
the site to ease the impact on earthwork. They are not opposed to a sewer lift station. They have
provided the first serious engineering study for the options of a tunnel on Santiago Canyon Road.
They had proposed that the tunnel be moved off the site and/or deleted from the plan. This may
not be the only option but they don't want to be plagued by off-site performance by others when
they put their project on the table and they believe the signalized intersection is adequate
mitigation for that. They have had one environmental agency reply to the environmental
documentation. They would pay the mitigation fees and the school district would charge the fees
that they are authorized to do by state law. They understand this process must proceed to City
Council and they look forward to that. He explained that this is a sand and gravel zoned
industrial site and this is not an open space parcel. It's not a resource rich parcel except for the
portion of the property that they are preserving and setting aside as open space by rehabilitating
and making available to the public. On the north creek parcel, the changes from the Mabury
perspective are positive because both the sand and gravel and the industrial zoned parcels on the
north side, that are not residential development, would be converted to open space for permanent
protection. There are no records showing there are public funds to acquire and rehabilitate any
portion of this property and make it available for public purposes anytime soon. They want to
separate the issue of the general plan and the zone change and the tract map and leave the design
issues to the design professionals. They believe the Fieldstone plan is the most appropriate, most
credible, most achievable, most reasonable, most environmentally responsible choice for this
property.
Commissioner Bonina asked Mr. Bettencourt what conclusion he has come up with for the 18 lots
and the hauling of the dirt. Mr. Bettencourt responded that there was a haul road in existence
across the creek at one time so it was the assumption the earthwork would be approved. That
haul road no longer exists. The environmental document discusses the utilization of public street
for a short-term period by using Mabury Avenue to get to the earthwork on the site. That is
largely to meet ordinary subdivision street grade and pad requirements. They would look at a
one-story restriction on all the homes on the Mabury frontage although on the reasonable pad
grades there would still be a blockage of panorama views. They are also willing to look at
building the sewer over the bridge if a multipurpose trail bridge is built. To build an
overpass/underpass tunnel would render one of the equestrian lots unusable.
Mr. Romero asked if studies had been performed on the existing spillway and the potential
change to the 12,000 cfs. Mr. Bettencourt explained that the 6,000 cfs was the design perimeter
15
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
October 21,2002
given to them for the design of the control of the waterway. The design flow for the hydrology of
the proposed revetment wall system was based on a 6,000 cfs flow assumption for the creek.
Public Hearing was closed
Commissioner Brandman asked what is the official position of the Regional Water Control
Board, have they commented on the conditions, does the staff feel the grassy swale with the bio
swale is enough or was better water quality treatment necessary. She did not feel a homeowners
association should be allowed to maintain the creek this size because it is such a large, precious
resource. It's a public resource and should be maintained by a public agency. She felt the best
location for the traffic signal is at Jamestown. She wants the staff to see if a signal was placed at
Jamestown, is there a way to stop the flow of traffic on other streets. There has been talk about
turning that whole area into a park and she feels a responsibility to make up the deficient of park
space in the City of Orange. She doesn't feel it would be putting a burden on Fieldstone to put in
a larger park parcel. Gary Wann has told Mr. Bettencourt that the City did have a need for a
passive park and a ten-acre site is needed. The Quimby Act sets criteria for 1000 people for 3
acres. Because they are dealing with a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, she proposed
that the applicant consider making a large, private stable. This would allow the elimination of the
equestrian lots and give the City ten acres. She would be in favor of a higher residential density.
The stable should be located near the park and trails, away from the playing fields and traffic.
There are 4-5 stables left in the County. She is not in favor of deleting the overpass or underpass
because an at grade crossing is unsafe. She felt that a quarter of the 180 homes might have some
type of recreational vehicle and an acre of land could be provided for the storage of recreational
vehicles. She would encourage an acre or more for a stable.
Commissioner Romero stated it is appropriate to consider the intent and polices of existing City
land use policies such as the East Orange General Plan, Orange Park Acre Plan, Master Plan for
Park Facilities, Recreational and Community Services, Master Plan of Recreational Trails and
Bikeway Masterplan. Whatever is decided, the benefit must be to the entire City and not just to a
section of the City. With that in mind, he appreciates Fieldstone but there are many concerns that
must be addressed. Open space is underprovided and to be so much at a deficient and just to be
per Quimby Act required to allow 1.76 acres as a park, that doesn't suit him as a reason for
ignoring open space deficient. The creek could potentially have a problem with erosion to the
revetment wall and even beyond so that is a concern. The age of the dams is another concern.
Should the plan be approved, the dirt import from the south is better than dirt import from the
north. It is a great plan for the area but unfortunately it is a benefit to equestrian owners and not
so much to the rest of Orange. He was disappointed that Orange Park Acres was willing to give
up on its community plan. He is having difficulty with taking the subject site out of open space
and moving it to residential.
Commissioner Bonina feels Fieldstone is a quality builder and they do a great job in other
communities and have historically worked well with communities. Unfortunately, there is a lack
of communication on one side of the community groups. He is having a problem with a General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change, understanding what the project is proposing to be as it stands
today. He would like to see a workshop take place between the City Council and Planning
Commission to get the issues out. The issues, as he sees them on the site, are creek maintenance,
liability, Park Commission input, Santiago Canyon Road crossing, the crossing
underpass/underpass, bridging over the creek for the trails extension and enhancement of the 12.6
acres of open space.
Chair Smith stated that there is no question of the integrity of the Fieldstone company and they
are a responsible developer. She commended the community's efforts for their diligence,
16
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
October 21, 2002
research, discussion and participation which has been outstanding. She does have a big problem
with changing the land use designation from open space to residential. She is not in favor of
changing the General Plan Amendment. She feels the deletion of 56 acres of the easterly portion
of the subject site from the OP A General Plan boundary and the deletion of 40 acres of the
westerly portion of the subject site from the boundaries of East Orange General Plan is too great a
loss for the City of Orange. The compensation of 3.6 acres of a public park is not adequate
reciprocation. She does not have enough information here to believe this rezoning and change of
general plan is warranted when we are already open space and park deficient in our City. She has
concern over the creek as it exists and it is not acceptable that a homeowners association
maintains the creek even after the expensive rehabilitation that Fieldstone proposes. Another
troubling issue is the fact that it is dangerous to build homes in a flood plain. She would like to
see 1000 trees saved and incorporate them into the plan. She is worried about the methane gas
emissions. She is concerned by the dangers of the construction plan which could lead to further
erosion, the death of oak trees by dust and the impact on the neighbors to the north. When so
much mitigation and intervention is needed to bring a project to a suitable status or use, it sends
up a yellow flag. Maybe it's not the best use of the land. In a City that is park deficient, she does
not think at this time it is appropriate to take this very large piece of property and rezone it to
residential.
Mr. Rice gave the Commissioners several options. First, based on all the Commission's
comments received tonight, direct the applicant to reconsider the aspects of the project and
review again the proposal with community groups and return to the Commission with new data
or, secondly, direct staff to prepare a resolution next time that would outline the Commission's
position and make recommendations to City Council on this project and leave it up to them based
on the Commission's recommendations.
Commissioner Brandman would like to direct staff and applicant to continue to work on issues.
Commissioner Bonina thinks it is important to have a workshop to provide direct communication
with all the groups.
Commissioner Smith is opposed to the proposal because she is in opposition to a change in the
land use designation.
Mr. Bettencourt would like to continue to work with the staff on concerns that have been raised.
Commissioner Smith would like specifics as to what they would like to accomplish as a result of
that continuance. She is hearing a need for a study session including City Council, community
groups represented here tonight, the Planning Commission, and Parks Commission opinions.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman, and seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue this
agenda item to the November 18, 2002 meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Romero, Smith
None
Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED
17
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
October 21,2002
INRE:
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Bonina, seconded by Commissioner Smith to adjourn to the Planning
Commission regular meeting on Monday, November 4, 2002 at 6:30 p.m.
AYES:,
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Romero, Smith
None
Commissioner Pruett
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 12:35 pm.
18