Loading...
2002 - February 4 (!;,l2'/3' G.'; .l. APPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange February 4, 2002 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Alice Angus, Community Development Director Karen Sully, Planning Manager, Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer David A. De Berry, City Attorney Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney, Madeline Russell, Recording Secretary ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON FOR 2002: MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for 2002 to the March 4th, 2002 meeting. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: INRE: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Christopher Koontz - 10252 Lolita: The Irvine Company did a wonderful thing with their gift of thousands of acres of land for preservation. Everyone benefits from that gift, nature lovers and the Irvine Co with billions of dollars in tax credits. The Irvine Co. has said that this gift is not connected to any entitlement or development proposals. He asked that the Commission to consider what is best for the City and be proactive when taking a look at development proposals. Over $400,000 of the current City Budget has been designated to I) updating all the elements of a General Plan and 2) commence planning for the East Orange Area. This is scheduled to begin in June this year. To review developments in East Orange before this process begins is placing the cart before the horse and will result in substantial and perpetual fiscal harm to the City and civil harm to the environment. The City needs to combine the East Orange and Orange general plans into one document to guide the planning; to work with the school districts and school sites; to remedy the drainage and general problems in Orange Park Acres; and to plan traffic for traffic growth. Mr. Koontz entrusted the Commission to tell the Irvine Company to wait. Alex Mintzer - 465 N. Christine St: Mr. Mintzer stated that he is the Secretary of the OC Sierra Club and they forward to playing an active role in the processes to come as the Commission considers the Irvine Company's plan. He hoped the Commission would generate a process that is beyond reproach, is open, fair, one that considers the environment and all its details. An architect can't neglect the effect of gravity on his construction. Likewise, environmental issues are just as important to the planning as gravity is to architecture. We will certainly focus on improvements to make the Irvine Co. proposal better. We recognize that some houses will be built in their planning area, recognize the right to some return on the investment. However, we can improve the process in terms of where the development goes, and the allocation of open space. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 4, 2002 Eric Noble: - 9721 Rangeview. Santa Ana: The Irvine Company has done a wonderful thing for our City and now it's up to us to be good stewards of that gift by exercising good planning. The City, not the applicant, should plan East Orange. This planning process is budgeted and we expect to utilize those funds and to not let the people at the Irvine Co. run the agenda. The last time they did this, it was a nightmare for the Planning Commission, the City, and the Community in terms of bad publicity and a lawsuit. It's not the sort of thing we ought to repeat, so we have to be proactive. The request for an EIR should be a competitive bidding process, resulting in the qualitative and quantitative choice among those bidders. Any new development in East Orange would also impact some critical watershed. New legislation makes this a real issue for the Cities of Orange and Villa Park - their drinking water comes from Irvine Lake, where the Irvine Co currently shows new houses. The Lake runoff area becomes a liability for the City if we pollute the water supply for the City of Villa Park. Second, it's critical habitat area. On December 16t", the Audubon Society did some bird counts of both lakes. In summary, in the middle of winter, they counted 83 separate species of birds in Irvine Lake and 88 at Peters Canyon Lake. This is exactly the kind of data that should be taken into account as the City plans this development. The last time the tail wagged the dog. It was not fun for us, but it was fun for the media. The Irvine Co. is the applicant. Don't let them wag us this time. Mr. Noble indicated he would submit a copy of the Audubon's bird count to the City. Rov Shahbazian - 3808 E. Palm Ave.: Mr. Shahbazian encouraged the Commission to proactively design East Orange. He recommended: I) a compact development so people can get around by walking or bicycling; 2) a small market and some sort of small business office, something similar to the layout of the Old Towne, with apartments, diverse housing, small professional offices, and food places. This minimizes transportation impact. By contrast, we have Corona, where there's housing, and Orange County, with lots of jobs, and in between, the 91 Freeway, going one way in the morning and the opposite way in the afternoon. That's not what we want to see in East Orange. He encouraged the Commission to be proactive. Brian De Sousa - 8342 E. Ironwood: Resident of Santiago Hills, Phase I and member of Orange County Bicycle Coalition. What he likes about Santiago Hills Phase I are the cul-de-sacs forming barriers to neighborhood traffic. Chapman Hills School is in the middle with lots of little trails that connect the cul- de-sacs to the school. He'd like to see that kind of thinking going in to Phase II. Parents can see their kids walking to school safely, without having to cross major streets. Mr. DeSousa is commuting bicyclist and likes bike lanes on arterials; they can be a direct way to major destinations. He understands that the bike plan is due to be updated every couple of years, and believes it's due now, and would like to see Santiago Hills, Phase II, included in that plan update. Sherry Meddick - Box 77 I. Silverado. CA: Ms. Meddick passes this area every day and has watched it for 28 years. She has serious problems with what looks like potential development out towards the lake. It makes no sense to push development closer to the City. Transportation is a serious issue and she understands there will be movement to modify the Master Plan for Arterial Highways through OCT A. Additionally, the lake area is important to wildlife - birds, lions and deer populations will be affected. These issues are all tied together. Open space dedication is important. If it turns out well, it means people have done their homework and they've worked hard to do it. If it turns out lousy, it means the public and the decision makers have failed. Mark Burkhardt - Address on File: Mr. Burkhardt stated that he lives about 5 miles away, and is probably the furthest person to ever be affected. He is a member of his neighborhood association, a preservation group of 1100 homeowners. The Irvine project will impact because of the growth the City, the opening of new schools, athletic parks, the ROP program, proposed dog parks, and bike paths. Specific traffic mitigation at the intersection of Chapman and Prospect will break West bound traffic onto Prospect Ave. His area is probably one of the fastest growing open space recreational areas in the City. 2 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 4, 2002 The Planning Commission should hold the Irvine Co. accountable for their development. The growth of our City must be scrutinized, examined, and planned properly. He expects that the Planning Commission will be innovative. In response to Chair Smith, Mr. Burkhardt indicated his association is the McPherson Neighborhood Association Preservation Group. John Ufkes - 20121 E. Clark St.: Mr. Ufkes considered the lawsuit settlement in Santiago Hills, Phase II is severely flawed. Lawsuits and lawyers can't entirely fix things and Santiago Hills, Phase II, is not fixed. The major flaw, the runoff management plan was put off until the first phase was approved. He believes that part of the problem was the barrage of information submitted. If you don't understand something, it's not time to vote, it's time to ask more questions. Phase I couldn't have been done with complete knowledge. He encouraged the Commission to set the agenda, not be overwhelmed, and not take Irvine Company's word for anything. Theresa Cerros - 7732 Santiago Canvon Road: Ms. Cerros talked about "piece mealing" relating to OC Unified School District and their schools. The area has 11,000 to 12,000 homes with one elementary school and one "promised" elementary school in Santiago Hills, Phase II. The Irvine Company recently said that they weren't going to give any schools, as it may not be needed for this phase. CEQA is designed so that you don't "piece meal". The Irvine Co. should "step up to the plate"; they can't avoid providing the school sites. There are protections in our State. ADI367 went into effect in January 2002. It allows the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the School Board to participate in planning schools so it's not left up to the developer. The demographic studies have been done. The School District needs your help. She asks the Commission not to let the Irvine Co. set the rules about schools. Tell them that the school site has been set aside, so just do it. Chair Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak - there was none and the Chair closed Public Participation INRE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: - None 3 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 4, 2002 INRE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF JANUARY 21, 2002. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue approval of the regular meeting minutes for January 21, 2002 to the next regular meeting. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: - None. INRE: NEW HEARINGS: 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-04 AND ZONE CHANGE 1212-01 Chair inquired whether anyone was in opposition. Seeing that there was opposition, Chair Smith requested complete and detailed reading of the Staff Report and asked Ms. Karen Sully to begin. Ms. Sully indicated that she would give a brief introduction of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and then ask Mr. Christopher Carnes, Senior Planer, to give further details. Ms. Sully proceeded: The City is proposing to amend its General Plan Land Use Policy Map by changing the southerly site's land use designation from GC (General Commercial) to LDR (Low-Density Residential, 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre) and to amend the City's Zoning Map by changing the northerly site's classification from R-O (Recreation - Open Space) to R-I-6 (Residential, single-family, minimum lot size 6,000 sq. ft.) and the southerly site's classification from R-O to R-I-7 (Residential, single-family, minimum lot size 7,000 sq. ft.). The proposed zone change for the northerly site does not include a general plan amendment because the site's land use designation is LDR, which is consistent with the proposed zone change. The proposal does not include any site development. The project is composed of two sites: a 0.44 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Handy Street and Palm Avenue north of Santiago Creek, referred to as the "northerly site," and two parcels totaling 7.90 acres in area located approximately 500 feet north of Chapman Avenue on the south side of the Santiago Creek channel, referred to as the "southerly site". The Santiago Creek channel separates the northerly site from the southerly site. Ms. Sully then showed these two parcel sites on the map posted behind the Commissioners. Ms. Sully then noted that Negative Declaration 1683-01 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 Negative Declaration 1683-01 is January 14,2002 to February 4,2002. This is included in the Staff Report packet. She indicated that Staff is recommending the Commission adopt Resolution PC 02-02, which recommends to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-04 and Zone Change 1212- 01. 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 4, 2002 Mr. Carnes began with some additional background on the proposal. The existing conditions for the two properties: the northerly site is presently been graded level, has artificial rock for the creek, and is totally unimproved; the southerly site was used as a sand and gravel operation in the fifties, and subsequently as landfill for construction, which differentiates it from the other park sites which were used for general landfill. The site is generally filled with construction material and back-filled with soil. So, there is no condition decaying materials causing methane gas or hazardous materials on the site. A survey study conducted on the site found that it had a depth of approximately 40 to 50 ft. The Northeast part of the site is generally not back-filled land. The southerly site does include about an acre of the creek bed and a portion of that land in the creek channel is riparian habitat that has grown over the last 20 to 30 years. The entire southerly site has been back-filled and is totally artificial. This proj ect is unique, it is proposed by the City to resolve a court case resulting from a difference between the General Plan Land Use Policy Map and the Zoning Map. Approximately I y, year ago, Commission and Council considered a proposal that changed the northerly site zoning to R-I-6, and on the southerly site there was a General Plan Amendment proposal to change it to General Commercial (GC). The associated zone change was to make it C-I and include a project that required a Conditional Use Permit, Negative Declaration and a Variance to allow the southerly site, with minimum development, to be used for a storage facility. That proposal would allow the public to rent truck containers and store materials in those containers. It also allowed Recreational Vehicle storage outside. The plans provided that as the property settled over time, the material containers would be removed in order to back-fill the property with asphalt. It did include a bike trail along the northerly part of the southerly site adjacent to the creek channel. That proposal did not include any development on the creek embankment or in the creek channel. The proposal was approved by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council. At the first Council hearing, the proposal was approved by a vote of 3-2. The approval included a General Plan Amendment to General Commercial, a Zone Change to C-I, a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed storage facility, the Variance that allowed additional height for fencing around the perimeter of the proposal, and the Negative Declaration. The approval required the zone change have a first and second reading and a majority vote of the Council, because it's an ordinance amendment. When the proposal returned to the City Council for the first reading, the Council had changed due to elections in 2000. There were only four Council Members and the vote was 2-2. Therefore the Council could not pass the zone change. The result - the General Plan was the only part of the proposal approved. The southerly site was left with a General Plan designation of General Commercial. It left the zoning as Recreational Open Space. As a result of the court case, the City was required to bring the General Plan and the Zoning into conformance, since the zoning ofR-O is not consistent with the General Plan land use designation General Commercial. The City Staff has recommended that the southerly site General Plan be changed to Low Density Residential, which allows single-family homes at a density ranging from 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre. The zone change to the northerly site is to R-I-6, which is similar to already developed properties to the North and West of that site. The proposed zone change for the southerly site is R-I-7. Staff makes this recommendation because a similar residential development exists to the East of the southerly site. Staffs review of the proposal and Negative Declaration, found the proposed General Plan designation and zoning classifications do not have an adverse affect on the City's General Plan or any of their planning documents and the proposed designations do not divide a community. The proposal also does not preclude any of the regional recreational trail plans; they would be incorporated at the time the southerly site or the northerly site is developed. Also the proposal does not preclude the potential extension ofYorba Street towards Walnut or the potential for Yorbajust extending to the new park site to the North of the southerly site. The Negative Declaration analyzes the potential impact of the proposed zone change and General Plan Amendment. 5 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 4, 2002 Any future development of either site would require further environmental review. Specifically, for the southerly site, any development would have to include an impact study on the existing riparian habitat for development within the creek channel. As a reminder, the County Flood Control owns a majority of the creek channel that lies between the southerly site and the northerly site. In conclusion, Staffs recommendation includes that the Commission approve: . Resolution No. PC 02-02 which is for the General Plan Amendment 2001-04, that the southerly site be designated LDR, 2-6 dwelling units per acre; . Resolution No. PC 03-02, Zone Change No 1212-01, which is for the northerly site to be zoned R-I-6 and that the southerly site be zoned R-I-7; . And, Negative Declaration 1683-01. Chair Smith: Chair Smith said that she noticed a Master Plan of Trails, page 2-9 of the Staff Report, which reads as follows: "The City's Master Plan of Trails designates a multi-purpose recreational trail along the Santiago Creek Channel from Hart Park to Santiago Oaks Regional Park." She questioned, if this were to be re-zoned to residential, how do these two fit together, and do they fit together? Mr. Carnes: Any development would have to incorporate the potential multi-purpose trail. Currently there is an existing, believed to be a 15 ft. wide surface that connects the two and allows access to the creek. It's also used as a bike trail and is located to the South of Collins between the terminus of Walnut and Collins, next to the Rock Creek Development. In the Council's original action, the storage facility, on the southerly side, required the applicant provide a 32 ft. bike trail and a soft trail. That was to be incorporated into the design of the storage facility and was also to exclude creek channel. However, at this time, it's not been determined whether the recreational trail will be located on the South or North side of the channel. There are advantages and disadvantages to either. With approval of the current proposal, any residential development will have to include a recreational trail traversing the property along the creek channel. Chair Smith: the Staff Report states and Chris reiterated that approximately I-acre of the southerly site is in the creek channel. Does that mean that the part of the map, identified as "creek", in the actual channel, is an acre and how is that measured? Chris Carnes: The actual creek channel comes onto the southerly site approximately 30 ft. at the center down by the word Santiago, it comes in about 70 ft. at the North tip of the southerly site, by the word "channel", and it comes around that northerly property line. At the southerly site, all around the Northwest part the approximate acre is within the creek channel. The top of the bank is further in the boundary line than is shown there. Chair Smith: She is still confused because it says that approximately I-acre of the southerly site is within the creek channel and Chris just mentioned that it's on the northern end. Chris Carne: The creek channel extends along the northerly property line and approximately I-acre is in the creek channel. He added that ultimately, in the old days there would have been a concrete channel on that piece ofland built right up to that boundary line. Chair Smith: And that is included as property owned by someone other than the Flood Control District? Mr. Carnes: Yes, by the property owners of the southern and northerly sites. Commissioner Brandman: Mr. Carnes, can you clarifY for me how close homes can be developed to the creek on the southerly side, if this is approved? 6 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 4, 2002 Mr. Carnes: On the southerly side, the top of the channel is at the southern end about 30 ft. back from the property line, that is the lot goes back about 70 ft. There's nothing in the decision made tonight that determines where those homes could be built. That will be determined at the time a specific proposal is brought forth. The applicant could propose a future alignment that runs up the trail to that county boundary line and mitigate with improvements elsewhere along Santiago Creek. Or they could keep the trail and the new alignment ofYorba at the top of the existing creek bank and homes would be between Yorba and the existing homes to the East of that site and the hospital to the South. That would be determined at the time any development is proposed for that property. Chair Smith: Asked Mr. Carnes to clarify plans for roads or streets on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways? Mr. Carnes: The City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways has, as a study area, the potential extension ofYorba from Chapman to Walnut. That is a "Special Study Street" and hasn't determined if that street is ever going to be built or not at some future date. This proposal does not preclude that nor does it encourage that. It can be developed at a future date if access to Yorba is terminated where it is today. Commissioner Brandman: Mr. Carnes, if this is approved tonight, and the applicant or owner of the property comes up with a development plan, will the Commission's approval drive the decision about development ofYorba Street? Mr. Carnes: It could be related to what was done at the Storage Facility, because Yorba Street was incorporated into that site plan. Maybe the Assistant City Engineer can help answer that. Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer: As Mr. Carnes mentioned, Yorba Street is a "Special Study Street". At this time it doesn't carry a designation as any type of arterial, but it could be classified anywhere from "secondary" which is a 4-lane-undivded highway, to as high as a "primary", a 6-lane- divided highway. It could also not be classified at all. It will depend on the circulation of the area. Whether the Commission's decision would drive the development of that street the answer is, probably not. In the case of the Self Storage Unit it was the street was developed to access the site. Because it is a "Study Street" we would set aside sufficient area in which to build a 4-lane-undivided highway. The City is just now looking a updating our circulation element and that will, in part, determine what the regional needs for this area are. Mr. Hohnbaum also mentioned that arterials typically are listed on the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. This street is not; it is listed only on the City's Circulation Element. So it's up to the City to decide what it's future needs will be based upon development, not only of this area but the general area around it, as well. Commissioner Bonina: Mr. Carnes, you mentioned that part of the site, sounds like a fairly substantial part of the site, is construction debris that is back-filled up to 40 ft. to 50 ft. Mr. Carnes: Correct. Commissioner Bonina: What portion of the site is that, approximately? Mr. Carnes: Approximately 4\1, acres. It's the area directly North of the vacant Medical Building and the Chapman General Hospital Parking Lot. That's where it is at it's deepest, the Southwest corner of the site. As you go northeast on the site it begins to shallow out to about the end of the panhandle. Commissioner Bonina: Given that this is construction back-filled debris, is there a substantial difference in developing the site as a storage unit vs. a residential area? 7 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 4, 2002 Mr. Carnes: A tremendous difference. For the storage proposal, the applicant drove part of that because he did not have to do any site improvements to use it as a storage facility. There were no buildings proposed as part of that proposal. It was just truck containers placed on a block and overtime they would be adjusted as the ground settles. There would be no impacts on the creek channel if that proposal was totally pushed back to the top of the channel. Any residential development would require the entire site to be dug up, similar to the Sycamore Crossing Development that is just West of Tustin along the creek channel where they had to dig out 120 ft. in order to build those homes. Commissioner Bonina: You mentioned that the second time the storage project went to the City Council, there was a 2-2 vote. Mr. Carnes: Correct. Chair Smith: Chair Smith noted for the record that the Commission had received a letter from John J. Flynn, III, to be entered into the public record. Next, she asked Ms. Sully if there was any further information to be given to the Commission from the Staff Report. Ms. Sully: None Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney to Chair Smith: You should also note the response from the City Attorney. Chair Smith: The Commission has received a memo from the City Attorney, David De Berry, dated February 4, 2002 in response to the Flynn letter of February 4, 2002. Chair Smith: Called for Public Participation. She noted that there is a 3-minute time period for each speaker and asked participants stick to the topic of the General Plan Amendment before the Commission. She also asked that they try to cover different points for the best use of time. SPEAKERS: Mel Vernon - 363 N. Lincoln: Meandering creeks, even those that are dry most of the year, act as lifelines for wetland plants and animals. The Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over all salt, brackish, and fresh water wetlands know to the agency as "waters of the United States". Wetlands are Southern California's most rapidly vanishing resource. 91 percent to 95 percent of California's wetlands, even before intensive development began, have been erased over the past 100 years. Small incremental losses do not seem to have much measurable effect, but as they accumulate over time. Santiago Creek, although dry most of the year, is critical to habitat during the first season of rain. Mr. Vernon asked if the Army Corps of Engineers had been notified of this action. He stated that he was surprised of this action and that he hadn't seen anything on the City's website and he has previously requested posting of all Staff documents on the website. In the open space and conservation element ofthe General Plan, there are many mentions of the important open space lands. Open space may be set aside for conservation and/or managed protection of natural resources, including mineral deposits, water resources or wildlife habitat. Mr. Vernon concluded that he believes it is very important to keep this property as open space. Bill Bouska - 270 N. Melana Ave (adjacent to property being considered for re-zoning): Mr. Bouska questioned whether the environmental documents were ready on the 14th. He said he checked with Chris Carnes who indicated they had been delayed some. So, jfthat date were a critical date, he'd like some clarification on that. Mr. Bouska voiced his opposition to the proposed zoning change from open space to residential. His reasons were: I. Approximately I acre of the property is in the creek channel and has riparian habitat. 8 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 4, 2002 2. The best uses of the flood channel are flood control, water percolation, plant, bird and wildlife habitat, and recreation, not residential. 3. The best uses of a property do not always equate to the amount of profit a single developer or group of developers can generate from a parcel of land or, perhaps, how much road can we nexus, to make it attractive to a developer. Mr. Bouska continued that he had attended meetings concerning the impending water shortage Southern California faces. As a result of water district test on Santiago Creek, he had been told that this area is ideal for water percolation. This information comes from the highest level of officials in the Orange County Water District. Re-zoning does not conform to the open space and conservation element of the General Plan. It will not serve to protect the existing areas from flooding and will only increase the risk of residential damage by allowing homes closer to the flow. It will not protect the City's ground water resource. The long-term health of the community will be degraded, something that developers seldom consider. This is the planners' responsibility. The subject property can come into compliance with State law by changing the channel plan to recreational open space. The newly purchased railroad should also be zoned and general planned as such, as some ofthis area is also in the creek channel. Mr. Bouska said that he purchased his home with R-O zoning next door. R-O it should remain. He reminded the Commission that on November 28th, at the 3'd attempt at a Council hearing, over 40 speakers stayed steadfast and spoke against re-zoning this property. Not one citizen raised a voice in favor. He asked the Commission not to make a mistake on this issue. Let a developer come forward and ask for a zoning change in conjunction with the plan. Both the creek and the property need clean-up attention, not degradation. Housing does not belong on this buffer of open space. Arlon Craig - 3402 E Vine Ave: Mr. Craig began with a statement of opposition to any zone change from Recreational Open Space to any other designation. The great tradition, a tragic tradition in this City, is that Recreational Open Space is only a holding pattern for development. That's the reason we have half the amount of parks the City needs. The map displayed, behind the Commissioners, has beautiful green areas on it; it needs a lot more green and open space along the creek. Marilyn Moore - 2707 Killingsworth (since 1963): In addition to construction landfill down there, a lot of surreptitious dropping of material that went on in that area at midnight and she witnessed it. So, there is other than construction material in there and it been filled to a depth of several feet in back of the property. Mrs. Moore indicated that her property is impacted on two sides by this proposed change. A small trail that goes nowhere and an open space that isn't accessible to a majority of the population is worse than useless. She urged the Commission to keep this area as Open Space. With apologies to Kevin Costner in Field of Dreams, "if you build it, they will come", if you re-zone, they will build. Ms. Moore expressed concern about the liability to the City, if residences are built here and subsidence takes place as it has in Yorba Park. Who's responsible for that? The intersection at Yorba and Chapman Ave. is grid locked now. If you add more houses in there, where does that traffic go? She stated the Santiago Creek could flood as happened in the late '60s, when they were evacuated and two houses went into the creek and down the water. John Moore - 2707 Killingsworth (since 1963): Mr. Moore believes that the best use ofthe area is open space. He has always considered the area behind his house a valuable asset to the property, and if houses are built on it, at least the kind of houses you're going to have space for, there will be a serious degradation of property value. He suggested the need to look at the actual contour of the creek. It doesn't follow that nice straight line shown on the map. There is an area in the actual bed of the creek that's much wider than shown. If you try to put a bike path and road there, there will be nothing left for houses and if houses are put there, they wouldn't be of credit to the neighborhood. There's a problem with traffic coming out onto Chapman. That's one of the busiest parts of Chapman Avenue, and any new housing there would cause more traffic to dump onto that road, at the busiest part of the day, on the busiest part of the street. He concluded that the best use is to keep it as a potential bike trail. 9 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 4, 2002 Shirlev Grindle - 5021 E. Glen Arran): Shirley Grindle indicated she doesn't think any of the speakers oppose the recommended action on the North side of the creek. She stated the she had two comments about the proposal for the South side of the creek. 1. This property is not suitable for residential use as it currently sits. She considered it deceitful, on the part of the study, to put a residential zone on that property. First, it was a sand and gravel pit, then, it was a trash dumpsite. It is still filled with trash, and just covered over with dirt. It's a monumental cost to remove all that debris. 2. Ms Grindle stated that she finds something wrong with having property, with a proposed third use, getting a residential zoning when it's not really residential property. Additionally, the map displayed does not reveal how much of that property is actually in the creek channel. Isn't there something wrong with zoning a creek bed residential? Shouldn't the creek bed stay R-O, shouldn't it be unusable property? Property like this that's been used twice over should remain R-O. In the past twelve years, there have been two developers who looked at this property and considered it for residential development. It doesn't pencil out, maybe it will in fifteen years, when property is more valuable, that is, if we haven't managed to do something else with it by then. When that time comes, let that developer ask for a residential zone and a General Plan of residential. Ms. Grindle concluded this area should stay Open Space because that's how it's really useful right now. Let's not risk the value of this property. She also noted, in closing, that the Staff Review Committee unanimously voted to keep this property R-O and asked the Commission to seriously consider what they were doing. Mike McKenzie - 271 N. Melena (adjacent to the property being considered for a zone change): Mr. McKenzie stated he is completely opposed to this zone change, because the Negative Declaration indicated that with the proposed residential zoning, the amount of homes that can be built is considerably less because of the shape and size of the land. If you actually look at the site, it is very oddly shaped and there isn't any use for it except as open space, as a park site or something of that nature. Mr. McKenzie said he couldn't picture homes being built there; it's such a small area. How would they fit in that space with a 32 ft. bike trail? He believes that changing the zoning is very wrong. Chair Smith asked if there was anyone else from the public who wished to speak - there were none. She then asked Ms. Sully for clarification. First, whether there was a requirement for an EIR before this action is taken? Ms. Sully responded that an EIR was not required because there was no impact as a result ofthe proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and there would be no mitigation measures as a result of the action. So, Staff processed the project with a Negative Declaration. Commissioner Brandman: Ms. Sully, if this proposal were put to vote, is there a possibility to separate the two sites? Ms. Sully responded that the Commission's action was to vote on a recommendation to the Council, not a final approval. Chair Smith: Called on Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, for further clarification. Chair Smith explained that when the Commission votes on the General Plan Amendment she believes that the Commission would be voting on both the Southerly and the Northerly sites. Mr. Sheatz: His understanding was that the proposed action was a General Plan Amendment on the Southerly site along with a zone change and on the Northerly site is was only a zone change. Chair Smith: Would that require two separate votes? The Community Development Director, Alice Angus, responded that separate actions could be taken. If you want to look at the Northerly Site, considering it currently has a Residential General Plan land use designation with an R-I Zoning. The only action proposed is to change the zoning to R-I-6. That could be a separate action. For the Southerly site, 10 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 4, 2002 there is a General Plan Use Action and a Zoning Change proposed which can be looked at separately, keeping consistency in mind. Chair Smith asked for any other questions - there were none and the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett: There was a question as to whether the Staff Review Committee unanimously approved the R-O or at least endorsed that. Ms. Sully indicated that the SRC review and recommendation was addressed in the StaffReporl. The Staff Review Committee reviewed the project on January 14th While she didn't know whether it was unanimous or not, it was a majority. The SRC recommendation was for staff to analyze other options. The SRC supported the residential zoning for the Northerly site, and for the Southerly site, they wanted consideration of Open Space. Staff did that through the Negative Declaration and also analyzed it in the Staff Report. Chair Smith: Regarding the Negative Declaration, there is no proposal at this time. On page 2-16, there is a reference under Aesthetics, Comments Section, item #2, that the existing plant material does not have any trees that are notable for size. Chair Smith indicated that indeed there is a very large, mature Pepper tree on the creek bank. She believes that if any development were to take place we would want to look at preservation of that tree. She requested that item #2 be amended to call out that particular tree. She asked Staff if it was feasible to note that tree in the Negative Declaration. Item #2 should be amended because there are indeed trees and that one was particularly notable. This item has no reference to the Pepper trees. Ms. Sully indicated that when a development proposal is brought forward there would be further environmental review and that tree would be considered. Ms. Sully stated that the Pepper tree is not considered riparian, but it could be added. Mr. Sheatz: Mr. Flynn's letter, page 3, next to the last paragraph, he raises an issue about the zone change rendering the development of the property economically infeasible. There was also some testimony to that fact this evening and Commissioner Bonina asked an earlier question indicative of that, as well. Mr. Sheatz indicated that to his knowledge, there is no evidence that development would be economically infeasible. It certainly will cost more, but there hasn't been any evidence introduced that would indicate economic infeasibility. Opinions may differ, but doesn't believe that zoning designation decisions in the past have been based on what was economically feasible. Chair Smith called for discussion. Commissioner Pruett: The Staff Review Committee's recommendation is for Open Space and the item before the Commission is for the Residential Zone. Commissioner Pruett wanted to know how did we come up with two different issues. Karen Sully: Ms. Sully responded that Planning Staff, in concert with the City Attorney's office, has brought the application forward. Staff review has led to a recommendation of Residential. Staff presented it to the Staff Review Committee who recommended Open Space. In many cases their recommendation may differ from Staffs recommendation. So, it is the Planning Commission's discretion to hear all the information, to review all the reports, to listen to public testimony in order to make a decision. Commissioner Pruett: Staffs recommendation for Residential is based on the fact that the adjoining properties are residential and it should be zoned similar to that. Commissioner Pruett stated that he was searching for some of the rational. Ms. Sully responded that Mr. Pruett was correct and added that the recommendation does not preclude the trail and open space provisions that normally are required of a residential project. 11 Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2002 APPROVED Commissioner Brandman: Mrs. Brandman stated she knows of other Cities, including Orange, that have had successful residential sites built around a creek and they've taken care of all the necessary environmental concerns. She indicated she was concerned about the appearance of a decision tonight without going further back and re-investigating the Southerly site, not the Northerly site. Can the two sites be separated? She would like to see the Commission go back and get involved with the citizens. Commissioner Brandman indicated that she was not saying that a residential development could not be fit in and be lovely there without negatively impacting the community but, there were questions she needed to have answered. Commissioner Bonina: Queried Ms. Sully about the statement that the residential development would help facilitate development of trails and parks. He asked whether development of trails and parks would also be available, if the property development was other than residential. Ms. Sully: Yes. In terms of facilitating, she thought she stated that any residential development would be required to look at trails and other issues. The City could make that a requirement. In terms of any other development, past proposals have shared that same sentiment. A recreational trail was proposed as part of the storage facility. So to answer Commissioner Bonina's question - any proposal could entertain trails. Commissioner Pruett: Believed there was a distinction between what was before the Commission and another development a zone change for residential. The current proposal allows parks and open space types of development vs. a storage facility that was previously approved. In other words, there would be a zone change that would go with that. Is that correct? Karen Sully: Requested the Commissioner restate his question. Commissioner Pruett responded that he was trying to find the distinction between what was proposed before. He said it does allow for the trails and the kind of development associated with it, but the actual use of the property, in terms of open space or parks, would be limited. Is that correct? Ms. Sully replied that he was correct. A C-l zoning could allow the property to be developed at a higher Floor Area Ratio. Community Development Director, Alice Angus: Explained further - when the Mini Storage proposal went through they had some extra leverage because they were asking for the zone change in the General Plan in conjunction with the actual proposal. For instance, if the property was zoned and had a General Plan and a designation of General Commercial, obviously, Staff would look at the Master Plan of Recreational Trails. In terms of getting parkland out of that development, it would be very difficult to have a nexus to add that requirement. Conversely, if a property is given a Residential General Plan designation and zoning, there is some ability to look at parkland dedication and obviously the trails issues, as well. And previously stated, parkland and recreational uses are also permitted uses within low density residential, R-I-7. Commissioner Bonina: If the property were left R-O, they would have to propose a general plan and a re- zoning, if they wanted to go residential. The City would have just as much leverage, if not more, in terms of negotiating. Ms. Angus: Correct, as with any zoning change. If it was left R-O and the General Plan was changed to Open Space, then any subsequent development were proposed, the City would have some leverage to negotiate what type of recreational amenities, in addition to what is normally required from any development, because of a change from General Plan and Zoning to residential or commercial development. 12 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 4, 2002 Commissioner Romero: If you zone the property as Open Space, how does that affect the property owner, does the City get into an issue where the property owner says you have to buy this land? Alice Angus: It's a bigger question, and it concerns Staff. The Staff Report indicated that an R-O, Open Space zoning and Open Space type of General Plan designation, typically, in the City has been reserved for property that's in public ownership. The only exception is the Ridgeline Golf Course, which recognized an existing viable use of the golf course and tennis club there. Ms. Angus doesn't have knowledge the City has ever taken the action to put those two designations on a property that wasn't either in public ownership or already used as a recreational type. Mr. Sheatz: He indicated he understood the importance of understanding the history and thinks the Commission maybe deviating a little from the issue. He would hate to have a misinterpretation on issues such as leverage. He suggested getting back to the issue at hand. Commissioner Pruett: Wanted to try to know what the legal issues were. Mr. Sheatz: The legal issue here is compliance with the State law, which is conforming a zoning to the General Plan designation. Commissioner Brandman: Inquired whether there was a plan relating to the existing trail system. Mr. Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer: Stated that the City is currently working toward identifying the Santiago Creek Trail, sometimes called the Tustin Branch Trail. The study is about ready to go into the environmental evaluation phase to review alignments on both sides of the creek. It would be a multi-purpose trail, width unknown, but it could easily contain both paved and soft walking type of trails. That being said, the study is not complete, it will probably take another eight months before it's put to the decision process. It's very possible there will be one type trail on one side and another type on the other side, or there might be trails on both sides. Commissioner Brandman: wanted to know if she was incorrect in assuming that whatever the zone is the trail will be taken care of? Mr. Hohnbaum responded that zoning being suggested does not preclude those locations on the property being discussed. Commissioner Romero: Regarding the southerly properly, if it is approved as residential, that would allow open space, parks, trails and, potentially, what anyone may want to have on the property. The Commission could, potentially, cause more problems for the City, with regards to the assumption, not that it's correct, that the City would want the property causing the landowner, potentially, to realize a lower value for the property. Commissioner Romero believed that the thought process appears more in agreement with the residential route because it does leave open space capability and sti11leave the uniformity, which is the desired accomplishment. Ms. Su111y responded that Commissioner Romero had precisely encapsulated the Staff recommendation. Chair Smith: clarified that the Commission's task is simply to bring the General Plan and the Zoning into compliance. Both the Staff Review Committee's recommendation and the Staff's Proposal bring the two into conformance. The Commission should not get bogged down with potential future use, because that would depend on a future applicant. Chair Smith: Reiterated that the past action on this property was not passed, and she personally does not think this is a suitable site for homes. It is an irregularly shaped parcel and can't envision anyone living there. She indicated she was leaning toward the Recreational Open Space Zoning and agreeing exactly 13 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 4, 2002 with the Staff Review Committed recommendation, as there is so much flexibility should an applicant come forward. The recreational open space determination keeps this parcel in front of the community. While she sincerely appreciated Commissioner Romero's observations that public recreational facilities and parks are a permitted use in the residential category, she did not see the residential designation as the first and best use of this property. She reminded the Commission that this is not the final action - it is a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Pruett: What is the correct thing to do? Staffs recommendation is appropriate for both the Genera] Plan and Land Use designation and thinks indicating that this site is not appropriate for residential development, without a proposal, is unfair. The property adjacent to it on the other side of the creek is residential and there are residences all along the creek. This parcel is not, necessarily inappropriate for residential use. The other issue of important is the idea that the property being unusually shaped, that happens all the time and believes it's a challenge to the property owner to fit a project onto it. Therefore, he doesn't have a lot of concern in terms of zoning this as residential and thinks Staffs recommendation is appropriate considering the issues being confronted. He hoped the Commission would carefully consider the action to be taken. The factors are complex and there are a lot of issues, it's in the best interest of the City to take the action recommended. Chair Smith: The property is not completely bounded by residential use. There is a large medical facility South of the largest border of this property. She failed to state that one of her concerns was simply roads or access to this site because the southerly portion appears to be somewhat landlocked. Commissioner Brandman: It is correct assume that a Commission vote to have the southerly portion remain R-O, does not preclude the landowner's ability to request development and get a review. Ms. Sully indicated that Commissioner Brandman was correct. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve Resolution PC 03-02 and recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1212-0 I to reclassify approximately 7.9 acres of property located North of Chapman. Commissioner Pruett inquired whether they should be taken separately or concurrently. Ms. Sully recommended taking two separate actions and indicated that the Negative Declaration is part of those actions. Chair Smith called for discussion. Commissioner Brandman: Asked for clarification from the City Attorney, whether a "No" vote to the current motion, would that mean a "No" for the entire proposal. Smith added that she wanted to vote "Yes" for the northerly section as proposed, but not the southerly section as proposed. Assistant City Attorney Sheatz: Thought the Commission move separately because the General Plan Amendment was only attached to the southerly site and the Zone Change is applicable to both the northerly and southerly sites. Chair Smith: Called for a revised motion to address each site separately. Commissioner Romero: Motioned approval of Resolution PC 02-02, which is a resolution of the Planning Commission to approve a General Plan Amendment 2001-04 along with the findings reported on page 2- 47 of the Staff Report. 14 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 4, 2002 Commission Pruett: Advised there is a motion currently pending. The question to the maker of the motion is whether he wants to divide that motion into two motions? Attorney Sheatz: The maker of the motion can amend the motion to make two separate parts as it pertains to the northerly site and as it pertains to the southerly site. Commissioner Romero: The motion stands as it was stated, without dividing the two sites. Commissioner Pruett: Seconded in agreement with that motion. Attorney Sheatz: Clarified that Commissioner Romero made a motion to leave the first motion as it was entered, that is, zone change for both the northerly site and southerly site to residential. Chair Smith: Asked whether there was the Commission was unwilIing to deal with the two items separately and asked for clarification. Commissioner Bonina: The Commission needs to vote on what was proposed, even if the vote is not to approve it, then separate the two items. VOTE ON COMMISSIONER ROMERO'S MOTION AYES: Commissioners Pruett, Romero ABSTAIN: None NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Smith MOTION FAILED Attorney Sheatz: The Commission could move to adopt a resolution that recommends to the City Council the proposed re-zone of the northerly site and a similar motion as it would apply to the southerly site. Chair Smith asked if that was because the General Plan is already in place on the northerly section. Attorney Sheatz indicated she was correct. MOTION Moved by Chair Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett to adopt the resolution to re-zone the northerly side to R- I -6. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Chair Smith, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to recommend a change in the General Plan Land Use Policy Map designation from General Commercial (GC) to Open Space (OS) to bring the southerly site into consistency with the site's existing Recreation - Open Space (R-O) zoning classification. Discussion: Commission Pruett said he did not agree that it is the appropriate action considering all the evidence that is before the Commission and he would oppose the motion for that reason. He continued it's unfortunate that the Commission is in this situation because we've lost site of some of the issues we are confronted with. ]5 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 4, 2002 Chair Smith: It is a very complicated process. She was on the Commission when it was heard some time ago and at that time she did not have all the information she found out later that she could have had in making, what she thought, could have been a better decision. Given the information she now has and weighing those things, she is quite comfortable with the motion. It's simply a recommendation to the Council and she wants both perspectives noted when this goes into public record. VOTE ON COMMISSIONER SMITH'S MOTION A YES: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Smith ABSTAIN: None NOES: Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED INRE: NEW BUSINESS: - None INRE: ADJOURNMENT: MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to adjourn to the next meeting, rescheduled, due to President's Day - February 18th, to Wednesday, February 20th at 7:00 p.m. with a study session at 6:00 p.m. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: Commissioners Brandman, Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. 16