Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 - July 21 e.ol600.Q. ~.-3 Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2008 1 of 25 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange July 21,2008 Monday~7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Imboden, Merino, and Steiner Commissioner Whitaker STAFF PRESENT: Alice Angus, Director Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Amir Farahani, City Traffic Engineer Frank Sun, City Engineering Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:42 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Consent Calendar: Item #1, Minutes from the July 7,2008 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Imboden stated he would abstain from the vote as he had not been present at the meeting. No changes to the minutes were noted. New Hearings: Item #2, Ordinance amending Chapter 17.34 of the Orange Municipal Code for Off-Street parking and loading requirements. Chair Steiner stated they had received a great amount of background information on the item and it had been previously discussed at length. Commissioner Merino stated he would have questions as he had missed a previous presentation. Item #3, DRC No. 4083-06, Holy Sepulcher Cemetery. Chair Steiner stated there had been a last minute change to the proposed project for withdrawal of any changes to the 1.1 acre of property proposed for a new maintenance facility and he asked if the changes had been reflected in their packets? Mr. Knight stated upon presentation by Ms. Nguyen the changes would be discussed for the record. Mr. Reynolds distributed additional information that had been provided by the applicant. It was a traffic analysis completed by the applicant's consultant firm. Ms. Nguyen stated there was also a memo from the City's Traffic Engineer provided in the Commissioner's packets. Chair Steiner confirmed that the Commissioners present had reviewed the 20 page letter that had been sent to them. Commissioners Imboden and Merino confirmed they were in receipt of the letter and had reviewed it. Chair Steiner asked Staff if the names of the persons who had submitted letters would need to be read into the record? Mr. Knight stated Ms. Nguyen would address the receipt of letters in her presentation. Page 1 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2008 2 of 25 Item #4, DRC No. 4299-07 Citrus Grove Apartments. Chair Steiner stated the CUP on the proposed project had been removed per Staff's instructions, everything else on the project remained the same. Item #5, DRC No. 4229-07 Hertfelder Residence. Mr. Knight suggested that Item #5 be moved up in the agenda as it was anticipated that there would be many speakers present for items #3 and #4. Chair Steiner stated he would review the request and make a determination. Commissioner Merino asked if a motion was needed to change the order the items would be heard. Mr. Knight stated there was not a motion required, it would be at the discretion of the Commission to make the change. Other information: Chair Steiner confirmed with Mr. Knight that contact had been made with a resident having a previous inquiry regarding artificial turf. Mr. Knight confirmed he had made contact. Administrative Session closed @ 6:50 p.m. PRESENTATION: Presentation of Resolution No. PC-18-08 expressing appreciation to Phillip Bonina and commending him for over six and a half years of service on the Planning Commission. Chair Steiner presented a certificate of appreciation to Phillip Bonina. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7, 2008. Chair Steiner made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 7, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioner Merino, and Steiner None Commissioner Imboden Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS: (2) ORDINANCE AMENDMENT-CITY OF ORANGE (This item was moved and heard as Item 5) Page 2 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2008 3 of 25 An Ordinance amending Chapter 17.34 of the Orange Municipal Code to modify the City's Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. LOCATION: CITY WIDE NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5-Minor alterations in Land Use Limitations). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 27-08 recommending City Council approval of an Ordinance amending Chapter 17.34 of the Orange Municipal Code to modify the City's Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the discussion for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Merino stated he had missed the meeting where the item had been previously discussed. He stated regarding a multi-family residential development they had seen many projects that were considered to be under parked in guest parking spaces. He asked for clarification on the .2 spaces per unit, if that would be above and beyond the parking requirement which would allow one guest parking space per every 5 units and was that considered a low number? Ms. Pehoushek stated in comparison to other cities, it was dealt with in a variety of ways. Some cities required 12 space per unit for guest parking and others had a lower per unit for guest parking but had a higher parking standard for the different unit types. There were many approaches to the issue and they had taken a more restrained approach in the adjustment of the standard. The codes of the 1960 and 1970's had not required guest parking unless the complex was over 10 units in size and in reviewing the overall parking requirements they were low for guest parking. Commissioner Merino stated several projects had been previously presented that were under parked and he felt 5 units with only 1 guest space was low. He asked if Staff had found a higher impact in those units with a higher guest parking space requirement? Ms. Pehoushek stated they had not gone into that detail of discussion and the Housing Community Development Department made the determination. Chair Steiner stated the change noted it was a minimum of .2 spaces which would not necessarily suggest that there could not be more than that number. Ms. Pehoushek stated from a planner's standpoint in reviewing a project, .2 would be the starting point. Page 3 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 4 of 25 Commissioner Merino stated on page 8 of the Staff Report to make the language more user friendly. In the second paragraph which referred to gas stations with convenience stores, he asked if that included gas stations without service bays with a convenience store, and perhaps the language could be amended to clarify the statement? Ms. Pehoushek stated the intent was to include any stations with service bays in the higher standard, and the language could be clarified. Commissioner Merino stated he was pleased that they had moved toward a 9' width in parking spaces. Although it could be stated that people would be driving smaller more gas economical cars, with technological advances that condition could change and bring back larger vehicles and create a parking issue with smaller parking spaces. Commissioner Imboden stated he initially had not concurred with the 9' width, and he had not had a change of heart. He felt the super size culture that they continued moving toward was questionable and the City would be working backward in going to that. He stated he drove an S.U.V. and had no problem getting in and out of the existing parking spaces. In was not a move toward sustainability to park less cars on the same amount of land. He strongly urged the City Council to reconsider that action. In making driveways and streets wider it encouraged people to drive faster and in the area of safety he wanted to move away from that. Commissioner Merino asked Commissioner Imboden to clarify the nexus between wider driveways and larger parking stalls in creating a problem? Commissioner Imboden stated it was the point of creating greater ease and maneuverability - that could be done faster, it was the reason streets and driveways were widened. He felt it was an automatic response and not the best response. Chair Steiner stated he agreed with Commissioner Imboden and the consideration for space, and with larger spaces fewer spaces would be provided. He urged City Council to review the matter, as he felt it was a regressive step rather than a progressive step and felt it was not a wise decision. On the .2 determination on guest parking he had a concern for providing too much parking and adding to a problem the City was working hard to prevent, the situation of too many people staying in one residence and the additional parking would encourage that. The unavailability of parking would not be a remedy; however, the .2 scheme was adequate. He stated on the reserved space, for expectant mothers, family, hybrid parking, etc., the proposed language stated that specialized designated parking spaces for individuals other than those allowed for handicapped per Federal and State Parking requirement would not be counted towards the parking required for individual use. He asked in the event a project was to be approved and then the specialized parking were to appear, how would they accommodate for that? Ms. Pehoushek stated the applicant would need to find a way to create more spaces. Chair Steiner stated it would be after the fact and asked how would that be handled? Page 4 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 5 of 25 Ms. Pehoushek stated she felt it would be handled through code enforcement. Chair Imboden stated the issue of the specialized parking could be handled at the application process, the applicant could be made aware of the requirement and that it would be made a standard condition. Chair Steiner stated it was also a matter of the enforcement of these parking spaces as a person would not be towed for parking in an expectant mother parking space if they were not an expectant mother. There was no statutory requirement that would permit that. In the event that a business owner would install a number of specialized parking spaces that would cut into available parking the issue could be addressed at the application stage. Commissioner Imboden stated if there was restricted parking it could cause a citizen to park in a neighboring parking area and he felt the problem would be avoided via a condition. Commissioner Merino stated in regard to guest parking, that would be the unintended consequence of not having enough available guest parking and it was difficult to legislate human behavior and the law of unintended consequences would cause them to park in the street and create a larger issue. Chair Steiner stated he would never go so far as to state a parking ordinance could regulate human behavior and he felt the .2 was adequate and if there was a difference of opinion the City Council could work it out. Chair Steiner made a motion to adopt PC 27-08, recommending to the City Council approval of an Ordinance amending Chapter 17.34 modifying the City's Off-Street parking and loading requirements, adding the observations from Commissioner Merino regarding the .2 guest parking availability and Commissioner Imboden and Chair Steiner's remarks regarding the negative impact associated with widening of parking spaces and the generalized consensus of the specialized parking and the need to include efforts to address parking shortage issues. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED (3) GPA 2006-0001, ZONE CHANGE 1244-06. VARIANCE 2174-06, MAJOR SITE PLAN 0440-06, DRC NO. 4083-06 AND MND 1768-06-HOL Y SEPULCHER CEMETERY. A proposal to develop 11 acres of vacant land. The development would include the construction of an administration building, mausoleums, wall crypts, family estates, lawn crypts, maintenance facility, and improvements to the entry fencing and trail upgrades and/or dedications. Page 5 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 6 of 25 LOCATION: 7845 East Santiago Canyon Road NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1768-06 was prepared to evaluate the Potential environmental impacts of the this project in accordance with the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 22-08, recommending the City Council approve GPA 2006-0001, ZC 1244-06. Variance 2174-06, MJSP 0440-06, DRC No. 4083-06 and MND 1768-06 to permit the expansion of the cemetery. Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She stated there had been a last minute change to the proposed project and the 1.1 acre and maintenance facility would be omitted from the proposal. Chair Steiner opened the discussion for any questions to Staff. There were none. Chair Steiner asked the applicant to step forward to address the Commission. Applicant, Mike Padian, 14 Crucillo, Rancho Santa Margarita, introduced the other applicant representatives that were present and would be available for questions. He stated the proposed project was the product of years of design and numerous meetings with the City and neighborhood organizations. They had been through several major re- designs with 3 different architectural firms. He felt the project being presented met the projects requirements. The applicant's representatives had met with local residents and the Orange Park Association in both formal and informal meetings on numerous occasions over the course of several years. Over the past 2 12 years the project had been through 4 different planners, 2 City Traffic Engineers and at least 4 internal Staff Review Committee meetings, 3 meetings of the Orange Park Planning & Development Commission and 2 City Design Review Committee meetings. The end result was that each committee, department and commission had recommended approval of the project. He stated during each review they had made the revisions requested by the City and had met all the City requirements. The Diocese was very proud of the proposed design which would be the nicest of the Orange Diocese' three cemeteries. The presentation would focus on the major elements of the project, including the mausoleum, the new office, street side fencing improvements and the dedication of existing and the construction of new trails. Issues that had been raised by the local residents would also be addressed. Applicant, Mike Wesner, 2811 E. Villa Real, presented the proposed project through a power point presentation. He stated the project was with the Catholic Diocese of Orange and they were not only Holy Sepulcher Cemetery, they represented the Catholic Diocese of Orange. The proposed project provided faith based services to the community. The Diocese included places of worship, places of care, places of education, places of help, and Christian burial which was a large aspect of what they did. The Catholic cemeteries of the Diocese of Orange were integral to the Catholic burial and an expression of their faith. One of the earliest functions of the church was to tend to the deaths of the Catholic Page 6 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 7 of 25 community and bury them with respect and dignity. Mr. Wesner stated Holy Sepulcher Church was established in 1930. There were currently 35.6 developed acres and they proposed an extension of 10.1 acres. Burials to date were 38,974 with graves available to offer the community at 14,677, which was part of the proposed project and included the mausoleum. The existing inventory would last for 28 years of life of grave sales to the Catholic community. The proposed inventory was 22,441 which represented 52 years of life of grave sales to the community. The 2007 burial rate was 766 burials and they anticipated a downward trend, he presented a graph that displayed the information he was presenting. The benefits to the community would be to maintain burial opportunities for families with mausoleum, cremation and ground burials. The proposed project would offer new and enhanced recreational trails and improved access to the trail system with safer conditions on and along Santiago Canyon Road. There would be beautification along Santiago Canyon Road with pilasters and ornamental fencing. There would be no increase in the daily, monthly or annual activity, there would be only a replacement of diminished grave space and they would be adding additional grave opportunities for the Catholic families to use. The proposed project would also increase the life of the cemetery for generations to use. Mr. Padian stated the cemetery in its current condition was operating legally, they could continue to place direct burials on the 10 acre parcel without any additional approvals. If that would take place the cemetery would gain 14,000 grave spaces. With the proposed project addition of the mausoleum and wall crypts, it would bring the total of grave space opportunities to the 22,000 range and a life span of 52 years. All the areas that would be shown as extension areas could be utilized currently with direct burials without any additional approvals from the City. Chris Mekus, 445 E. Illinois St. #333, Chicago, stated his architectural firm's specialty was in the area of cemetery planning. As Mr. Padian stated, the proposed project, if approved, would create new recreational trails and provide a new visual experience. The project would include new replacement cemetery inventory to meet the future needs of the community. There would be the creation of wall crypts, a mausoleum, a small number of private mausoleums and new ground burial sites. He pointed out these areas on a map he presented to the Commission. The project was a Master Plan Development which unified Mediterranean and Tuscan architectural design themes and mirrored many of the existing residences in the neighborhood. All elements of the proposed proj ect met or exceeded the City zoning requirements for both the existing and proposed zoning. The buildings represented a floor area ratio of 21 % over the 10 acre expansion area and 5% over the entire 47 acre parcel, which was well below any of the residential units. He presented slides that represented views of the mausoleum from Santiago Canyon Road. The building had been placed at the lowest point of the cemetery expansion area. From Santiago Canyon Road, the building had an appearance of a one-story building and from the reservoir area, it had the two-story appearance. As the building was sited at the lowest point of the property, the impact on the views when traveling along Santiago Canyon Road would not be obscured. He presented elevations of the mausoleum and explained the different heights of the building. Mr. Mekus presented a building plan and stated it depicted both indoor and outdoor Page 7 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2008 8 of 25 crypts, with much of the structure located out of doors surrounded by courtyards. In comparison to the adjoining residences, the mausoleum was of similar mass and at its closest point was 200' from the closest residence. Only the top of the mausoleum and the upper walls of the family estates near the reservoir would be visible. He also presented an exhibit which illustrated the view from the other side of the reservoir and the view from the master bedroom of the south positioned residence. The residence was buffered by trees. The other main building on the site would be the administrative building which was set into the natural grade. The building would house the offices of counselor training, a small chapel on the upper floor with the lower floor used for the administrative offices. He stated a variance was being requested for the fencing along Santiago Canyon Road. Currently the road contained a 6' chain link fence 10' from the curb. The City code limited the fence to 42" in height within 10' of the property line and 6' elsewhere. The cemetery proposed to construct an ornamental picket fence with piers that would be similar in design to what would be found on the building. The majority of the frontage from the southern boundary to the northern access driveway would contain fencing in the same location as the existing fence. The fence could not be placed further into the property due to existing internments located along the fence line. Landscape would slightly protrude through the fence creating a softer look along Santiago Canyon Road with a screened view of the cemetery. From the northerly driveway to the northwest corner the fence was proposed to be 8' from the right-of-way to accommodate a recreational trail. In comparison, there was a variety of different residential wall treatments that did not contain any landscape. Their intent was to provide a landscape and theme with the proposed fence design. Mr. Padian stated the cemetery property was currently zoned Rl-40 residential allowing cemeteries as a conditionally permitted use, which meant the project could be developed as planned without changing the zoning. At the time the project application was sought several years ago, it had been submitted for a CUP. During the course of their review in early 2007, the City determined the existing zoning of residential was inconsistent with the over reaching General Plan for a public facility. Arguing that residential and public uses were incompatible, the City required that the zoning be made consistent. The Diocese proceeded with zoning revisions in conjunction with the project, requiring a more exhaustive review of the project's environmental impact. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was determined by the City to be the most appropriate vehicle to review the project's potential impacts due to the predominantly less than significant impact. The project was consistent with the City's General Plan and Orange Park Acres Specific Plan. The project provided for public right-of-way improvements, although the expansion would not warrant such improvements. The project provided for safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation both on and off site. City services were adequately available to serve the project and the project had been designed to fully mitigate any adverse environmental impacts. Mr. Padian continued with information regarding the traffic issues associated with the project. In summary, the project would not create significant impacts to the area's traffic or pedestrian and equestrian safety. The amount of traffic was determined by the rate of internments and as the rate of internments was not anticipated to change significantly, the rate of traffic would not change. In light of concerns raised by several residents a traffic analysis had been prepared based on empirical data gathered by two traffic counters Page 8 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 9 of 25 along Santiago Canyon Road as well as the primary and secondary access points during a 9 day period from Saturday, June 21 to Sunday, June 29. The period contained higher than average daily rates than previously presented, however, included days when there were only a few or no services. The amount of additional traffic generated would be zero. The project would be adding only replacement inventory and a more in depth traffic study was not required. On a worst case basis, there were 37 p.m. peak trips, below the City guideline of 50 trips and 360 daily trips which was well below the City guideline. The project would have a less than significant impact on regional traffic. In order to facilitate analysis through the CEQA process, the project was proposed to be constructed in 3 phases over a 10 year period. There would not be a steady construction period over 10 years, but rather the construction for each phase would take less time. Construction of the wall crypts and the administration office were anticipated to take 9 months with the longest construction process of the mausoleum at approximately 1 year. Most peak construction traffic would occur outside of the a.m. and p.m. peak traffic hours and any traffic generated would occur during midday. The data gathered included employees coming and going and funeral processions on site. Mr. Padian stated there had been traffic accidents along Santiago Canyon Road which were generally due to excessive speed and road design to the north of the cemetery and were not directly associated with the cemetery. The installation of a traffic signal proposed by the City would greatly reduce the possibility of situations involving cemetery traffic. The City's Traffic Engineers had reviewed the project over the past years and had concluded an additional traffic study was not required. In addition, all funeral processions occurred outside of the a.m. and p.m. peaks with larger processions were accompanied by Police personnel. Mr. Padian stated air quality impacts were analyzed in depth and it was concluded the proposed project would not have a significant impact on air quality. The project was consistent with the General Plan and Orange Park Acres Specific Plan in assuming the undeveloped acreage to the south would ultimately be developed into cemetery usage. Mr. Padian stated if the project was approved the proposed project would include significant contributions to the City's recreational trail system. The cemetery would formally dedicate Coyote Wash Trail and develop new trail segments along Santiago Canyon Road. There existed a Santiago crossing to the south at Newport Avenue and there existed another crossing at Mead, the new crossing would be located between those two and provided an easy egress and a quick and easy access for the residential and equestrian users to enter the reservoir to the east. The cemetery had worked with the OP A over the last several years to define the trail details which were consistent with the City and Orange Park Acre Guidelines. The last correspondence from the OP A acknowledged their formal approval of the trail design with a request to expand the set back buffer for the trail on the west side of Santiago Canyon Road. The trails had also been reviewed and approved by the City's Park Planning Committee. The project had no cumulative impact and the MND adequately described the project element and the trails. The City, County or OP A had not yet formally accepted the offer to accept and maintain the proposed trails. The OP A had verbally proposed to accept them. The MND also explained the new structures proposed uses and the parking requirements and uses. Lastly, a cellular phone antenna was included in the site plan, to ensure full disclosure, as the cemetery had been approached by numerous cell site companies with applications Page 9 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2008 10 of 25 from cellular firms on previous occasions. The MND clearly stated the antenna would not be part of the proposed project and the cemetery had not signed any contracts or agreements regarding a cell site. Assistant City Attorney, Ted Reynolds asked if the traffic assessment that had been received by City Staff should be entered into the record? Chair Steiner stated it was received and noted that it had been distributed and reviewed. Mr. Padian stated as there had been a significant concern from the public, they had independently provided the traffic study information. Commissioner Merino stated regarding traffic concerns, it was noted that death rates drove the influx of business; he asked if the Diocese planned to take additional business from the other cemetery sites and move them to the Orange location? Mr. Padian stated the cemetery had two other locations in Lake Forest and Huntington Beach. The improvements that were proposed at Holy Sepulcher Cemetery were a part of the Diocese to improve all of their locations. The intent was not to draw business away from any of the other locations, but to maintain an even distribution among the locations. Commissioner Merino asked what had led to the proposed trail design and the alterations in trail width and set back buffers? Mr. Padian stated the initial submittal had proposed a standard wood fence where the current chain link fence sat creating a 6 1/2' wide trail. After discussions with the City and OP A the suggestion was to enhance and upgrade the trails to City standards. The proposed project provided 10' wide trails which required cutting into the existing slope and they had agreed to provide a 4 rail metal fence with an additional trail barrier of 2'. The additional trail barrier consisted of keystone blocks that created a softer retaining wall which resulted in a 2' x 2' buffer separating the trail from the road both vertically and horizontally. The end result being a 10' wide trail with a buffer and enhanced fencing. Commissioner Merino stated he understood the Diocese wanted to make every effort to make the trails safe for the OP A users and the community as a whole. Mr. Padian stated the intent was to make the trails safe. Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing. Doug Bennett, 7741 E. Santiago Canyon Road, Orange, stated he lived in the residence directly to the north. He asked with the exclusion of the maintenance facility would the trail continue back to the Villa Park dam with the extension along the 1.1 acre property? Mark Sanford, 10591 S. Meads Avenue, Orange stated he was currently the chairman of the Orange Park Acres Real Estate Committee made up of 9 members to access the OP A Board on land use issues that affected the OP A Specific Plan area. There were 4 issues Page 10 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 11 of 25 they looked at 1) The land use of 1.1 acres, which was being omitted. 2) Road safety 3) Light location and 4) Visual aesthetics of the proposed building, the building was different from the initial proposed building that was submitted years ago and they were interested in the square footage of the building. In regard to the trail, he had spent 2 years working with the Master Plan of Trails which adopted a City document that addressed the trail system. There were 2 safe crossing locations to cross Santiago Canyon Road, he understood that one of the existing trails was to be deleted and asked if the trail which was being presented was a replacement for that trail? He felt the trail was not a safe trail as it existed. The Committee was put together to make suggestions to the Diocese on how to make the trail safer. The trail was on an incline ending the trail at the edge of Santiago Canyon Road and having the potential for cars to end up in a horse's face. They had suggested moving the trail in to create a buffer to lessen the visual impact of vehicles at the trail's end. The trails were class B trails, which made them available not only for equestrian use but also for joggers and bikers. They wanted to solve the issues and make it a safe place. Theresa Sears, 2783 Santiago Canyon Road, Orange, stated she felt the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1768-08 which was prepared to evaluate the environmental impact met the provisions of CEQA. She suggested the City request an EIR to analyze the potentially significant effects of the project which included aesthetics, land use, planning, traffic, air quality, recreational and other cumulative impacts. The cumulative impacts included Santiago Hills Planned Community, East Orange Planned Community, the expansion of Salem Church and school, the expansion of Sully Miller Ridgeline, the expansion of Santiago College and other projects that might come before the City. She was pleased that the City required the zoning be consistent with the General Plan and that the re-zone of the 1.1 acre parcel had been pulled. Her primary concern was the size of the mausoleum, traffic safety and the safety of the multi-use trails. Safety was a huge concern for OP A and it was important that the project was completed properly with no corners cut. She felt the approvals before the Commission were appropriate and recommended that the matter be tabled with the additional information that had been added. They had suggested an EIR which was outlined in the letter of July 17, 2008. Ms. Sears stated they were not far apart, there was not a problem with many of the proposed improvements, and in addition, she requested the Commission instruct the Diocese to meet with the Orange Park Real Estate Committee and with Scott Richards. It was her hope to resolve the issues in a fair and equitable manner. Laura Thomas, 7211 Clydesdale, Orange Park Acres, stated she backed to Santiago Canyon Road and had experience with the traffic in the area. She was concerned with traffic and trail safety; there were many walkers and joggers that used the bike lane for approximately 6/10ths of a mile. She rode the trail that was being extended and she felt the buffer from the curb should have a 10' setback with a landscape buffer similar to the reserve trail that ran from Orange Park Boulevard along Santiago Canyon to Mead. The two trails the Diocese spoke about dedicating had been maintained by OP A and her perception on the expansion was an addition to the trail that would run parallel to Mr. Bennett's property and was not being dedicated. She was concerned that they could be denied use of that trail and connectivity of the trails was important. In reference to the additional signal, addition she felt they would be piece mealing Santiago Canyon Road and wondered if there would be additional signals at the other main crossings and felt a Page 11 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 12of25 traffic study was warranted. Joseph Barsa, 10362 Jerome St., Villa Park, stated he was a former Mayor and City Council Member of the City of Orange and a parishioner of St. Norbert's Church, a member of the Orange Rotary Club and a founding chairman of Orange Community Bank. He stated the project before the Commission was an important one, almost as important as a hospital or library is to the infrastructure of the community. It was important to the older members of the community who are concerned with a final and appropriate resting place. Every major project would have its proponents and its detractors, the detractors were generally a minority group more concerned with special interests rather than the good of the community - that was democracy working at its best. It was up to the appointed and elected officials to judge the merits of the projects and the benefits to the community. He stated the proposed project was extremely attractive and needed for those no longer blessed with youth. He felt the mausoleum within the cemetery would enhance the property significantly and the Diocese had made the proposed project attractive and had taken safety into consideration. He urged the Commission to act favorably on the project. Tom Davidson, address on file, representing the OP A, he stated he was the president of OPA. He had recused himself from the City's Park Planning and Trail Commission when they had met on the proposed project. He had worked closely with the Diocese and they had been very cooperative. There were still 3 concerns 1) Traffic. He believed that there would not be a significant amount of traffic generated by the project. The City needed a comprehensive plan for traffic on Santiago Canyon Road. 2) Trails. Orange Park Acres was being asked to receive the trail that would be dedicated by the Diocese. OP A would be responsible for the maintenance and insuring of the trails. They currently maintained and insured 20% of the current trails. He was concerned with Rattlesnake Trail that rose up Santiago Canyon Road, the Diocese had been very good about working with them on the trail; however, based on the City of Orange Master Plan of Trails an item had been overlooked. Mr. Davidson stated under Item No.5, bullet point 2 he quoted, "maximize the trail separation between roads and trails with planting and distance." He felt the trail was unsafe according to the guideline. There was a planting buffer on the east side of Santiago Canyon Road, but on the west side the OP A would be asked to accept a trail that was unsafe by City standards. The Diocese had been cooperative in making the trail a 10' wide trail, however, there needed to be a planting buffer. 3) Signalized entry. A signalized entry would be a great safety addition for crossing and controlling traffic and as he wasn't a traffic expert wondered if the signal was in the right spot and that it needed to be looked at. The mausoleum was attractive and he felt story poles would help in reviewing the project. Marty Poort, 1102 Meads, Orange, stated she had a concern with the 1.1 acre being removed from the plan. Most of the trail, which she had recently walked, would end at the cemetery if the 1.1 acre was not expanded. The idea was to have connecting trails to the two county parks and have loop trails. She asked for clarification on the trail. She stated with some modifications the project could be very good and she had no problems with the mausoleum. Scott Richmond, 7825 Santiago Canyon Road, Orange, stated he was a member of Page 12 of25 Pages July 21,2008 13 of 25 Orange Park Acres Planning Commission for approximately 20 years, before it was disbanded and he had been a resident of Orange for over 60 years and a resident of Orange Park Acres for over 30 years. He had the privilege to be included in joint meetings with the City, Diocese and Orange Park Acres and he was pleased that the groups had been working together. There were many benefits to the community with the proposed project especially with trails and their dedication. He suggested a signal at the southern entrance to the cemetery, as upon exiting Lolita during heavy traffic they had to turn right and there were numerous problems with dead man's corner. He felt with a little more fine tuning, the proposed project would work out for the community and he would like to see it approved. Planning Commission Minutes Don Sabers, 4071 N. Santa Cecilia St., Orange stated he urged the Commissioners to accept the proposed project. The Diocese had spent a lot of time and effort meeting with the community, City agencies, and OP A and it was a good project and something that was needed in the area. The traffic signal was needed in the area and the trails would be a benefit. He felt there were a group of people wanting more and looking to see how far they could push the matter. Mr. Sabers stated he urged the Commission to accept the project. Commissioner Merino stated in understanding the OP A Board had an advisory capacity to the City he asked Mr. Davidson, who indicated he was the president of the OP A Board, if the comments he presented were the official comments from the OP A Board in an advisory capacity or was it Mr. Davidson's personal opinions that were presented? Mr. Davidson stated the comments made were his personal opinions. Chair Steiner invited the applicant to respond to the public comments made. Applicant, Joe Novoa, address on file, representing the Diocese of Orange, stated they had many exhaustive meetings with the community, they had walked the trails, listened to their concerns and explained the reasoning for the proposed trail design. If they were to cut into the hill to create more of a trail buffer they would be encroaching onto neighboring properties. There was a buffer when the expansion to Santiago Canyon was expanded. They had met with the community groups and negotiated a best possible scenario for all parties involved. The idea for the elevated concrete barrier to keep cars away from the trail was added. They had also agreed to add the metal fence and they had lengthened and widened the trail as it approached the street to create a buffer. Mr. Novoa stated the Diocese and their representatives had cooperated and they felt they had an agreement with the various groups. He felt they had met all the requirements, suggestions and it had been done with compromise from both sides and they had presented the best and safest solution. The project had been reviewed by the City Parks Department and they had signed off on the trail designs. The proposed trails would not cross any private property other than the cemetery property. Although they would not be developing the 1.1 acre maintenance area, the trail would continue along Santiago Canyon Road and reach the dedicated storm drain as previously proposed. Mr. Padian stated the reason the 1.1 acre parcel had been taken away from the project was due to a last minute technicality, they were disappointed it had occurred, however, Page 13 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 14 of 25 they made a determination to move forward. They had a choice of modifying the project or continuing the project. The intent was to expand the trail along Santiago Canyon Road. There was no requirement to add a trail or the traffic signal; it was voluntarily being added by the Diocese as enhancements and as a good neighbor. The project would not generate enough traffic to warrant a traffic study. If the City made a determination that another traffic study was required they would support that, however, the project should not be held up for a study due to a larger regional traffic concern. The proposed project included trails. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was the appropriate vehicle for determining environmental impacts of the proposed project. The project contained unique circumstances and they had ensured that the air quality requirements were met. There had been some concern with the size of the mausoleum. The previous project submittal contained a much larger and taller structure; they had worked hard to soften the look of the building. Commissioner Merino asked if the square footage of the project had been doubled, and asked from a net usable square footage standpoint, had it doubled? Mr. Padian stated the proposed project had grown, however, he could not state that it had doubled in size. Commissioner Merino asked for a rough calculation on the square footage. He asked on the maintenance yard elimination would the existing facility be retained? Mr. Padian stated the current facility was somewhat dated; it was functional but would not provide many comforts to the employees of the maintenance operations. A new facility would contain the same number of bays, both male and female restroom and shower facilities would be added, as well as a break room and office. The intent would be to utilize the existing facility and retain the opportunity to return at a later date to re- address the maintenance facility issue. Commissioner Merino asked if the trail that bordered the proposed maintenance facility would still be a part of the project? Mr. Padian stated yes, that part of the trail would still be added. Commissioner Merino stated clearly it was the Diocese intent to make the trails safe. There were comments brought up by Mr. Davidson regarding a City trail guideline and he requested clarification from Staff if they were within the safety standards of the City Guidelines. He asked Mr. Padian if the trail was not within a safe standard from the City Guidelines,would the Diocese be willing to make the appropriate changes to comply? Mr. Padian stated he felt the proposed plan included safe trails. During discussions with the OP A they had discussed the issue specifically. They had spoken with the OP A, City Park Planning and the DRC to determine what constituted a safe barrier and they had agreed upon a four rail steel fence. It included 4 x 4 posts with steel rails which was a substantial fence and not found anywhere else currently along the trail system. They had relied on the OP A and its members to advise them on what they desired. Page 14 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 15 of 25 Chair Steiner stated it was a difficult proposition as the alternative was no trails, and that would not be appealing. It was difficult to image that the proposed project was before them without having a safety determination, particularly given the involvement with so many parties in their ultimate development. It would be interesting to review the guidelines, recognizing that guidelines were merely guidelines and they were not entirely applicable to all situations. Commissioner Imboden stated it would be interesting to review the fence standards as well. Chair Steiner addressed Staff to clarify the trail guideline and fence issues. Community Services Director, Marie Knight, stated the Diocese came to the Parks Planning and Development Commission in March of 2007 with a recommendation for a trail width of 6' along Santiago Canyon Road. The City Guidelines required on a 6' trail that there be turnouts at every 150' of trail. There had been concerns from the community and the Commission listened to the public comments suggesting a widening of the trail. She felt the Diocese had been very cooperative in coming up with solutions. If the Diocese were to add a 10' trail width including a 6' set back from curb, it would require cutting back considerably into the slope and necessitate a large retaining wall. Directly behind that portion of the trail was the Diocese' House of Prayer and they wanted to remain respectful of that facility and had not wanted to cut into that property. Ms. Knight stated the Diocese had come back with a great compromise. The design included a set back of the fence to the curb of 2.7', which would be raised with keystone above grade 2', and they had worked with the OP A on the fence which was much stronger than any other fence standard that the City had for trails. Generally the fencing was a wood fence or a PVC product; the proposed fence was a metal 6' fence, which they believed provided a good safety standard. It had been mentioned that from the Rattlesnake spur coming up onto the trail it had been quite an abrupt jump onto the trail, however, the plans included grading to widen the trail. The options before them were no trail, as they had indicated, the trail which OP A had asked them to approve with the 6' setback and 10' trail or it could go back to the City standards of a 6' trail with turnouts as had been originally proposed. She felt a 10' trail which would allow horses and pedestrians to pass, as proposed the trail was a good compromise; it was safe and much safer than what existed. The addition of the fence would make the trails even better. Commissioner Merino stated there had been a process with community input that resulted in the proposed trail design and asked if it had been a feed back process? Ms. Knight stated they had met with the Commission on 2 occasions, after the initial appearance they had met with the community and Commissioners to review options taking in all of the public testimony. She felt there had been a great deal of discussion. Attorney for the applicant, James Daniels, 3315 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa, stated they had discussed a few hours ago scaling back the project to eliminate the 1.1 acres. The scale back was based on removing the GP A which as they understood only applied to the 1.1 acre parcel. The condition that had been read previously seemed to indicate that the building could go forward on the approval of the remainder of the project as it was Page 15 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 16of25 conditioned upon the GP A, and he felt that was incorrect. He would like to have that clarified. Chair Steiner asked Ms. Nguyen if she had stated that a number of the provisos that were before them were dependent on approval by City Council, and it was now indicated that may not be the case as there was not an item to be considered and asked if she would clarify the matter. Ms. Nguyen stated there were 2 elements of the General Plan that needed to be amended. The first one was the land use element which would be removed; the second one would be the Master Plan of Recreational Trails. The trail element would require the GP A. Chair Steiner confirmed it was noted in the record how Staff had made the determination and had clarified it for the applicant. Assistant City Attorney, Ted Reynolds stated the presentation had been made in that manner and they had understood that the General Plan Amendment would be required for the trail element. He stated there had been a document handed out at the administrative session of the meeting and he wanted to ensure it was noted in the record that a document dated July 21, 2008, prepared by Amir Farahani in response to the traffic issues that had been raised in the letter from the OP A's legal council representative had been received. Mr. Reynolds stated one of the issues addressed by OP A's legal council was that of a fair argument standard and it was at the discretion of the Planning Commission to weigh the evidence as presented and they had been given additional testimony from the Diocese and along with the traffic information prepared on behalf of the Diocese as well as the input from the City's Traffic Engineer, Amir Farahani. He stated they would be engaging, in terms of the CEQA determination, whether or not by weighing the evidence if the proposed project had a significant environmental impact. If the findings were to move forward with the Mitigated Negative Declaration they would be stating there was no substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. Commissioner Merino asked if the Diocese had determined the square footage based on his previous question? Mr. Mekus stated it was approximately 50%. The floor area was essentially 30,000 square feet which was 15,000 square feet net. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion. Commissioner Merino stated the project was difficult to look at as there were significantly important arguments on both sides. The issues that weighed in his determination of the proposed project were with regard to traffic, the concerns presented regarding the traffic on Santiago Canyon Road were much larger than the project, and he felt it was unfair to create an artificial nexus between the traffic being generated by the proposed project and the larger concerns of the community. He completely agreed the road was extremely dangerous, however, to place the Diocese in a position that they would be held to resolve the situation on Santiago Canyon Road was unfair and he could not agree with that argument. On trail safety, as a Planning Commissioner, he needed to Page 16 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 17 of 25 hang his hat on the guidance the applicant received and the due process they executed. From the information provided by Staff they had met all the requirements and had completed all they had been asked to do. They had been through a process to reach their project development. It was his position ifhe had not liked the answer to go back to City Staff and advise them that he had not agreed with the City standards being fully met and the expectations that they wanted in the area of OP A. It could be an issue that would be looked at to determine what constituted a safe trail. The Diocese had made a diligent effort to meet the requirements of the public and the City. He felt the Diocese and its representatives had made every effort to mitigate the appearance while maintaining a proj ect he supported. Commissioner Imboden stated he agreed with most of the comments made by Commissioner Merino. For him it came down to what had been presented. He was not moved tremendously by the late letter from the legal council retained by OP A. He had heard from both sides that there had been a large number of meetings held between the two parties, and many of the public comments included statements of being so close to getting an agreement. The letter had not reflected that they were close and it was a very broad and encompassing letter that threw sand in the face of everything, but lacked any strong ties to anything specific. Commissioner Imboden stated at the end of the day the citizens of Orange would receive trails from the project and he felt OP A wanted and deserved that. Every project was different and the topography of the proposed project was very different and all the factors had to be weighed in evaluating it. The set back from the street was not against the standards and the fence attempted to mitigate any issues. He felt it would be the proposed trail or no trail and it was the best that could be offered and an EIR was not required on the project as the concerns had been met. Regarding Santiago Canyon Road he stated the City needed to look at the road to make it safer and felt the project would not impact any unsafe conditions that already existed. The Diocese had given a good explanation of how the business worked as a continuum and not an expansion of business. An issue that had not been raised was the life span of a grave, which was 25 to 30 years, after that generally no one came to the site and as there would be newer traffic coming the older traffic would become non existent. He was evaluating the project much differently than most business ventures and it was the responsibility of the Commission to look at every project that came before them individually and at the various components involved. He supported the project. Chair Steiner stated it was important that they placed their reasoning in the record. He echoed the comments by both Commissioners which were well described. He also supported the project. There were four concerns that he derived from meeting with the public, one was with respect to traffic and Commissioner Merino hit the nail on the head with his comments, there were traffic concerns, however, it was not reasonable to make the determination that the proposed project would have such an impact on traffic that it would merit a traffic study. It would not be fair to saddle the applicant with the responsibility to do that. He had heard some concern with the mausoleum size and after hearing what was presented it had not appeared to be a serious concern. The location of the maintenance facility had also been a concern and as it had been withdrawn and was no longer an issue. The final concern was trail safety, and he felt, considering the alternative which would be nothing and based on the representations presented, he was comfortable in making a finding that the proposed trails were safe. He understood the Page 17 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 18 of 25 applicant's concern of adding any more to the trails. He stated it was a deliberative process involving people in the area which was another factor for consideration. He was in support of the project as proposed. Commissioner Merino made a motion to Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 22-08, recommending to the City Council GPA 2006-0001, ZC 1244-06, Variance No. 2174-06, MJSP 0440-06, DRC 4083-06 and MND 1768-06- Holy Sepulcher Cemetery to permit the expansion of the cemetery, noting the previously discussed issue regarding the General Plan Amendment. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED (4) GPA 2007-0004, ZONE CHANGE 1247-07, MAJOR SITE PLAN 0536-07, DRC NO. 4299-07 AND MND 1795-07-CITRUS GROVE APARTMENTS. A proposal to close an existing RV/boat storage facility and construct 57 affordable - apartments housing within three buildings. It would also include a community room, tot lot, trash enclosures, landscaping and surface parking. LOCATION: NOTE: 1120 North Lemon Street Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1795-07 was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of this project in accordance with the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 23-08, recommending the City Council approve GPA 2007-0004, ZC 1247-07, MJSP 0536-07, DRC 4299- 07 and MND 1795-07 to permit construction of 57 apartments. Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report, noting CUP 2698-07 would not be part of the presentation as it had been determined that it was not required. Chair Steiner opened the discussion for any questions to Staff, there were none. He asked the applicant to step forward with any additional information. Applicant, Barry Cottle, 1110 E. Chapman Ste. 200, Orange, stated the proposed project had been started approximately 1 year ago; they had been meeting with the City and Staff to prepare the project. The City had identified the neighborhood on the General Plan Update and the proposal was in conformance with the General Plan Update. Due to the City's process and time line they were a bit ahead of the final update. The neighborhood Page 18 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 19 of 25 was a mixed use area including industrial, multi-family apartments and a large mobile home park. They had purchased 4 buildings on Hoover Street which they had rehabilitated; he presented a handout to the Commissioners to identify the location of the project. His firm developed and maintained high quality apartment complexes, they had hands on management, they were very fair but also very strict and there was a long list of rules residents were required to follow in order to live within their complexes. They had professionally trained on-site managers. They had strict regulations on graffiti, trash pick up/removal and they had cameras on there properties. Occupancy was very important to them. They would also be including an addendum with an applicants lease to advise them of the industrial uses in the neighboring properties. The proposal included 57 apartments, divided between 38 2-bedroom apartments, 18 3-bedroom apartments and 1 manager apartment on site. The complex would include a community center, BBQ and tot lot area, laundry room and access gates. The project would include 133 parking spaces. There would be solar for all the common areas of the property, the windows would be dual paned, appliances and lighting would be energy star rated. They had performed a number of studies which included traffic and sound. They were pleased to have the opportunity to present their project. Commissioner Imboden stated there was a Negative Declaration document and he asked for clarification on page 65, Item No. 15. On Item F, the result of inadequate parking capacity was less than a significant impact. In looking for the explanation it was stated the proposed project had been designed in compliance with the City requirements with the buildings required parking of 129 spaces and the proposed project providing 133 spaces. He asked why would there be a less than significant impact if they had gone over the requirements, unless the numbers were incorrect? Mr. Cottle stated the 129 required and the 133 proposed were correct. Chair Steiner stated the answer to Item F should be no impact at all. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated she would agree with that. Initially in reviewing those numbers it was less than a significant impact but was solved on the project itself and they would agree that there would be no impact. Commissioner Merino asked if the existing RV and boat parking would continue to have traffic and could he address the parking capacity at that site. Mr. Cottle stated the RV's on site were approximately 100 and he was not aware of the traffic in and out of the facility. Chair Steiner stated Mr. Cottle had indicated they had strict standards and he asked him to elaborate on that statement? Mr. Cottle stated Orange Housing was formed in 1990 for the sole purpose of establishing affordable housing. Orange Housing had over 25 affordable housing buildings in the City. They worked very hard to have the nicest, cleanest and most well maintained properties in the neighborhoods they were in. There were occupancy standards and everyone had to comply with the occupancy and income standards. Each Page 19 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 20 of 25 year they completed reviews of occupancy and income. Their business was assisting those that needed help. They walked their units every 3 months, looking for mold and mildew which was a big concern to them, they also looked at general maintenance. All of the managers and maintenance personnel looked for evidence of occupants sleeping on a couch, how many toothbrushes there were to determine if the apartment was being over crowded. Their current lease was approximately 5 pages with 4 pages of rules, if tenants could not live by those rules and be a good neighbor they needed to live elsewhere. Commissioner Merino stated they were moving into the area as the General Plan had indicated that was the planned future for the area and confirmed that they had not propos~d to locate there first, to establish the justification for the General Plan. Mr. Cottle stated that was correct, they had been in escrow for over a year and they had been very aware of the City's General Plan Update. The thought was that the GP would have been approved prior to their occupancy of the property; however, it had not been completed. Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing. Walter Froemke, 419 W. Brenna Lane, Orange stated he represented the Citrus Business Park Association and the Rueben Casey Business Park. He was concerned with the low income housing and the problems they currently had with the residents on Hoover and Wilson Street. There was no available parking on the street at all, and the project would just add to that. The applicant had made reference to the 4 units that they had rehabilitated on Wilson Street and they were not any better than the units that were next to them and they had not been rehabilitated. Their concern was property value, the area had been an industrial area since 1960 and now they were proposing multiple housing. Every day they were faced with graffiti, he had a full time employee who took care of the graffiti and there was a gang element in the area. He had arrived to work to find a case of Corona's broken in the street and it was a common occurrence and he was concerned that the additional housing would bring more problems. Roger Rhoades, 12460 Woodhall, Tustin, stated he was representing the trust that owned the industrial park to the north. He had been an industrial developer and broker in the City of Orange since 1977. He had encountered problems with the residents of the apartment complex to the east, which included graffiti and theft and the problems persisted. On weekend and nights residents would park on his property, requiring towing of those vehicles. It was the first time in 30 years that they would be experiencing a residential building proposed to be sandwiched between two industrial centers. He understood the requirements of the General Plan and the need for affordable housing; however, there were some serious issues to address. Specifically, he felt they pitted industrial users with residents and the issue of quality of life for the residents. They had concerns regarding the industrial users hours of operation, noise and dust in the air. They had not wanted to have additional requirements made of the industrial users by the City in order to accommodate the residents of the proposed project. The industrial uses were in direct conflict with residential concerns. It had been his experience in the area that there was a problem with theft and crime that would be exacerbated with the proposed proj ect. Page 20 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes Ju1y21,2008 21 of 25 Dan Bosch, 7626 E. Skylark, Orange, stated he was interested in a good project. He asked for the density of the apartments, he was not for or against the proj ect and wanted to get a quantitive feel for the project. Chair Steiner asked Mr. Reynolds to what extent could a property owner find his/her rights affected by the development of residential development in receiving complaints? Assistant City Attorney, Ted Reynolds stated regarding any potential code enforcement issues that could surface based on residential complaints those would need to be addressed from a code enforcement perspective. The current industrial property owners would not be held to a new standard based on the addition of the proposed project. Chair Steiner invited Mr. Cottle to respond to the public comments. Mr. Cottle stated regarding graffiti, they had occurrences of graffiti on their properties and their policy was that the graffiti was to be painted out by 9:00 a.m. each morning. There were security cameras also installed for security purposes. They also instilled pride of ownership on their properties and they had strict policies in place to deal with graffiti. In regard to parking, there was a problem in the neighborhood and they continued to work with City Staff to find a resolution. They had an occupancy limit which controlled the number of people living in a unit and they had gated parking areas to allow residents to park. They had met with Karen Stubs, owner of the mobile home park, to discuss her concerns and once she realized his firm owned the other buildings in the area it resolved any concerns she had as she was pleased with the up keep of the other buildings. The density on the other side of Lemon was 46 to 47 units per acre which was very dense, due to the fact that there were no open spaces or community areas. The proposed project would include those amenities. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Imboden stated he was hearing comments about an area that was a troubled area in Orange. He had not realized that the 4 buildings on Hoover had a close association with the proposed project. The efforts that were being made to improve a troubled neighborhood were commendable. The proposed project was different in that it provided green space and recreational amenities. There was discussion on overcrowding and in providing more opportunities for more people to get into housing, rather than having to share housing, would work to alleviate the problem. He understood the concerns regarding the industrial uses next to a residential area and he felt that no additional standards would be imposed and the approvals being requested would not create any stronger obligations to the industrial properties. He was in support of the proposed proj ect. Commissioner Merino stated there was a concern in adding a residential development in an industrial area and from a larger perspective it was part of a larger process that had begun 3 years ago with the General Plan Update. During that time there were numerous opportunities for the public to give input and share their concerns. The area the proposed project was going into would eventually be residential based on the General Plan Update Page 21 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 22 of 25 with those decisions being well publicized. The project was part of the General Plans intent. There were issues with graffiti and crime, he was a graduate of the Citizens Police Academy and was aware that the crime had significantly decreased with the applicant's ownership of the other units in the area. There was an assumption that the introduction of affordable housing would increase crime, however, in looking at the broken windows of crime prevention, with such supervision and the emphasis of the City looking at the proposed project he felt the area would be enhanced and crime would decrease. Chair Steiner stated he agreed with the comments made by his fellow Commissioners. The project as proposed was a fight against many of the problems such as graffiti, trash and parking that had been discussed. The applicant's history in the area had assured them of their success in that area and it was a step in fighting crime. Chair Steiner stated he was in support ofthe project. Commissioner Imboden made a motion to Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 23-08, recommending to the City Council approval ofGPA 2007-0004, ZC 1247-07, MJSP 0536-07, DRC 4299-07 and ND 1795-07, Citrus Grove Apartments, to permit the construction of 57 housing units, noting CUP 2698-07 had been removed from the item. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Merino and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED (5) CUP 2655-07, MINOR SITE PLAN 512-07, DRC 4229-07 AND ND 1791-07- HERTFELDER RESIDENCE. (This item was moved and heard as Item 2) A proposal to add a 673 sq. ft. addition to the rear of an existing 1748 sq, ft., 1 Y2-story contributing single-family residence. Project includes the relocation of an existing contributing detached garage, and the construction of another detached 864 sq. ft. garage with full bath. Project is within the Old Towne Historic District. LOCATION: 720 E. Culver Avenue NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1791-07 was prepared to evaluate the potential Environmental impacts of this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 26-08, approving CUP 2655-07, MNPR 512-07, DRC No. 4229-07 and ND 1791-07 to permit the construction of the addition. Page 22 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 23 of 25 Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the discussion for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Merino stated in regard to the proposed move of the existing garage, the City had witnessed projects that failed upon relocation; he had a concern it could occur on the proposed project. He asked if a limited analysis had been completed on the existing structure to ensure it would take relocation? Mr. Ryan stated the garage was over-built and it was in good condition. He would not anticipate any problems with relocation. Commissioner Merino asked if any provisions had been made in the event the relocation failed? Mr. Ryan stated Staff had requested the move be completed by qualified house movers and there would be an inspection before the structure was raised and verification that it could support itself during the move. In the event the structure was to shift or fall, the moving of the garage would be stopped in order to brace it properly. The garage was in very good condition. Commissioner Imboden stated in the DRC minutes there was quite a lengthy discussion regarding the paving materials and the final design had not been determined. He asked for the status of the paving issue? Mr. Ryan stated there had been discussion regarding the various treatments and the intent to not overdo paving or concrete and to ensure there was balance. The historical content was also taken into consideration. Staff had worked with the applicant and the plans presented included the proposed paving. Commissioner Imboden asked why the paving issue had been deferred? Mr. Ryan stated there were issues regarding the view from the street and the landscape interface. It was left to Staff to work with the applicant to come to a conclusion. Chair Steiner asked the applicant to come forward to address the Commission. Kevin Hertfelder, 720 E. Culver, Orange, stated the house had been in his family since 1963. The house had been in the family prior to that, owned by his mother's uncle. He was the third owner of the home. He and his family wanted to expand the home to meet their needs and the extra garage would be used to house his collection of classic cars. He had lived in Orange his entire life and was excited to move forward with the project. Commissioner Merino asked if the additional bathroom would serve a future pool site? Mr. Hertfelder stated that was correct. He wanted to ask for a change in the garage doors to use an alternate material, something other than wood. The garage doors faced west and were in the sun all day and would require substantial maintenance. He also noted that the garage doors would not be visible from the street. He requested the use of a Page 23 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 24 of 25 synthetic material, something lighter and easier to maintain. Mr. Ryan stated at the DRC meeting both Staff and the DRC Members had consistently requested, on an historic structure, to have matching materials. The original garage doors are wood and Staff was requesting the new structure include wood doors. He stated he had wood doors on his property and maintenance was an issue, they needed to be well oiled and the finish maintained. Chair Steiner asked the applicant if he was prepared to move forward if the request for an alternate material on the garage doors was denied? Mr. Hertfelder stated he was prepared to move forward, however, although the garages were on an historical site, the structure was new construction. He presented a photo of doors he was proposing to use to the Commissioners. Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing. Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA stated OTPA's position regarding the relocation of a historic structure was supported by the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Relocating of historic buildings was not recommended, as it destroyed the relationship in the historic setting. If there was no other alternative and the building had to be moved, they agreed with Staff, that a qualified house mover experienced in moving historic homes be used. He stated the OTP A always encouraged the use of in kind materials and supported the use of wood paneled garage doors. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Imboden stated the relocation in the grand scheme of things was not a significant change as it kept primarily the same relationship to the primary structure. It was not being moved to another site and would not compromise the significance of the building. On the wood doors, he had read through the DRC minutes and the request for alternate materials had been consistently denied. He was aware of other projects that had the same requests which had also been denied and he had no reason to alter their consistency. He was pleased with the project; there was a lot of work proposed with little impact on the street scape. He stated he was in support of the project, however, not in support of changing the garage door material. Commissioner Merino stated he was not necessarily tied to the issue of consistency and they were looking at projects on a case by case situation. In reviewing the existing doors which set an historic precedence, he could not be convinced with the sample door photo that the applicant provided met the same standards. Moving away from wood would lessen the quality of design and he was not in support of using an alternate material. Chair Steiner stated he was not sufficiently motivated to find a legitimate purpose to vary from a consistency standpoint, although, each project was reviewed individually a certain degree of deference afforded the findings and determinations made at lower levels by persons more qualified to make those recommendations. Page 24 of 25 Pages Planning Commission Minutes July 21,2008 25 of 25 Commissioner Imboden made a motion to adopt as stated, Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 26-08 approving CUP 2655-07, MNPR 512-07, DRC No. 4229-07, and ND 1791-07 Hertfelder Residence. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the Negative Declaration had been prepared for relocation, treated as a demolition, and the project was not categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker (6) ADJOURNMENT MOTION CARRIED Chair Steiner made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, August 4, 2008 SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Imboden, Merino, and Whitaker None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED 10:21 @ P.M. Page 25 of 25 Pages