HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-15-1996 PC MinutesI i'": /'<,^, .
l. j \.- i..', .... "'-"
MINUTES Planning
Commission
City of
Orange January 15,
1996 Monday - 7:
00 p.m.PRESENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Pruett, Romero ABSENT:STAFF PRESENT:
Commissioner
Smith
Vem
Jones, Manager
of Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant
City Attorney,Jerry Bailey, Senior
Civil Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording
Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Bosch announced
the resignation of Commissioner Cathcart due to conflicts in his school schedule. His good
advice, patience and good humor will be missed. The Planning Commission looks forward to the
City Council's consideration of a replacement to fill the empty seat in the near future.IN RE:CONSENT
CALENDAR APPROVAL OF MINUTES
FOR THE MEETING OF 12/18/95 Moved by Commissioner
Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Minutes ot December 18, 1995
as recorded.AYES:NOES:ABSENT:
Commissioners
Bosch,
Pruett,
Romero None Commissioner Smith
MOTION
CARRIED IN RE:CONTINUED
HEARINGS 1. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
1-95 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposed ordinance
amendment modifying provisions of the Orange Municipal Code Title 17.36 "Sign Regulations", more specifically
relating to the length of time allowed for display of banners and A-frame signs and
conditions for such display.NOTE:This
project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15311 of the State CEQA Guidelines.This item
was continued from the June 19,1995, August 21,1995 and October 16,1995 hearings.)Chairman Bosch
noted the Commission has received communication dated January 15 from Bruce Patrick, from
the Temporary Sign and Banner Committee.The public
hearing was re-opened.John
Godlewski, Community Enhancement Manager, reported staff went back and analyzed some of the questions
the Commission raised at the last hearing. Those responses have been given to the 1
Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1996
Commission as part of the staff report. Some of the issues include a question on the Laguna Hills
newspaper article that was run n the Commission wanted to know what their response was to that. It was
understood last week was the last week the newspaper was going to run because they are out of print.
When he called to get additional information, they had no response. There was not enough of a responseforthemtoprintafollow-up story. Staff also included additional information on other cities and what
their current sign ordinances are. A survey was done and comments have been included in the staffreportfrompropertyownerswhoownlarge, commercial centers, as to their opinion of the signs and banners
on large commercial properties. Initially, he felt most of the property owners would be against banners and
A-frame signs on the multi-tenant centers. He included three opinions where two of them
agreed that banners should not be a part of multi-tenant centers, but after the staff report was
printed, he received three more calls from people who said they didn't like the look of banners, but they
were not absolutely adamantly opposed to it, and they have been looking the other way at their shopping centers.
It was a 50/50 split as to whether the major tenant shopping center management companies
would enforce their own CC&R's in regards to banners on their properties. This item has been before the
Commission for a long time; they've been working on this for over a year. A number of issues havebeendiscussedrelatingtoA-frame signs and banners. He referred to the final recommendation in the staff report
on Pages 3 and 4. At this time staff was hoping the Commission would give them a little more directionastowhattheywantedinthewayofmodificationstothesignandbannerportionofthe
Sign Ordinance. Staff included those proposals in the recommendation section. Mr. Patrick has also put together hisproposalforaSignandBannerOrdinance, that covers many of the topics that have been discussed over
the last
few months.Public Inout Bruce Patrick, 1733 North Modoc Street, asked the members of the audience to
stand who were in support of the temporary sign and banner ordinance. (Several people
stood.) He prepared some comments earlier and sent them to the Commission. There were two
parts to his document:Considerations for revising the Temporary Sign and Banner
Ordinance and specific proposed improvements to the Temporary Sign and Banner Ordinance. He stressed again thiswasaveryimportantissuetotheCityofOrange. The recession and rough economic times has really
hurt Orange. Orange has tried a number of things to take care of itself to meet these challenges. The
existing Ordinance has not been enforced for 4 1/2 years. The signs and banners seen in the City of Orange are
the result of the best judgment of the merchants, as to what would help their business. With few
exceptions, the use of the temporary sign and banner tool, has been done with very few problems. It'
s different doing business now; these are different times. The Ordinance was written for a different time and
it needs to be modernized to where its doing the job that is needed as a community. Orange is a
city with a large geographic area. And throughout the area there are many strip centers. That's thecharacterofthecity.The A-frames are a very important part of the temporary signandbannerissue. The community recognizes they need to have a baseline understanding of what the community
wants to have as an enforceable ordinance. He didn't think Orange should get buried and boggeddownbywhatisbeingdoneinothercommunities. They should focus on what's in the best interest
of Orange. All of the recommendations they are proposing are restrictions that are not now
in the Ordinance. They submitted three pages of recommendations for making the Ordinance tougher.
They want to improve and modernize the Ordinance to where the community will
be better because of it.Commissioner Pruett said several issues were raised at the last hearing and
the information given back to the Commission has not answered some of the questions and problems.
He hoped Mr. Patrick's committee would come back with at least some recommendations. Forexample, the A-trame signs. They indicated an encroachment permit would be required because of
the concern about public property and the City's liability. He assumed they were addressing that issue
with the encroachment permit. There was another issue of major concern on how to manage the A-frame
signs when there were multiple tenants on a single piece of property. Example: Katella, across
from Home Depot, industrial buildings with retail operations in those buildings. One cenJer has as many as five A.framesignsinfrontoftheproperty, along the street corridor. How does the Chamber of Commerce intend
to manage this? Will there be one A-frame per property? Will they be rotated? How can that be
managed? He was hoping to get those kind of answers from the Chamber of Commerce.
Otherwise, the Commission must make their
decision
Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1996
Mr. Patrick went by that area yesterday. He felt there was no problem at this time. Their proposal is for
each business to be permitted a maximum of two signs. One of the signs could be an A-frame; the
other one could be a banner. Or, they could have two banners. But, in no case could they have two
A-frames.Businesses in Orange, right now, could have one A-frame, but not all businesses do.
They could have two each, if they wanted to, and they have not wanted to. That is not
a real problem.Commissioner Pruett asked at what point would he consider it to be a problem? How many
signs within a 25 or 50 foot area would he consider it to
be a problem?Mr. Patrick didn't know. He couldn't answer that because he has not seen situations
where there has been a problem. Based on practical experience, what they see on a day-to-
day
basis, that doesn't happen.Commissioner Pruett had hoped to hear back from in terms of his report
was dealing with the banners.There was some concern the banners and signs would become tattered
and weathered over time. Mr.Patrick's proposal indicated that a 90 day permit would be appropriate.
Is that satisfactory from the standpoint of dealing
with weathered and tattered signs?Mr. Patrick said in the recommendations there was more language.
The #1 recommendation is: Banners must be attached sufficiently enough to be wrinkle free and to keep border
lines straight. Torn or soiled banners are prohibited. This is an issue where they agree it is a blight on the
City. To have a banner attached to a tree or bush and it be tattered, tom or on an angle of some sort, flapping
in the breeze, that is not something they would want. They tried to provide throughout the
proposal enough language that is enforceable to deal with it. He has worked diligently with City staff to try to dig
out things that would be workable for everyone. He wants a win-win situation in this for everyone.
They need to work together
to arrive at a workable Ordinance.Commissioner Romero agreed with Commissioner Pruett's comments. He agreed a garished looking City would be terrible. The problem with that is, is in who's opinion?
Commissioner Pruett's example of the retail center across from Home Depot: In his opinion, it looked garished. In Mr.
Patrick's opinion, it didn't.Once again, there was the problem of opinion. He personally felt they were no
longer in that deep of a recession, but again, it's a matter of opinion. He couldn't agree that Orange was
a city of strip centers or known for its strip centers. Looking at other cities is a nice look. He called the
local cities to find out what requirements they had for signage. If the rules and regulations
state that A-frames and banners were allowed to remain year round, he believed there would be more
and more as time went QY. Landlord approval was necessary to keep the retail centers looking nice. He would like
the City to
look as neat and clean as possible.Mr. Patrick was not sure he and Commissioner Pruett disagreed on
whether or not the area across the street from Home Depot was garished or not. He didn't think
it was. He thought Commissioner Pruett was trying to use that as an area to show where there are some industrial buildingsinaretailsectionthatiftheysochose, they could each put out an A.frame and
would that constitute an eyesore situation. His comment was intended to clarify he was there and saw two A-frames.
In his judgment, that was not an out of control or eyesore situation. He has no intention
of sponsoring a position desired by any specific group, including the business people, that would take advantage of the
City of Orange. It is
his ettort to arrive at a neutral solution.Chairman Bosch spoke to the detail of
the banners and A-frames. The Committee's recommendations didn't clearly address the subject as to the contenf
on the signs. They know the Committee has been against moving and illuminated objectsontemporarysigns. Typically, the permanent signs are divided into ceriain classifications - the name of a business or identification of
a business center, or the name of a product. What were the Committee's conclusions in
regards to whether temporary sign age should or should not be limited as to identification of the business name or
type, or hours or operation, or type and cost of merchandise, and the effects it might
have
Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1996
Mr. Patrick said this was the first thought he has heard about this issue; he did not recognize that as being
an issue. They took photos of every sign and banner in the City and studied each one. At no time, was he
aware that they saw a sign or banner that had an objectionable content.
Chairman Bosch asked what was the best use of a temporary sign? What seems to be most effective and
what is least effective?
Mr. Patrick wished he had a good answer for that. The position the Committee has taken is this: The
temporary sign and banner is a tool for the businesses to attract customers to come into their stores. They
have tried to make sure this discussion was about temporary signs and banners -- not about permanent signs.
They do not support the concept of a temporary sign and banner should be used as a substitute for
having no business sign. There should be two ordinances; one for signage and one for temporary signs
and banners. It's a temporary communication; a bulletin to the community about something new in that
business.Ron
Dick, 143 South Olive, owner of Partners Antiques, said the A-frame sign was important to him. They
are out of the loop and the biggest problem he has is getting people to know where he is. He had some
A-frames professionally prepared with the name of his company and an arrow, 20 x30 inches square.
One is located at Chapman and Olive, out of the way of the pedestrians, near where you put in a tree. His
signs are working; people can find his business. He has another sign up on Glassell. He believed his sales
tax was important to the City of Orange. They have been careful in Old Towne not to encroach upon
one
another.Commissioner Pruett said it was his understanding that A-frames were to be located on
the business property or right in front of the property. A-frames half a block away would
not be allowed.Carole Walters, 534 Norih Shaffer, President of the Orange Taxpayer's
Association, said businesses need help, but she was concerned about the A-frame signs. If they are located
on public property, people could sue the businesses and the City, and then the taxpayers would lose
again. She thought the A-
frame signs caused selective entorcement.Frank Mann, 351 North Bitterbush Street, has bought Original Italian Pizza
at 460 South Main. His business is hard to find and a A-frame has helped to increase his business.
It's a professional looking sign and is kept in a parking lot, street side. The A-frame sign is an important
tool for him
in order for his business to grow.Nate Wisely, Holiday Skating Center, 175 North Wayfield, said people
are still unable to find them even though the business has been at that location for 23 years.
He believed the temporary A-frame signs and banners need to be on adjacent properties (in some cases, such as
his) in order for people to locate them.To try to build a Temporary Sign and Banner Ordinance
based on a worst-worst scenario is a Iittie dangerous. Things don't run on a worst-worst
or best-best basis. Not everyone will display signs in front of their businesses. People need to
work together in a partnership. Businesses who do not have a reasonable amount of insurance should
not be allowed to put out signs and banners. Certificates of insurance should be a pari of the permits
and fees process. There
should also
be a 60-day time frame,with a 3O-day break.Closina Thouahts Mr. Patrick didn't want to duck
any issues or leave something under the covers. Mr. Dick talked about the importance of his
A-frame sign to attract potential customers to his business location. In most situations they would like to
have the A-frames in front of the business. However, there are some situations that more help
and a more practical location is required. He thought this should be permitted. There should be an
encroachment permit for those signs that are located on public properiy. He saw nothing wrong
with incorporating some of the considerations with regards to liability coverage that was discussed. The A-frame signs
are more important in Old Towne than any other place in the City. Someone suggested a
central
Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1996
good idea; it might have merit and should be pursued. This discussion should be held with the Old
Towne Merchants. It was not part of their proposal to restrict A-trame signs as to their
location.The public hearing was
closed.Chairman Bosch stated staff was seeking the Commission's recommendationlaction on specific
definition relative to type, sizes, locations, time and permitting restrictions on temporary signs and banners
relative to the existing Ordinance so that an Ordinance may be drawn up to be brought back to the Commission
for final consideration and recommendation to the City
Council.Commissioner Pruett asked if the City were issuing permits and approving signs for display, and
even though it is on private property, is there a riski1iability in that
approval?Mr. Soo-Hoo answered there was always a risk of liability. In a situation such as that where the
City is merely issuing permits and have no other active involvement, that liability would be minimal. But
that does not preclude the City from being named
in lawsuits.That was Commissioner Pruett's concern with the A-frames. Even if there is an
encroachment permit and the appropriate liability is obtained, it still does not preclude legal action being brought
against the City,even though there is that policy. Then, the City incurs the cost of responding to that
litigation and being drawn into n. That's not unusual. It's important to make clear there is a lot ot issues within
the Committee's recommendation that he did not have a problem with. He didn't have a problem with #1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5 as proposed. That's dealing with the issue of the banners being hung properly, not to be
attached to power poles nor landscaping and trees for primary support. He even suggested
secondary support. Banners are not permitted in common areas away from store fronts. Banners designed and lettering
must be done in a professional, attractive manner. He did not have a problem with those, but he dropped
the issue of A-frames from the list. He agreed with no banners on roofs or on slanted store
front roofs are permitted.He had no problem with off building structures built for banners are prohibited. Referring to
item 6, he felt a person could order a new sign within 60 days rather than 90 days. That
would not preclude someone from coming back to the City if they were having a problem getting a sign and get an
extension. He did not have a problem with item 7. In reference to item 8, the minimum clearance should be 10
feet rather than 8 feet. He agreed with vehicles and trailers not being accepted for advertising. In
terms of a business display, they should be limited to one banner. The banner should be one square foot
per linear foot of tenant space and not to exceed an aggregate of 80 square feet. He wasn't sure
if 90 days were necessarily the best, but again, he was open to discussion. The big question is what is
the cost of that?The cost should be paid for by the program. The permit fee should basically cover the
cost of the new program. He had some serious problems with the A-frame signs.
From the public right-of-way standpoint,the public liability on pari of the City is too great to approve
them. He recognizes an individual could take out a liability policy, but it does not preclude someone taking legal action
against the City. The only way to get around that would be if the properiy owner were to indemnify the City.
What do they have in terms of assets to protect the City in the event of a lawsuit? It's not fair to impose
that liability on the taxpayers of the City. The second issue is dealing with the private right-of-way.
He had a real concern for the number of A-frame signs that would be permitted on
each property. Since that question has not been answered, he had to oppose the A-frame signs. There needs
to be some way of managing that because there could be a huge number of signs on any particular corner
or piece of property. The other issue is the concept of not only having a multiple number of A-frame signs
in front of a piece of property, but now having them on the adjoining pieces of
properiy or somewhere else down the street. He finds that unacceptable. He can't suppori the
A-frame signs. His recommendation to staff regarding A-frame signs being allowed on public property was
no. Should they be allowed on private property? He would say no. One banner should be allowed for a business,
one square foot per linear foot of tenant space. A 50-day
time period is a more acceptable time frame, but he was open to other thoughts.Commissioner
Romero agreed with a lot of Commissioner Pruett's comments. He agreed with Ms. Walters'comments about
the liability issue. He was not in agreement with A-frames. The A-frames should not
be allowed on public property or private property. There should only be one banner per business. Tustin only allows
banners
Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1996
regard with the larger banner. He will leave the size of a banner to the City's recommendation. Regarding
a time frame for banners, Mr. Patrick's presentation allowed 9 months per year -- 90 days with a one month break
inbetween, which allows for 9 months per year. That is far too long. Tustin allows 3 months per year;Anaheim,
36 days per year. He fen one 90 day period per year should be sufficient.Chairman
Bosch concurred with his fellow Commissioners with regard to a number of items and disagreed with
a couple. He agreed on the Committee's proposal relative to the maintenance and materials of the signs <
Items #1-7). It's a wise move to allow a banner as a temporary sign when the permanent store front
sign is being ordered out. A provision needs to be built in for an extension request when the applicants
show they have made reasonable elloris but have run up against a problem. The 8 foot clearance in
height would be fine in lieu of the 10 feet. There will be many situations where the 10 foot height would
preclude banners, once you preclude them being on the roofs or in line with the permanent signs. The
parking of vehicles and trailers intended only to advertise for the business on site should not be allowed.
It's dillicult to enforce. Clearly, vehicles not used for transporiation directly related to the business on a
daily basis are an item that should be done away with. There needs to be more insight into how to enforce
something like this before just putting it in the Ordinance. He looked to staff for a very quick research
through City Unk to look at other cities ordinances that may have had success with this. He concurred with
the total aggregate size of 80 square feet. It also needs to be related to the size of the business. He
believed one square foot per linear foot of the principal facade of the building, in terms of signage, was
appropriate. He thought the numbers depended too. Some businesses had two front facades in terms of
sign age on corner or position in a center. II they were allowed to have two entrances and two permanent
signs matching those entrances, it might not be unreasonable to consider how portable signage or
banners might relate to the separate entrances to help carry on the concept of unified signage and an
advertising theme for the stores without getting out of hand. It's an instance where two might be allowed.
A-frame signs were also a key issue for him. He was against A-frames in the public
right-of-way. He appreciates there are businesses that benefit from them because they are hidden or
buried away, but the public right-of-way is the public right-of-way. He
would rather have businesses work hard at alternative methods ot advertising to get the word out to
their customers. With regard to A-frames on private property, he was torn. They could be very useful.
There's no property available for most of the businesses in Old Towne to place A-
frame signs. They should be concerned about safety. They should be concerned that no required parking spaces
are taken up by A-frames. They should be concerned that vision cutolls at driveways or anything that
would block the view of people backing out of parking spaces into a drive aisle would be avoided. How
can that be controlled within those centers in terms of safety?That's a key concern. They must look to
the same application on the temporary signage as they look at permanent directional sign
age within parking lots. He was concerned about the potential proliferation even on private property. They have to
be concerned about the ellects on the other businesses that are involved in a property. Perhaps the key
control over that is any signage should be within the requirements of the CC&R's or lease documents for a business
on a particuiar piece of properiy. He was still open on the issue of private properiy A-
frames, but worried about preventing proliferation on just a few key areas.They are sell-evident. It's
the major centers where businesses are buried; where there is very little street exposure; where
because of the development or because of the interpretation of the various amended City sign
ordinances over many years that limit the shopping centerlretail center identification signage of the street so no one can identify
what businesses are buried behind. That's one that needs to be looked at again and maybe they won't be
successful in finding a better way, as those tend to proliferate as well.The suggestion for Old Towne is
a very good one and that the Merchant's Association should look into directional signs for the dillerent businesses. Time.
on banners is a real tough one too. He did not have a problem with the 90 days
on a temporary sign until the permanent sign is installed. He appreciated the
Committee's hard work and understanding when something becomes permanent rather than temporary.The timing relates to the type
of business -- whether it is seasonal, whether it relates to day-to-day needs of people such as
restaurants or auto supplies vs. something that might be purely retail or a holiday season. Perhaps there needs to
be a bit more flexibility in terms of granting a maximum total number of days during the year. With the
proper fee it can be accounted for by the business and league, with the City, to assure they don't
exceed their maximum number per year. He still thought getting to 9 months of the year was a bit excessive. One month
per quarter or a total of 120 days a year is long enough. There are still the window signs that are not pari
of
Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1996
window. Again, something that is almost impossible to enforce. They can't help everybody to succeed.
They can only do things that are fair and reasonable for all.
Commissioner Pruett had not taken into consideration the problem that a 10 foot clearance might have for
people to pass under a banner. The 8 foot recommendation is therefore not a problem for him. He aiso
thought the Chairman's suggestion of one month per quarter or 120
days...
the one month per quarter
gives the business owner greater flexibility in terms of what he wanfs to do tor marketing plans and he saw
no problem with that. The concept of a second entrance is a good one and it should be considered. In
terms of the A-frame signs being allowed on private property, the position he was taking was one of
not approving it. He didn't think there has been an answer given to how it was going to be managed
for multiple tenants on a single piece of property. Until that issue is resolved, he could not support it.
They didn~ want to place limitations on businesses, but at the same time they must get their hands around
the
issue.Commissioner Romero agreed with the
comments.Chairman Bosch summarized the Commission's discussion: The 8 foot clearance (item #8) in terms
of vertical height for people to pass under safely was acceptable. A fee is attached to the permits, which
staff needs to identify what the actual cost is going to be and bring that back to the Commission. Fees
are typically done by resolution, not by ordinance. Timing -- 30 days per quarter or 120 days for the year.
There is flexibility for the merchants. The size of the banners: 1 square foot per linear foot of front tenant
space, not to exceed the 80 square feet. The banner should fit the store front. Not to exceed two
banners and relate it to the entrances. They had consensus on no A-frames in the public right-
of-way. A majority of the Commission, at this time, are not ready to accept A-frames on private
property, but would be willing to look at a proposal that could demonstrate proper control and safety. The rest,
as stated in the revised proposal dated January 15, 1996 from the Temporary
Sign and Banner Committee.Commissioner Pruett was not sure if there was a specific code related to the issue
of fines
and setting minimum fines.Mr. Godlewski thought Commissioner Pruett was referring to a separate section
in the code regarding fines, not necessarily to signs, but to any kind of misdemeanor or infraction. They would
address it as a misdemeanor or an infraction and suggested items regarding fees and fines not
be included in the ordinance, but be put in the proper place (ordinances that
are already in place).Commissioner Pruett said that was fine, but felt the public needed to have all the
facts, including what the fees may be. The current municipal code that deals with misdemeanors or infractions
states the fines and he believed it
was more than $25.Mr. Soo-Hoo didn't recall what the penalty was for an infraction. For a misdemeanor it
was up to $1,000 and 6 months in jail. This would be imposed by a judge; it's not done by the City.
The City would have to prosecute the case in court to
get such a penalty imposed.Chairman Bosch would support the motion, although he felt there
should be consideration given to private property A-frame signs. He was hopeful in fhe very near future
when staff returns with a proposed Ordinance revision based on this discussion there would be
sufficient information for the Commission to edit and include an appropriate provision
for A-frame signs on private property.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner
Romero to recommend the staff to develop and prepare a Draft Ordinance, based upon the Commission's discussion,
and bring it back for a final hearing before the
Commission
makes
a
recommendation to City Council.
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Pruett,
Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1996
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue Ordinance Amendment
1-95 - City of Orange "Sign Regulations" to the Planning Commission meeting of Wednesday, February
21, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero
None
Commissioner Smtlh MOTION CARRIED
2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4-95; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2130-95 AND
ZONE CHANGE 1178.95 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRESBYTERIAN
HOMES The applicant is proposing to construct a residential care facility for the elderly. A General
Plan Amendment is requested to change the site's land use designation from Low Density Residential,
2-6 dwelling units per acre to LowlMedium Density Residential, 6-15 dwelling units per acre.
A zone change is requested to change the zoning classification from R-1-8 (Residential, single
family, minimum lot 8,000 sq. ft.) to R-3 (Residential, multi-family). The conditional use permit is
to allow a "residential care facility for the elderly" and to allow building height exceeding 32 feet. The property
is located on the easterly half of the Covenant Community
Church properiy, at 1515 East Taft Avenue.Negative Declaration 1485-95 has
been prepared
to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.This item
was
continued from the November 20, 1995 hearing.)NOTE:Commissioner Pruett was not at the last hearing regarding this
item, but he has read the Minutes, staff reports and related correspondence. He felt he was up on the
issue and
should be able to deliberate
on
this matter.The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant Robert Mickelson, 121 West Rose,
represented Southern California Presbyterian Homes. Since the last meeting, they have caused several revisions to be made to
the plan. The staft report points out there were four primary issues: density, parking, height, use and
operation. In terms of the density, the revised plan reduces the proposal from 60 units down to
48. Regarding parking, the parking has been increased from 20 to 21, and the ratio has gone up considerably by reduction
of the number of units. The height of the building has been reduced from 3 stories to 2
stories, also to accommodate the reduced number of units proposed. And the use and operation of conditioning the project
to restrict it to persons as it is intended to be provided for by
Southern California Presbyterian Homes. Staff has recommended two conditions to cover that and they are acceptable. They
held a neighborhood meeting with 32 people in attendance. They turned in an analysis of the need and
turned in a traffic analysis justifying the statement in the Negative Declaration that there
would be no traffic impact or parking impact.Dennis Boggio, President of
Lance-Boggio Architects, 5650 DTC Parkway #200, Denver, Colorado,described the concept of this project at the
last hearing. Their firm is involved in many national organizations and have worked with several clients
around the country. They specialize in this type of architectural design, as specialists in the design
of assisted living. They get the chance to observe projects around the country and formulate
opinions/concepts for what works best, both from the standpoint of the neighborhood and the project itself. This
is a project that is very residential in character,scale and blending in well with the neighborhood_ Assisted
living attempts to be a very residential form of long-term care. Since the last meeting, they
reduced the density of the project. They are now proposing a total of 48 units. The building on the previous proposal
was over 40,000 square feet. They now are just above 35,000 square feet, as far as total area.
One of the modifications they have made that is significant to the neighborhood is they have gone from 3 stories down
to
2
Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1996
The eave heights of the roof are very much in line with the adjacent apartment and 2 story houses.
Another issue raised last time was the issue of parking. They decreased the number of units down to 48
and have increased the number of parking spaces, up to 22. They now have a ratio of .46. The density
was reduced by 21%. They were previously at 53 dwelling units per acre; now they're down to 42. A
parking study has been done by Austin-Faust, an independent firm. They concluded a total of 12
parking spaces were needed for a project like this. It's extremely rare to see a resident own a car and park a car in
a building like
this.Mr. Mickelson commented on the appropriateness of this use at this particular site. The site is vacant;
it has been on the market for at least two or three years. Single family homes is not the appropriate use
for this site and probably could not be financed through conventional means. As an extension of the
multi-family designation on the General Plan, it's a slight extension to the west. It's consistent with
good planning practices to put mu~iple family use on an arterial highway in proximity to commercial uses where
it won't impact a neighborhood. The proposed zoning of R-3 would be consistent with the
General Plan designation. Unfortunately, the code is structured in a manner that only the R-3 code
allows a conditional use permit for this proposed use. Conversely, the R-1 code allows a church
by conditional use permit.So, had the code been written differently to allow this use in the R-2 zone,
they would have been more than happy to ask for R-2 zoning to keep the theoretical impact to
a lesser degree. The conditional use permit is a necessary thing for this type of land use. That being assisted living
for seniors; it's unique and something new that is being developed because of the changing
programs in the medical care system.One issue that was raised was what would happen if these people went
away and then everyone is left with a general plan amendment for higher density and for R-
3 zoning. The Presbyterian Homes has no intention of going away. They are a multi-million dollar
organization that has had over 40 years of experience in senior care and assisted care. They found this to be
a suitable site and are very anxious to build their tacility. They
concur with all the
conditions recommended by staff.Those soeakinQ in favor Joseph Woollett, 1279 San Remo Place, was interested in this
project because he's an architect and half of his work is for facilities for seniors. He use to live about two
blocks from this project and has looked at the site and plans carefully. This is a project the City of Orange needs. He
may live in a facility like this one day and he would like to stay in Orange. The facility does not belong
in an industrial park; it belongs in a residential area. The changes the owner has made
from the previous hearing are important. Although the parking ratio is adequate, it would
be good to have a few more spaces.Juan Pablo Neiblas, 224 North Olive, favors the project as well. A
great many of the residents will soon be aging and will need places to live. Affordable housing is necessary and
it should be in
the City of Orange.Those soeakina in oooosition Chairman Bosch noted the Commission
had received correspondence from Paul and Jean Hackman,dated January 15; Dixie Dailey, undated note; letter dated January
3 from R. Shore to the neighbors; letter dated January 15 from Eart Melander; letter undated from
Jane Drynan; January 10 letter from Enrico Cari;January 12 letter from Anne Crowle; January 10
letter from Tom Mason; letter addressed to Barbara DeNiro, dated December 13 from the City Planning staff
relative to a letter she provided to the Commission
previously; letter dated January 15 from Marvin Shober.Carole Wa~ers, 534 North Shaffer, thought it was wrong to change
any zone in a neighborhood. Once it is changed, it will become a nightmare to the neighbors. There
are homes for senior citizens in Orange. The City is killing the neighborhoods
and running people out by changing the zoning.Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, didn't get a copy of the traffic
study so she was not familiar with what their project people said about that. She was the lady who
gave Mr. Patrick the suggestion for the central directory in Old Towne. As for affordable housing, the monthly fees
are $1,900 for the lowest level of assistance and $3,400 for the highest level. It's
not exactly affordable. The major problem for neighbors and church members to be concerned about is the R-
3
zone
Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1996
new and different project? Is a different CUP required tor each new proposal? Residents must be aware
of the possibility of a possible change to higher density on the subject parcel, as well as the church
properiy. They will attempt to get the highest and best use. The loading zone has been placed on the
southwest corner, next to the church. It will create a noise, traffic and parking problem for the church site,
as well as the residents. Parking is a great concern. Pictures were shared with the Commission. Is the
new footprint larger than the November 20 proposal and yet still higher than the R-3 allowed? She didn'
t understand why they had 48 units per acre. She asked what the CMB wall was? And wanted to
know about the 35 foot setback and 4 toot high wrought iron fence along the property line? When must the
lot lines be
removed?Enrico Cari, owns the apartment building at 1535 East Tall, directly east of the proposed project.
The architect has done a splendid job in the design of the proposed facility; however, for him to state
the changes have been significant from the problems that were addressed at the last hearing is like
saying Congress has made progress on the budget in the last four months. The Commission has an obligation
to recognize when an existing code or standard, even though a project adheres to it, is not satisfactory
for the property. He believed that's what they have here. Specifically, the parking issues that have
been mentioned. In the first application submitted, they staled the residents are at least 62 years of age
or younger if the residents had needs compatible with the older residents. In the latest application they
now say the residents are 83 years old. The real problem is parking; it is not adequate. Their stafting
schedule plans for up to 10 people at the facility on anyone shift. Plus, there will be more during shift
changes.There will be visitors and daily deliveries as well. The second issue is the open area. There isn't
adequate open space for 55 residents to go outside and to exercise or just to linger. The court yard is not
big enough to have birthday pariies or outdoor activities. There is no place for the people to go. There
has been no oller to purchase his property. Why do they want to buy his property, unless it was to put
up another similar
use.Walter Bredendick, 1507 East Candlewood, hopes to retain his view from his home as he looks across
the street. He thanked the developers for inviting the neighbors to a presentation of their plans at the
church.They presented a 2 story structure with added parking spaces. They also stressed the following
points:This would be a non-profit venture. It would bring employment to the community. They
wanted this property because the residents could shop in the local areas and there was a church next
door. The increased parking would be more than adequate. The residents would not have
vehicles. The employees would take local transporiation because they would be low wage income employees at $
5 an hour. Maximum residency would be 55. And the residents would be able to migrate in
the neighborhood.Would the City of Orange benefit tax wise from a non-profit venture? The maximum employment
is 25 (low wage). Is that considered beneficial? It would be dangerous for the residents to walk
on Tustin. He thought the parking may be adequate, as long as they provide parking for the
employees. Will these people be walking blindly in their neighborhood and tripping on the raised sidewalks?
These people will not be able to walk to K-Mart or Target; he hopes they don't go to the liquor store. He
lell the area should be retained for the community as it was developed 33 years ago
and remain as R-1.Lois Barke, 2022 Spruce, questioned how much R-1 zoning was lell west
of the freeway and why they shouldn't have more R-1 zoning west of the
freeway? The single family residential neighborhoods should be maintained and protected. This is extremely high zoning -- 42 units per
acre. It hasn't been changed from 50 units to an acre to 42 units; it's been changed from 4 units to an acre
to 42 units! They have there 4 proposed units in a R-1 zone. It was stated previously this was
assisted care. This was a term established by the State and people did not need to be convalescent
or need physical help beyond needing their shoes tied or a zipper zipped. However, on Page 3, item 4, it says to
ensure the project is operated in the manner proposed to the Planning Commission, staft
has revised the recommended conditions to include the age and physical infirmities of project residents and the type of
care that can be provided on the subject site. What does that mean? To her, that says nothing. There
are a lot ot questions about the easement. Has the Rre Department signed this oil? They were
told the easement was established and is unchangeable. It's there and people must live with it. It was established for a
R-1 zone with 4 units. Is it always unchangeable because it goes with the title? There is a
chain link fence. Is that the beginning of the driveway? Or is the chain link fence going to be removed
and some of the property taken even closer to the church? None of them know. How close is the driveway
going
Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1996
does not meet the requirements of a conditional use permit because this development will ruin any church
at that location. There is no way a church can continue n this development is allowed to be bum.
Tim Mason, 1723 Lincoln, objected to the re-zoning of the property. The property values on Lincoln
will be ruined. How will the delivery and trash trucks turn around? They will have to go out behind the
church and behind his property. This will cause a lack of privacy for his
family.Howard Chassagne, 616 Vista Del Gaviota, is a member of the church. They have talked to a realtor
and were informed an offer was made on the church property by the people who bought the property
next door. They were also informed they did not want a church there; they made an offer with the condition
the buildings would be raised. The next thing would be high density for the area. There is a good
chance when property is re-zoned to high density, the residents' insurance goes up. It's a higher risk
regardless if it's elderly people or low income. The project is not really needed; it will create parking and
traffic problems for
the neighborhood.Ray Cook, 807 South Nickels Street, Anaheim, is an elder for the church and teaches the
Bible every Sunday morning. They want to exit through the church properiy where the parking lot is and
where the children are. The property will become useless as a church n the facility were allowed to
be built.Warren McGee, 1747 North Lincoln, concurred about the property values declining. He spoke
about the traffic, noise, privacy and safety concerns in
the neighborhood.Ron Drynan, 1761 North Lincoln, reiterated the traffic and safety concerns for the neighborhood. It'
s a fine project in the wrong place. The zone change is the issue. Once it is changed, it's hard
to
reverse back.Emmy Koontz, 2014 Spruce Avenue, said the parking situation is a valid concern. This age
group of people will probably be needing more emergency type vehicles. In that small area of parking, she
didn't know how the vehicles would be abie to get in and
turn around.Thomas Mastin, 1762 North Lincoln, said the neighbors oppose the project because they
want to maintain their neighborhood. The project itself is a very good business deal. But it's not wanted
in
their neighborhood.Carol Chassagne, 616 Vista Del Gaviota, would like the developer to consider another piece
of properiy that is currently zoned R-3 and perhaps is located out
in East Orange.Janelle Cavenee, 1891 North Lincoln, wants to keep her neighborhood the way it is;
the neighbors are long term residents and are not fly by night people. They don't want to see the
church destroyed by building the assisted care facility
next to it.Vera Mater, 1774 Norih Lincoln, pleaded with the Commission not to ruin their
great neighborhood. She was promised to be contacted regarding the traffic study and she wasn't. Why wasn'
t
her neighborhood included?Frank Rogers, 1518 East Candlewood Avenue, opposed the zone change. This was not
the place for this type of facility; it will have a major impact on the tranquillity of their neighborhood
and will increase traffic and parking on the side streets. Approval of this project would set a precedent
for other such development
in the area.Gail Melander, 1841 North Lincoln, is a nurse practitioner and cares for the elderly. She
was not against the project, but against
the
Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1996
Rebuttal
Mr. Mickelson tried to take notes on all the questions that were raised and will try to address them. The
Southern California Presbyterian Homes did not drive the neighborhood and scout out this piece of
property. It was offered to them by a broker and as they analyzed it, they found it was ideal for their needs.
They are a very high quality organization and have been in business over 40 years. They pride
themselves in the quality of the project they produce and quality of care they give their tenants. They
have not made an offer on either property, on either side. Both properties were presented to them from
various means and they have not offered to buy either one of them as they are not interested. They are
only interested in this piece of properiy. The project is designed to fit on this piece of properiy. The site
plan demonstrates it very clearly w~h room to spare. All of the setbacks are in excess of the minimum code
requirements. In regard to the easement, it is a very confusing thing to be sure. When Cloe and Cloe
bought the property from the church, their proposal was to subdivide it into the four single family lots,
which they did. Their purchase agreement from the church required, and he didn't know all the history,
that the conditions of approval on the four lot subdivision were the creation of the easement and the
reciprocal access so that emergency vehicles could circulate. They have a problem circulating on the
church property now, especially it all the parking spaces are filled. That easement was recorded along with
the tract map and the easement does exist. The purchasers of the property, Southern California
Presbyterian Homes, are subject to that easement for the time being at least. It also makes logical sense
to have that emergency vehicular access for fire and police. SCPH is willing to put in a temporary gate or
whatever is appropriate. They don't have a need to circulate on the church's property. It is not their desire
to drive in their driveway and exit on the church property. They have more than adequate circulation,
parking on s~e, and turn around areas that can accommodate the traffic on their own two way driveway, to
drive in off of Taft, turn around, and drive back out onto Taft. It's not necessary to circulate over onto the
church property for normal, every day operations. It's desirable and even preferable, and it's a safety issue
for both pariies, to have the emergency vehicles have the opporiunity to make that circulation. The intent
is, if the project is approved, and they go forward with it, one of the staff requirements is that the property
lines be erased. Once they go through that procedure, then a new easement will be recorded over the
top of the old one and eliminate the previous one. That new easement can then provide for that gating
provision. The existing easement does not. Since the properiy is in escrow, they don't own it yet. They
don't have control over the easement as it exists. They would have control over ~ as they would propose it
once they own the property and that can be worked out. There is a concern about whether the vehicles
can turn around on site. It's been designed, with the help of the staft, to provide that turn around. There
is an area in the northeast corner for the normal vehicles to turn around. Someone prior to this meeting
raised the issue, what about their own van they provide. It can't turn around in the same space an
automobile can. Some vans can; some cannot. It's very easy to designate one spot next to the trash area
in the northwest corner for the van parking. A lot of testimony has been submitted about the horrendous
parking and traftic that is going to be developed from this project. The staft was never concerned about
that and never did ask for a traffic analysis. They did one and it concurred with the staft's original
conclusion. He referred to Page 8 of the Negative Declaration, Item A: The proposed use will increase
the daily traffic generated from zero to 120 trips per day. That's based on the San Diego Association of
Governments Guide on traftic generation rates. That was based on the 60 un~s -- two trips per unit per day.
They have cut it down to 48 so that number drops down to 96. Austin-Faust projected a peak hour
ADT ot 11 trips. This is the kind 01 traffic that will be ripping up and down the private driveway to get to the
parking lot at the peak hour. This is not an impact. The opposition is afraid of the unknown and he
understood that. Traffic is an unfounded fear. Based on traffic generation and parking inadequacy is not
the right reason. There should be more than adequate parking by almost 100%. It was not the intent of
the developer to re-zone and then run oft to another project and then let someone else develop it.
They want the project and want to be pari ot the community. The people who are entering this facility are
not the 85 and 95 year olds who still drive their own cars. These people are the kind of people who
need assistance with at least three of their normal daily functions. The idea the facility will ruin the church is
a subjective argument. He couldn't believe that could happen with 11 cars traveling down the driveway
in the evening peak hours; not Sunday mornings during
service.Commissioner Pruett questioned the building height. The permissible height in a R-3 zone is
32 and they're asking for 34. What's so hard about
two
Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1996
Mr. Mickelson responded nothing. That's probably an error on their part. Certainly the roof can be
lowered to 32 feet.
Chairman Bosch said there was concern about understanding clearly where the properiy is relative to the
existing temporary fence and the church building itself. The property in question for this project is about
142 feet wide. What's the relative width of the remainder of the property?
Mr. Mickelson presumed the chain link fence is on the properiy line. The proposal to put in the wrought
iron fence between the church and the facility was because they felt these were compatible facilities. And
putting a block wall up there gives a division line and kind of breaks up and separates into little
compartments. By putting up wrought iron, the open space and landscaping would compliment one
another and they could visually flow together. They don't object to putting up a block wall, other than the
fact it is not as aesthetically pleasing. The property line is right at the edge of the paving of the church. He
had a copy of the tract map and he thought that was what was shown.
Chairman Bosch said there was concern about residents moving or walking through the neighborhood
who may not
have...
the implication is they may be bothering neighbors or not have full control of their
faculties. He asked for an explanation of what an assisted living center specifically is, and how there would
be controls.
Marilyn Kennedy, Director of Operations, 1111 North Brand, Glendale, addressed the question about
people who would be wandering around the neighborhood. In any senior facility there is the possibility of
having someone who becomes disoriented and walks in the block. There is no intention of their residents
walking around the neighborhood being disoriented. There will be procedures in place which would
mitigate people from wandering away. She also responded to the age question. What is 62 and older or
people with related needs mean? The age 62 is not their age they chose. Sixty-two is the age at
which people can live in a residential care facility for the elderly according to licensing rulings. In assisted
living facilities, the average age is 85. Sixty-two is the licensing age because the same license covers
all of these types of facilities. People with similar needs could also be admitted to their facility and age is
not a factor. However, it is a very rare occurrence. In state licensing they do allow tor
that statement.Chairman Bosch said the key concerns they must share are relative to
neighborhood preservation,adequacy of existing zoning to meet the needs of the community without imposing additional
uses, and the ever present one he did not have an answer to and that is regardless ot the best
intentions of everyone once the zone change is made, what assurances are there that the development will
proceed in the approved manner? Something could go wrong with the applicant's intent and the City ends up
with a R-3 property, for which a permit could be pulled to introduce apartments
onto the site.Mr. Mickelson thought it was more difficull than that. With an acre, with the designation of the
range of 16 to 15 units to the acre, it would be his opinion they could not physically achieve the maximum
of 15 with the access and parking requirements, the open space requirements contained in the new
Ordinance. It's probably more like 10 or 12. It puts it in the category of the major site plan review, which
must come back to the Planning Commission for review. That's one safe guard. He suggested one
alternative where the applicant would agree to a condition that they would withhold request of the final reading
of the Ordinance until they had closed escrow on the property. So that they do own it and are in charge of the
site. It does not prevent them from selling it someday in the future. It would require some monitoring on
the pari of staff and is an unusual condition, but they are serious with their intent
to go forward.Chairman Bosch said several questions were raised as to why the Taft, Lincoln, Briardale
situation was not included in the traffic study. He thought the response had been that the traffic study
performed for the project demonstrated the limited amount generated by the facility would not have
an appreciable effect.But there has to be concern about any incremental additional effect on Lincoln and Briardale.
That's a community need to solve, not relative just to this piece of land. What mitigation measures
can be provided along with the project to prevent a significant percentage of even the 11 peak hour trips
from ending up on
Lincoln
and
Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1996
Mr. Mickelson discussed this with Joe Faust and he thought it was not worthy of a response because the
amount of people in that peak hour count that might take that movement - he didn't believe it would happen
at all. If so, only occasionally.Chairman
Bosch asked what the benefit to the neighborhood would be if the project were to proceed?Mr.
Mickelson responded it would be a benefit to the general community in that it provides a need for this kind
of assistance. The benetit to the neighborhood has to be subjective because if you don't like it, it doesn'
t matter what is said. It's not going to be a benefit. It takes a vacant piece of properly that has been s~
ting there wanting for some improvement. 11 puts a very desirable facility on the site.The
public hearing was closed.Commissioner
Romero said this was a situation in which everyone is never going to be pleased. He believed
it was going to be a matter of economics. This won't demand or allow R-1 development. In his
opinion, the best use would be to expand the existing church.
Commissioner Pruett said there were two issues with this project. He's a big supporter of these care
facilities and senior projects similar to this one. He's a little concerned about the size of the units -- 300 square
feet was not much room. That adds to the quality of life for the people who are using the facility.He
didn't think there would be a lot of traffic generated from the project. He also thought when a facility was
next to a church, there is a real compatibil~y. The seniors are looking tor that kind of relationship. He thought
the parking was understated from the standpoint of what is required. If this were to move forward,he
would place two conditions on the project. He knows the proponent has already offered a shuttle bus service,
but he would add that as a condition. Another condition would be that of priority given to the Orange
residents to become tenants. The other issue is whether or not the R-3 zone is the appropriate
zone for the property. It was his view the R-3 zone is not the appropriate zone for this location. He
was concerned about the future development and he wasn~ so sure it needed the compatibility test for
the community. It was important for the residents to recognize the property will eventually be
developed someday. At this time he would not support the project from the standpoint he was concerned about
the parking issue and concerned about the density (size of units), and then the R-3 zone from
the standpoint that it is not compatible with the community and
bordering uses.Chairman Bosch stated the parking was not the problem for this project. He was concerned
about several circulation issues. The neighborhood has difficult circulation problems that the City must look
for solutions to help the residents out. Obviously, any mitigation of that is going to have impacts and
change lifestyles.The Commission should recommend to the C~y Council that they direct staff to pursue
a Neighborhood Preservation Program analysis for the neighborhood to see what can be done to assist them. II's
a good neighborhood and needs to be preserved. The traffic generated by whatever goes on this
property will be less than the traffic that will be generated from the site if it's an expanded church ot any
size. Traffic generated trom the project is not the problem; it's the neighborhood and its problem that needs
to be solved. He was concerned about the relationship of the project to its neighbors in traffic
circulation. The applicants are willing to stipulate to a gate on the easement, subject to reformation of
the easement language over time to restrict access between the properties. He believed, regardless of the
desire to have the open space between the two projects, they should condition this to provide for a 6 foot
CMB wall on the property line between the two, a solid gate with a knox box that is only usable
for emergency vehicles moving in e~her direction between the properties, regardless of the uses on the
properties. The project site design, if it moves forward, demonstrates and it is per City ordinance that there be
turn around space for trash and delivery trucks contained on the site. That's going to take some moditication
to the site plan to meet the hammer head design requirements of Public Works, even given,
within the applicant's stipulation, to a gate. There needs to be assurance that the residents' back
yards are protected from vehicles backing up. And, the people who live at the facility are not subjected
to reverse flow traflic from the church or school over a period of time, which could be a detriment to their
lifestyle and safety as well. He concurred with the added conditions Commissioner Pruett mentioned with
regard to shuttle service and priority to Orange residents. 11 boils down to what belongs in the
neighborhood. This is where he has a real problem because the expansion of the R-3 zone and
General
Plan
Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1996
gives him a lot of anxious feelings for the pr6perties. He wished the apartments were not there next to it.
He didn~ believe Taft was a gracious living environment for anyone. The building height could be
adjusted_ He was less concerned with the unit size because of the type of residents in the facility. This
was different than an independent living apartment for the elderly. The problem is: Is this the right place
to place these people relative to safety and environment along Taft Avenue? Is there any way to assure
everyone that despite mitigation measures and conditions in place, this project will occur and they won't
see a use that is less compatible, regardless ot whether a traditional multiple family R-3 development
on the site may produce 10 or 12 dwelling units? These concerns need to be solved. Most of them are
not caused by this proposal, but they won~ be helped by the proposal
either.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Negative
Declaration 1485-95 in that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant impact
on the environment or
wildlife
resources.
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Pruett,
Romero None Commissioner Smith
MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Chairman Bosch, to recommend to the City Council
to deny General Plan Amendment 4-95, Zone Change 1178-95 and Conditional Use
Permit 2130-95, with the conditions 1-10 listed in the staff report, and additional conditions,
should the City Council elect to approve the project: That there be a cement block wall between the two
properties; there be a solid gate with knox box at the easement; there be a hammer head type turn
around driveway on the property to accommodate trash and delivery trucks; there be shuttle
bus service to shopping, entertainment and other destinations; there be priority given to Orange residents to
become tenants at the facility; the building height shall be reduced to meet the requirements of the
R-3 zone and eliminate the conditional use permit request for that. A R-3 zone is not an appropriate zone
for this location, even though there is a R-3 zone next door. By changing the property to R-
3, it would change the nature of the church property and expand the R-3 zone
into the neighborhood. The integrity of the neighborhood would
be
impacted
and
the proposal is
not appropriate
for the area.AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Pruett Commissioner Romero Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED IN
RE:NEW HEARINGS 1. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1489-95 - CITY OF ORANGE Evaluation of the environmental impacts
of the construction of a 24 inch reinforced concrete pipe along North Main Street from approximately 1200
feet south of Taft Avenue to the Southern Pacific R.R.Crossing; thence west, parallel to and on the
norih side of the R. R. right-of-way about 900 feet, then connecting to an existing
42 inch reinforced concrete pipe that extends to the Santa Ana River Channel.The project
also includes construction of four manholes
and three inlets; minor removal and replacement of pavement, curb & gutter, and sidewalk.Chairman Bosch expressed
the need for additional information on why the project.
What is the problem and what is the benefit for undertaking the project?Mr. Bailey stated the problem is
a flooding situation on Main Street, just norih of the railroad tracks. Cars start to hydroplane over the tracks
through 6-12 inches of water. It has been a hazard for many years.They have tried
to negotiate with the Edison Company to provide an easement to follow the natural course of the water to the west
to the Santa Ana River, and only these last few months have they been willing to
provide that easement. The documents have been processed and the City has agreed to purchase an easement for $9,
500.
Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1996
work at the river, to upgrade that for the Project Rood. The Negative Declaration is the process in which to
inform the public and to make sure that any environmental mitigation is taken care of.
The public hearing was opened and then closed.
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Negative Declaration
1489-95 in that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or
wildlife
resources.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett,
Romero
None Commissioner Smith MOTION
CARRIED IN RE:
MISCELLANEOUS 1. PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE
SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA.Adoption of a Preliminary Plan is the first step in the plan amendment process. The primary purpose of
the Preliminary Plan is to establish the proposed boundaries of the area to be added to the
existing Southwest Project
Area.Linda Boone, Interim Economic Development Director, asked the Planning Commission to approve
the Preliminary Plan to allow staff to start the process to add to the Southwest Project Area, at the corner
of Main and LaVeta. Chairman Bosch and Commissioner Pruett expressed concerns that for the first
time houses were going to be included in a project area. They also pointed out that condemnation has
not been used. Ms. Boone reporied that what makes this project different from other project areas is that
a strip of the commercial frontage was recently claimed for the widening of Main Street, which made
the existing commercial so small that is not of any great use. Therefore, for the first time it became
necessary to expand the commercial area in order to make a viable redevelopment area. At this point in time all
the residents are amiable to the plan. It's a great opportunity to buffer the residents along Alpine
from commercial development. The Commission is requested to adopt the Resolution which is attached to
the staff
repori.The public hearing was
opened.Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, supports the adoption of a Preliminary
Plan.When the City Council promised the people they wouldn't include any residential property in
the redevelopment project areas, they also said they would never condemn those properiies. Maybe this
will not involve any condemnation. If true, then the Council can say they are living up to their
promise.The public hearing was
closed.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to adopt the Resolution
approving the preliminary plan for the proposed third amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Project
Area,with the understanding this is to establish a study area. The study, prior to final adoption, must
also resolve the issues surrounding the inclusion of residential areas, staying within the stated policy of
the City with regard to residential properiies, as well as with regard to eminent domain in the
redevelopment
areas.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett,
Romero
None Commissioner Smith MOTION
CARRIED