Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-06-1995 PC MinutesC'.-1'~U~. ~ . ~ MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Walters February 6, 1995 Monday - 7:00 p.m.STAFF PRESENT: Vein Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary;Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant Cdy Attorney, Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF JANUARY 16. 1995 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of January 16, 1995 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2096-94 -FIRST KOREAN UNITED METHODIST CHURCH A request to allow an existing church to expand by installing a modular structure to be used as a classroom. The site is located at 4700 East Walnut Avenue.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15303 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.This item was continued from the January 16, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting.)Barbara Gander, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as there was still opposition to this project. A revised site plan and revised building elevations were submitted. The exterior of the structure will be painted with a sanded paint product to give the buildings a stucco appearance. The applicant intends to match the existing church by using off-white as the primary paint color with brown trim. The applicant also proposes to install a wood post lattice to the north side of the structure to screen two air conditioning units. The conceptual landscape plan shows the proposed plant material.Three trees will be located west of the modular structure and shrubs will be planted around the foundation of the modular structure. The applicant has eliminated one of the parking spaces to provide landscape improvements, since the previous condition of approval for landscaping was not met.The public hearing was re- opened.Aoolicant J Greg Hamel, 1518 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, was the architect for the project. They have made modifications in the location of the modular building and incorporated landscaping in their master plan.The proposed landscaping will amount to taking out some paved area and they will lose one parking space. Several people from the congregation were present who were in favor Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1995 The public hearing was closed as no one else wanted to speak. Commissioner Cathcart thanked Mr. Hamel for his patience from the last meeting and putting together a good response to the Commission's concerns. One of the issues that was important to look at were the backs of buildings and things -- not just the fronts. Everyone needs to think about their neighbors internally and externally. In the future, he will look at the property line landscaping issues.Commissioner Smith had one concern that was not required in the action, but it might be something for the congreggation to look at when they come back with their next building plan. It would be some sort of treatment for the chain link fence. She realized that would be a costly improvement if there was no watering~ rrigation system, but it may be a requirement for a permanent plan.Commissioner Pruett thought the plans submitted addressed all of his concerns. He hoped there was enough activity around the church so that eventually the chain link fence could come down. That would be even more attractive not having the fence.Chairman Bosch seconded the comment. He thanked the applicant for their patience and work knowing they had a great need and demand, but it was important to also be good neighbors and work in the community to arrive at something everyone could be proud of.It was noted the project was categorically exempt from environmental review under the provisions of CEQA. Movsd by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2096-94 with the conditions of approval listed in the stab report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2098-94 - CHAPMAN GENERAL HOSPITAL Installation of a large wall sign on the west side of the building, facing the Newport Freeway. The site is located at 2601 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 15311. Chairman Bosch excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice- Chairman Cathcart chaired the hearing.There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. ADplicant Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, represented Chapman General Hospital. The hospital provides 24-hour emergency service and is located within the freeway corridor. He took a few pictures and shared them with the Commission. The sign will be framed by the traffic signals and will be visible as a person enters the intersection. The size of the sign being requested is because of the needed exposure further down the street. The Design Review Board liked the sign, but thought it should be smaller. It was their opinion the building would be dwarfed by the proposed wall sign, if approved in its present form.Reducingthe sign's display area would balance the relationship between the sign and the building.However, the sign blends in well as shown on the documentation given to the Commission. They requested elimination of condition 2 because the project is worthy of the larger sign.Commissioner Smith referred toPage 5.1 where it showed the numbers 2601. She wondered about adding the street and city under those numbers. When you're in front of a building, sometimes just a number doesn't help. The building next door could be mistakenly identified as Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1995 Mr. Mickelson didn't think the hospital would object to adding the additional words. Commissioner Pruett expressed concern that the sign is a large sign and it's going to brin~ people to focus on the sign to identify where the hospital is. The emergency entrance identification is ha f way down the building. If someone were approaching the hospital, there is nothing on the front corner of the building that would indicate where the emergency entrance is. Maybe it would be appropriate to have something up closer to the corner of the building that would identify that. Mr. Mickelson explained there would be a monument sign displayed and will be visible from both sides. Commissioner Cathcart commented when the largest letters are Chapman, which is the name of the street and the medical center is lower, the only thing that occurred to him was the Design Review Board was saying made half sense. If you're going to reduce Chapman, the medical center needs to be the same size as Chapman. So further reducing down the most Important aspect doesnY make sense to him. He thought it should be left the way it was presented, or ii the Commission leans towards the Design Review Board's comments in that it is overpowering, that Chapman not be lower than 3 feet and the medical center stays 3 feet also. Mr. Mickelson said the larger size lettering would get people's attention who are coming off the freeway. The public hearing was dosed. The project was categorically exempt from environmental review under the provisions of CEQA. Commissioner Smith didn't like to disagree with the Design Review Board; however, the sign as presented in the proposal was fine. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2098-95, deleting condition 2 and accept the height of the individual letters presented in the project proposal.AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None MOTIONCARRIEDABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Walters Commissioner Pruett suggested to City staff while the signs on the freeway do indicate hospital next right, it doesnY identify what someone is looking for. Someone looking for a hospital may not associate a medical center as being a hospital. Cal-Trans should be asked 'rf they would be willing to put up a sign that says Chapman Hospital next right or Chapman Medical Center next right -- identity it as the actual name of the facility.Chairman Bosch returned to the meeting.UPDATE OF CITY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES Proposed adoption of local guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as regwred under state law. This proposal revises theCity's current guidelines and is needed to respond to changes in State environmental law and city policy.NOTE: The adoption of these guidelines is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Sate CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, which exempts actions taken by regulatory agendes for the protection of the environment.Barbara Gander, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and briefed the Commission on the document. She outlined the different sections of the Environmental Review Guidelines, as well as the Appendices. The Staff Review Committee is currently known as the Environmental Review Committee,but is being renamed to be consistent with the changes proposed in the comprehensive update to the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Commission was asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on adopting the Guidelines by Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1995 Commissioner Smith pointed out a typo on Page 8. Roman numeral V. is listed twice (Pages 7 and 8). There is no reference in the document to CEQA application to cultural resources within the City. That is something they have worked on for many years to cultivate sensitivity to, and also to get some teeth in the proper review of demolitions of propperties, of impacts of buildings around cultural resources. Her comments will refer to those things. On Page i, item III. A., the second paragraph -- it references determining the applicability of CEQA and talks about ministerial projects. Activities that are not projects and are not subject to CEQA or these guidelines. A project can generally be descried as an action that requires discretionary approval. Her concern was that discretionary may be used too broadly. It must be spelled out somewhere in the document the inclusion of how CEQA applies to cultural resources in the discretionary category. It calls for a reference to Appendix B. Under Planning Division she suggested to include in the list Approval of demolition of cultural resources and some statement to address the cumulative impacts of demolitions or buildings or other impacts in cultural resource vicinities. Staff might want to reference projects that abut or include National Register Districts. On Page 2, the first paragraph talks about activities that are ministerial projects. Ministerial is a term describing a decision that involves little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project." There could be some reference there to the Historic Preservation Element so that the decision shows an educated personal judgment.Ms. Gander referred to Appendix D -Cultural Resources. (There were only two questions referring to Cultural Resources.) Staff could add Cultural Resources to Appendix A.Chairman Bosch worried about getting too repetitious. He agreed there needs to be an emphasis upon key issues in the City, but there are so many. It's better to include the issues in the Appendices to help people understand in focused terms what is being emphasized.Commissioner Smith said there was a document called The Preservationist Guide to CEQA", which may be helpful with the wording. The CEQA application to the City'scultural resources has largely been ignored or not referenced for many years. The City is lucky to not have had a litigation because of that.She was afraid by not listing it, that kind of thing will continue to happen.Commissioner Cathcart thought the generic term of demolition should be in the Guidelines. It need not be specific, but could be mentioned. He also thought the cumulative efieci should be in there.Commissioner Smith continued on Page 2, at the bottom, item 2. b. Categorical Exemptions. All of that takes on a completely different meaning when it is a building that is a cultural resource in a historic neighborhood. pn Page 3, item B., the initial study process, item 2. -the City makes a determination as to whether the impacts are significant in accordance with Guidelines Section 15064. Who in the City decides that? Who makes that determination? At what point are the impacts considered adverse? In item 3. - it there is substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact then the lead agency prepares or causes the preparation of an EIR. She was concerned as to how that information was being recorded so that there could be a cumulative impact report. Who on the committee is the person who represents the knowledge to do environmental impacts on the City's culturalresources? It lists a number of department heads, none of which by duty would have that expertise.Ms. Gander explained there is a historical planner on staff who attends those meetings when a cultural resource or historic project is being considered.Commissioner Smith' s viewpoint is that ii it isn't in writing in Orange, it doesn't happen. She didn't sse any reference on the Staff Review Committee that there would be a person with knowledge of the impacts on the City's culturalresources. She would feel more comfortable if it were spelled out in the document.Chairman Bosch thought maybe staff could consider an additional appendix such as an organizational chart. They need to avoid quoting other portions of ordinance or city policy manuals into every document,but at the same time there needs to be a way for people to understand that all of that applies as well.Commissioner Pruett thought the wording, designated technical representative, should be added to Page 7 for that specific issue.Commissioner Cathcart asked it the SRC were the City?4 Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1995 Ms. Gander referred to Pages 6 and 7, Staff Review Committee. Who the committee is comprised ot, it's purpose, powers and duties were spelled out. The document should say, the City, through the Staff Review Committee process. Commissioner Smith would like to see in the Appendices that it be spelled out clear examples of activities that may be subject to environmental review -under Planning Division - it would list approval of demolition of cultural resource or historic sites (Historic structure or Historic resource). Also, something to address the cumulative impacts on cultural resources. She wondered how the City was accumulating cumulative impacts?Commissioner Pruett thought the issue of cumulative impacts was a very good issue to look at, but he thought it was much broader from lust the historic sections of the community. There are many issues the City takes on within an area of the community that the cumulative impact is significant. How do you base line any of that? That is an issue that must be dealt with, but he wasn't sure how to do that.Commissioner Smith was particularly concerned with areas like the Plaza Historic District and new development that goes in. If there is not proper CEQA management of that, the City could lose those resources oft the Register. She was thinking of the Satellite Market. Is it in the document there would be environmental review called for on that particular site when it is ready to be developed? The other area was the Depot.Chairman Bosch thought the cumulative impacts almost falls or is focused in Appendix B to understand the context. It almost falls into every department at some point. There must be somewhere in the ordinance to address cumulative impacts as one of the criteria the Staff Review Committee focuses upon and includes in its review documentation as it determines its significance or lack of significance.Commissioner Pruett thought as single projects come forward and they are judged as being exempt from CEDA, then there is the cumulative impact and one person comes forward and suddenly their pro ect is one that is subject to CEQA review. Does that applicant then have the responsibility to un~ ertakethat environmental impact report, or because it is a cumulative impact, is that going to be the responsibility of the City to undertake that? Is it fair to throw that upon one property owner because they happened to be the last one through the gate?That was Commissioner Smith's concern too. For several years they have had the assurances that someday they are going to start the environmental review according to CEG1A standards on those projects, but it keeps getting put off. The master environmental assessment database would be important because it would automatically come up. This shouldn't be side stepped any longer; they should call for that measurement of cumulative effects and impacts. Also, perhaps staff should take a look at each and every project that comes forward with a special eye to those that are historic properties or cultural resources, and put the review over it right away to determine whether or not it should come under environmental review. In her opinion, every demolition that has occurred in Old Towne should of had some sort of CEQA review on it.Commissioner Pruett wanted to know if there was a way to capture the cumulative impact, even on those properties that may be exempt? Can, even when the property is exempt from CEQA review, the City still chargge a review fee that can be held and put into an account so that when the cumulative study is going to be done, you can draw on that fund to accomplish the study?Chairman Bosch thought that was a good thought to think about. Maybe that fund could also help better define ordinances with community consensus that eliminate the need. Because they encourage and require mitigation below the level of significance of virtually anything that comes forward. Anything that can be done to make it a normal part of every day in community life to put forward proposals that are below the level of significance, knowing what that would be. What tools can the City come up with to help Lund this, help everyone comprehend what is trying to be done, and then someday get it codified. Hopefully staff will lake the Commission's suggestions to work on internally.Commissioner Smith said one of the first questions that needs to be asked is, "Should there be an EIR in this project?" Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1995 Chairman Bosch thought staff did that with the initial study checklist and staff is sensitive to it because it is legal and they're beaten up if they don't do it right. Beyond that, it's assigning the appropriate staff specialists in the review process. Commissioner Smith was sensitive to this because of an upzoning of properties in Old Towne a couple of years ago where CEQA was not called into play and it definitely should have been. She used that as a blatant example of a time when CEQA should have been used. She would not be able to recommend this update to the City Council without some modifications. Commissioner Cathcart thought it was important to address the generic term of demolition and cumulative impacts, but he hoped they didn't gel bogged down with getting hung up with trying to make this document bullet proof to the point they never get it to the City Council to move m a fashion that some of the elements become more significant in the vocabulary at the Council level. As long as it stays outside of the City Council, it will never become a valid document or something that can be built on. Revisions and amendments need to take place on a regular basis. One of the issues is going to be trying to define "what is significant". The only way to find out is to get into it and have specific protects go through the process. Chairman Bosch wanted to add in the blasting permit process as well. Also, to pick up what Commissioner Smith said -- to add the cumulative impacts, cultural resources and demolition issues. In Section I, Page 1 he would like to see a slight adjustment of the wording to make it clear these are guidelines, but they're an ordinance and not a matter of opinion; that this is to provide anyone with the requirements of the environmental review process. These guidelines add to the procedures contained in CEQA. In the second paragraph, that it's not just the authorityy to develop these guidelines, but it is to develop, adopt, implement, police and monitor. It needs to be made clear the State of California is requiring and allowing these things to be adopted. On Page 2 it speaks to exceptions for determining the applicability of CEQA. This section is very helpful and was Headed when they reviewed a pro'ecta couple of years ago when someone wanted to split the property with an active geological fault and' build a house on it. The Commission didn't apply the CEQA exception at that point. He found a typo in Appendix D-2, Page 4 under Cultural Resources, item d) "scared". Public Comments Shannon Tucker, 556 East Culver, reviewed the document and was pleased with the checklist. It's much more specific because it was vague before. She commented on the flow chart for the basic process. There was no determination of how the City responds io public input on negative declarations. Will there be a new policy implemented from the staff on how they were going to respond to public comments. It was vague as to who will determine some of the specifics indicated in the checklist. Commissioner Cathcart thought it was important to address public input and city response during the negative declaration. The City has more control with a mitigated negative declaration than with an EIR. Even though the EIR has been moved to a higher level, it doesn't give the City the control. He preferred to have mitigated negative declarations on all projects because it makes more sense. There should be some place in the document that says public input is encouraged and that a response needs to be forthcoming. Commissioner Pruett also thought this should be moved forward. There are some things that do fall short and they would like to see change beyond what was discussed, but it is important to move it forward and to get it m place. Those issues that need to be addressed should be identified in terms of priority and staff needs to put it in their work plan to address those over the next year or so. The cumulative impact of an EIR needs to be dealt with so that it isn't thrown upon one applicant. It needs to be shared by others who have had a negative declaration submitted earlier. That's one of the issues he would like to see as staff's priority -- assessing a tee schedule.Chairman Bosch would like to see this move ahead, but also would like to sea the product that goes forward. The Commission should be able to review the final product and otter their recommendation to City Council -- perhaps in 30 days. It's avery well written document and there are only a few minor changes that are needed.Mr. Jones responded the cumulative impact is probably the most challenging because before a fee can be imposed, the master environmental assessment must be done. That is a major commitment on the 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1995 City's part to do that. Staff will review the Commission's concerns and comments and return with modifications to the document in 30 days. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to continue the proposed update of the City of Orange Environmental Review Guidelines to the meeting of March 6, 1995. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Prueri, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS CITY OF ORANGE BLASTING ORDINANCE Request that the Planning Commission review the Blasting Ordinance for conformance to the General Plan. Mr. Johnson said this ordinance has been in the mill for some time. It has been reviewed by the land owners who will be affected by the ordinance; namely, the Irvine Company and the Bank of America. Staff is hopeful this will be able to control the problems they have experienced in the past and set a guideline that people can follow and still get the job done. Commissioner Cathcart echoed Mr. Bennyhoff's comments that the ordinance was long overdue and time is of the essence. Chairman Bosch referred to Page 6, B. Board of Appeals. It states the Board may adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business. He was concerned about that because he thought the Board should adopt rules...Change the word "may" to "shall". Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to find the Blasting Ordinance is in conformance with the General Plan, and to recommend to the City Council they adopt the ordinance with the change in wording on Page 6 from may to shall -- the Board of Appeals shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn to Wednesday,February 22, 1995 at 6:30p.m. in the Weimer Room.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.sld