Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-16-1993 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission August 16, 1993 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Manager of Current Planning; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney; Bob VonSchimmelmann, Assistant City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF AUGUST 2. 1993 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve the Minutes of August 2, 1993, as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1652-93 - MELINDA L. FOBBER A request for a modification to the previously approved site plan, to allow a workshop addition of approximately 288 square feet. Subject property is located midway between Washington and Palmyra Avenues, addressed 275-277 South Center Street. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e). Mr. Godlewski said the original development was approved by a conditional use permit and this is now an addition to that. Under normal circumstances staff would have signed it off because it meets code; however, because the Commission reviewed the site plan as a conditional use permit, it's back before the Commission as a modification to that original approval. There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Melinda Fobber, 277 South Center, was the owner of the duplex in question. She said this would be a small addition in the rear of the units behind the garages and would not be noticed from the front yard. It will be used as her hobby room. She is into crafts and wanted a place to work. The design of the structure will conform to the existing structure. It will not be used as a living area and she would be willing to sign a deed restriction to that effect. One neighbor has expressed concern, but after she explained her project, the neighbor was satisfied. Commissioner Walters retained some concern at some future date if she were to sell the property, how that room would be kept from becoming another residence. He questioned the plumbing facilities (i.e., bathroom) and wondered if it was necessary to include the bathroom? Ms. Fobber said the half bath was for cleaning purposes and convenience. Commissioner Smith also had a question along the same line, but there is a condition regarding the deed restriction on the property in that the addition not be utilized as living area. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch noted the project was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the modification to Conditional Use Permit 1652-93, with the conditions outlined in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith NOES: Commissioner Walters ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING Commissioner Bosch excused himself from the meeting for the next two hearings due to a potential conflict of interest. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2024-93 - PACTEL CELLULAR A request to allow the construction of a building mounted cellular phone antenna higher than the maximum height permitted in the M-2 (Manufacturing) District. Subject property is located on the north side of Katella Avenue and east of the Santa Ana River, addressed 1855 West Katella Avenue. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. There was no opposition; the public hearing was opened. Applicant Tom Conzelman, 35 Ptaza, Irvine, thanked staff for working with them regarding some last minute changes. They want to expand their present capabilities and install new cellular antennas and digital whips to keep pace with their current growth. 2 Commissioner Smith asked if the antennas were fairly portable so that if their business leaves, the antennas will easily leave or are they permanently affixed and difficult to remove? Mr. Conzelman guaranteed the Commission when their lease expires, they will take their antennas with them; they are portable antennas. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart noted the project was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Commissioner Smith asked if the surrounding businesses were notified about this project by mail? Mr. Godlewski responded yes. Notification was made within a 300 foot radius of the property boundaries. The mailing list was available for the Commission's review. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2024-93 with the conditions listed in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2025-93 - PACTEL CELLULAR A request to allow the construction of a building mounted cellular phone antenna higher than the maximum 30 foot height permitted in the C-1 (Limited Business) District. Subject property is located on the south side of Chapman Avenue between Newport Boulevard and Chandler Ranch Road, addressed 7446 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Tom Conzelman, 35 Plaza, Irvine, explained this was a very similar type project. They are installing visual whips and large tower antennas outside the building to allow for their growth. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart said this project was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Commissioner Smith was concerned because the project borders residential properties. She asked if there were homes in view of the building now or were they proposed for some future date? What was the notification list for this project? 3 It was Commissioner Cathcart's understanding the area was going to be open space forever. Mr. Godlewski said the open space was open space. The homes were further upon the slope. Notification was within 300 feet of the property boundaries. The mailing was more extensive than the previous project; there was 46 properties within the 300 foot radius moving all the way up to Twinleaf Trail, Saddlehorn Way and the Broadmoor Tract. A vicinity sketch was included in the Commissioner's packets. To his knowledge, no letters of opposition were received. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2025-93, with the conditions listed in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch returned to the meeting. IN RE: NEW HEARING SANTA FE DEPOT SPECIFIC PLAN -GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8-93, ZONE CHANGE 1164-93 -CITY OF ORANGE A request to adopt a specific plan for the Santa Fe Depot Area which includes a general plan amendment to redesignate the project area from Industrial to Old Towne Mixed Use and Medium Density Residential (15 to 24 dwelling units per acre). In addition, a zone change is proposed from M-1 (Light Manufacturing), C-2 (General Business), and R-3 (Residential Multiple Family) Districts to a Specific Plan designation that identifies locations of Multiple Family Residential, Mixed Use, Commercial, Public Facilities, Open Space-Park and Light Industrial. Subject property consists of 31.6 net acres (93 t) parcels including and surrounding the Historic Santa Fe Railroad Depot (184 N. Atchison Street). The study area is located generally on the north and south sides of Chapman Avenue between Pixley and Olive Streets, both sides of the 100 and 200 blocks of North Cypress and Lemon Streets, the east side of the 100 block north Pixley Street and the east side of the 300 block of north Cypress Street. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Negative Declaration 1435-93 has been prepared for this project. Jere Murphy, Manager of Advanced Planning, presented the full staff report. In 1988 a marketing/engineering consulting team led by Williams-Kuebelbeck of Irvine prepared a development feasibility study for the Santa Fe Depot Area for the City of Orange Redevelopment Agency. The study sought to identify a viable development/redevelopment strategy for the Santa Fe Depot Area which had been generally characterized as a declining industrial area containing pockets of existing non- conforming residential and commercial uses. This area was further typified as one with various vacant, underutilized or deteriorated properties. Added to the City's interest in revitalizing this area of the city was a specific earlier city interest in preserving a part of the City's past by acquiring the then recently closed Santa Fe Depot. The greatest potential market for the Depot area was considered to be the specialty retail/commercial market with potential for attracting customers from four market segments: 1) Old Towne residents; 2) regional residents; 3) visitors and tourists; and 4) employees from Chapman Avenue offices and businesses. The Study pointed to the importance of the 4 Santa Fe Depot building itself as holding the potential to become a central attraction and unifying theme for the depot area if it was developed as a private use such as a restaurant. Additional residential development was identified in the Study for the Depot area including seniors and low/moderate income housing along with conventional multi- family housing. The Study recommended the preparation of a comprehensive Specific Plan for the area to provide a definitive land use plan, development standards, circulation and parking plan, a public improvements plan and a program for addressing non-conforming land uses in the area. In January, 1990, the City hired the firm of Planning and Design Solutions to assist staff in addressing several land use issues in the general northwest quadrant of Old Towne including the Williams-Kuebelbeck land use changes and a general plan/zoning inconsistency in the Cypress Street residential neighborhood north of Palm Avenue. At the end of that study, in October, 1990, the City Council acted to rezone the Cypress Street neighborhood from R-4 to R-2-6 and to approve in concept a land use plan for the railroad depot area with direction to staff to prepare a specific plan. During the preparation of the Cypress Street Railroad Depot Study, in September, 1990, the Commuter Rail Action Plan was adopted for Orange County that included an additional new station at the Orange Depot site. This approval of a new commuter rail station for Orange added another dimension to the Land Use Plan for the Depot Area. The proposed rail station project enhances the Depot Area as a truly mixed use planned area including the opportunity to live and shop within the area, as well as travel via mass transit to the work place, to recreational activities or to major shopping centers. In October, 1991, the City hired a team of consultants headed up by the Archiplan Group to prepare the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan. The team also included Martin Eli Weil, restoration architect, Stevens/Garland/Norman Associates, transportation consultants, and HRP LanDesign, landscape consultants. The major goals for the Santa Fe Depot Area Specific Plan are to: a) create a working commuter Rail Station facility within the Santa Fe right-of-way and adjacent land that meets all Orange County Transportation Authority loading, parking and access requirements; b) intensity the amount of commercial space in the areas adjacent to the Santa Fe Depot in order to capture the projected growth in subregional demand for specialty retail; c) provide for significant amounts of new housing in the area to help support the proposed expanded retail opportunities and to complement commuter rail ridership opportunities provided by the planned Orange Metrolink commuter rail station; d) protect historic resources; e) accommodate needed future circulation systems for the area; f) create a "pedestrian friendly" environment; g) encourage private sector development with selected public sector support; h) provide low income, moderate income and senior housing in the area; i) provide for needed street, utility and other physical infrastructure for the area; j) promote aesthetically pleasing and functionally efficient design in all private and public protects and improvements; k) insure high levels of public safety and protection; I) assess and plan for any potential impacts generated from the Specific Plan in the surrounding area; and m) provide guidelines and standards to insure visual and functional integration of short term, transitional and/or non- compatible land uses and/or businesses into the Specific Plan area. The focus of the Specific Plan is the Santa Fe Depot site and the properties along Atchison Street which are anticipated to be developed as specialty retail uses having a strong pedestrian linkage to the Historic Plaza District. There are a number of historically contributing structures in the southern portion of the project area, whose architectural style will be referenced in reviewing proposed new developments for the area. Retail commercial use is proposed for a majority of properties south of Maple 5 Avenue with multiple family residential to the north. At the request of the Planning Commission, staff has prepared an economic analysis of typical properties in the residential portion of the Specific Plan. The analysis identifies various housing types and densities that might be feasible on the residentially designated properties at heights no greater than 2 1/2 stories. There are no changes to the City's circulation system required as part of the adoption of the Specific Plan. However, provision has been made in the Plan if, in the future, a decision is made to extend Maple Avenue as an underpass beneath the railroad. This is a separate issue and would be addressed in a separate environmental document, if the road extension were proposed. With regard to the permitted uses, the Plan identifies existing uses as permitted uses even if they do not conform to the proposed Land Use Plan of the Specific Plan as long as they were established as legal structures, when first constructed. This provision will allow for rebuilding or refinancing of existing uses if damaged even if they do not conform to the proposed Specific Plan. Staff has also recommended an amendment to the Specific Plan regarding the Katellis property on the west side of the railroad tracks to indicate that if that property is not acquired for public use, that it be allowed to be developed in a similar fashion to the adjacent properties to the west (commercial to the south of Maple Avenue and residential to the north). The Specific Plan proposed an integrated mixture of land uses including retail commercial, multi-family housing and a mini multi-modal transportation center that will assist the City to provide transportation alternatives for existing and future residents and employees, as well as a significant number of new housing units for persons of low and moderate income. The Plan will help the City to implement its Housing Element as well as the City's responsibilities related to implementation of the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan while maintaining height, bulk and architectural compatibility with existing structures both within the Specific Plan and the surrounding Old Towne area. Commissioner Bosch would like more iteration on four critical aspects: 1) The existing non-specialty commercial lands in the Depot area. There are many businesses in the area that are long-term investments -- people who may desire to stay. He asked for assurances contained in the Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan that would protect and enhance those properties and continue their valued use to the City; 2) Multi-family residential relative to not just the economic study, but specifically to density. There are a couple of adjoining uses to which a transition appears to be necessary -- lower density residential -- relative to the higher density allowed under the proposed zoning. And, relationship of this type and density of housing to the railroad track and increased volume of traffic anticipated along the line; 3) Proposed mixed use in the area north of Maple of a fairly limited depth. What is the potential for flexibility and what the impacts would be upon adjacent multi-family residential and the ability to get reasonable development on that minimal depth given the ordinance before them; and 4) Maple Avenue under crossing. He didn't believe it was on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways at this time. Why should it even be considered as part of the proposal? Mr. Murphy said the Plan attempts to give every consideration to allowing the existing businesses in the area to remain as long as they wish to do so. The idea is that as properties become available to be re-used, the properties would be re-used under an agreement between the land owner, the City and the Redevelopment Agency. But not until the time the land owner is prepared to do so and is comfortable with whatever arrangements can be negotiated. Some land owners have made it known they wish to stay in the area indefinitely and that will be accommodated through perhaps architectural treatment and landscaping. There is every assurance attempted through the Specific Plan to allow existing uses to remain. With regard to multi-family residences, the density at 15 to 24 units to the acre can be achieved within a height of 2 6 1/2 stories with tuck under, semi-subterranean parking, at a half height below grade, with two stories of units over them as the maximum height for the development, with perhaps even a stepping down around the periphery at the east edge of the project area as it relates to the adjacent properties. The intensity of development is needed from an economic standpoint in order not to require an even greater subsidy than is anticipated for the development. The economic analysis that was prepared by the staff indicates that with a combination of senior housing at smaller unit sizes, apartments at a larger unit size and condominiums at an even larger size, the combination of the three different types of dwelling units can be accommodated within that envelope of the 2 1/2 stories in height and a density of somewhere in the area of 24 to 29 or 30 units to the acre, meeting all the requirements of the Old Towne Guidelines and in relating to the surrounding area from an architectural standpoint. In terms of the railroad area on the west side of the Anaconda holdings the design of those units would require the non- habitable buildings be placed adjacent to the railroad. Those uses such as recreation areas, parking, driveways, laundry facilities would be placed in that area, as well as sound proofing will be provided in the sides of the habitable buildings that would face the railroad right-of-way as means of mitigating noise from the railroad. Staff thinks the parcels are large enough that they can accommodate design flexibility to allow for mitigation of noise from the railroad tracks. Regarding the mixed use area on the north side of Maple, it is identified as a mixed use in a perhaps optional residential vs. commercial area. If the road does not go through, it would be exclusively residential on the north side of Maple or it could be either all commercial along the north side, or a mixed use as combination of residential and commercial to provide somewhat of a plaza effect around the railroad depot parking and circulation area. The ultimate decision as to whether Maple Avenue would go through or not will be made at a point in time when traffic in the Chapman corridor begins to be an issue and requires some kind of relief. There are other circulation issues that would be addressed at that same time, including one way streets. This Plan does not depend on any of the circulation issues being addressed at this point in time. The traffic study indicates there are some additional 2,300 trips generated by the Specific Plan vs. the existing uses within the area. Those daily trips can be accommodated quite well within the existing street system. The public hearing was opened. Those sgeakina in favor Don Blake, 153 North Cypress, has attended all the meetings and workshops regarding the proposed Depot. He has been at this location all of his adult life. He's impressed with the fairness --they have been heard and the hearings have been fair. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, had some questions and didn't know if he opposed or favored the Specific Plan. He understands staff requires a subsidy of approximately two million dollars and he presumes it would come from the Redevelopment Agency. How does the 38 units per acre correspond to the adjoining residential and how does that fit in with the highest per acre residential at the present time? That's quite dense. Those speaking in opposition Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, was not speaking in opposition, but she would like to express her fear about the Planning Commission accepting an EIR that is almost 4 1/2 years old when so many changes have been made throughout the years. The few units that were taken -- some against the people's will or knowledge -- cannot make up for this. 7 Adrian Forrester, 141 North Pixley, was concerned about the density also. There is a 7% vacancy factor in the City of Orange now. They have units adjoining this area, which she could turn over and rent in about two weeks. Now, it takes her about 60 to 90 days to rent those units. She felt high density was not needed. They also have M-1 property and there is talk about it remaining M-1. She understands they will be grandfathered in; what happens when they sell that property? Will they be put at R-3 or remain at M-1 ? She spoke about the problems of graffiti in the area and the length of time it took for the graffiti removal crew to respond. She felt the existing problems needed to be addressed before adding to the density. Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, did not know how the Commission and Council could vote favorably for this when people's property rights were being taken away. She spoke about the increased traffic and parking problems. She thought the business owners should be considered first and did not feel they would be protected when they sold their businesses. Will the 220 buses in 24 hours hurt the businesses in the area? John Ascheiros, 401 West Chapman, was not speaking against or in favor of the project, but had some questions that concerned him personally. His particular property is scheduled for a zone change from its current C-2 to C-1 Old Towne. He believes it will put some significant restrictions as to the use he could make on his property. He appreciates the fact under the ordinance he can continue to use it as it's present use, but does not speak to the potential uses that he now enjoys that he would not enjoy under the proposed change in zoning. At the workshop on July 8 he believed the staff was asked to do some kind of study to analyze the economic effect of the zone changes. Was that done? At the June 6 workshop the City Attorney was asked to make some kind of report as to the subject of what constitutes a taking where a property is down zoned and what the economic effect of that would have. Anne Seibert, 340 South Olive, agreed that the proposal had too much density. After 18 months of talking about density in Old Towne, she didn't know how the City could support a plan that asks for at least 250 more units -- the highest density in the City that will be contained in two blocks alone. High density leads to crime, less parking, more traffic -- do we want Old Towne to be a rental disaster? Changing the zoning in Old Towne has been put off to wait for the zoning update. She thought there needed to be the same level of concern for the Depot area. She wondered if the new Development Standards had anything to do with the area at all or was it protected by the Specific Plan? She agreed the EIR was far too old and it needs to be updated. Ted Williams, 233 West Palm, said his area was recently and illegally down zoned from R-4 to R-2. All of the arguments that were applied to that down zoning are now turned upside down. Because now we're saying that one block away, 39 units per acre is ok whereas just a few meetings ago, they were denied the opportunity to maintain the R-4 and it was put back into R-2. The argument was to maintain the character of the Old Towne area. Dale Forrester, 141 North Pixley, has had an industrial building there for the last 20 years. He couldn't imagine building apartments there because of the trains and traffic -- it's too noisy. He would like to see it remain as M-1 property. Bob Patterson, 183 North Pixley, has a contracting business, which has been upgraded. The underpass at Maple concerned him because it would affect his property. He would be opposed to that. Changing from M-1 to commercial may or may not affect them; he's not overly enthused about the change, but could live with it. 8 T.J. Clark, 811 East Chapman, noticed the intersection at Lemon and Palm was down zoned from R-4 to R-2-6 (Olive and Lemon), but the School District was left as R-4. Out of the 19 parcels, there are 16 property owners who were down zoned because it increased high density. He knows his property at one time was zoned RMMD6 and he was told he could build as many units as he could stack on there. All of a sudden that zoning disappears and it becomes R-4. How is it possible to down zone the small parcel to R-2-6 when above it is zoned R-4, below it, R-4, the one to the right of it is C-1 and the one to the left will be changed to high density (25 units to the acre). He would like an answer to that. The restaurant also concerns him. The Railroad Depot is a dump; it will have to be rebuilt and there will be a big investment in which the City is going to have to shell out some money. Bankruptcies are common for restaurant businesses. He doesn't see how the Depot can even be considered for a restaurant. How will low income rentals support the restaurant? Corrine Schreck, 446 North James, thought the density for residential housing was extremely high. She questioned the package deal of a General Plan, even though this was a Specific Plan. The 300 block North Olive is completely surrounded by higher density. It does not make sense if you look at a map. The little wedge of R-2 properties is completely surrounded with high density. The General Plan should flow and be consistent and it doesn't do that. Beatrice Vega, 486 North Olive, was unhappy about the project because she worked hard to get the area down zoned. Traffic and crime make it a depressed area. The Specific Plan needs to be looked at a little closer. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Murphy responded to the questions raised from the speakers. The analysis prepared by staff indicates a significant subsidy would be required even at the 24 to 30 units -- 39 units was not discussed in the study. The subsidy is somewhere in the area of a couple million dollars to do the entire area. That is a significant amount of money; it is not money the Redevelopment Agency has in hand in terms of the housing set-aside funds at the present time. They know it is going to take quite some time to accumulate those funds to be able to even begin to develop the residential portion of the project. That is one of the reasons why the density is identified where it is and it is believed that development can occur within an envelope that is compatible with Old Towne. Commissioner Bosch's concern is what is the impact if such a plan were to be approved as proposed requiring a subsidy upon potential restriction of the rights of the current property owner to seek other methods of development, realizing the economic return in the future? Mr. Murphy said every indication they have received from the existing land owner is that he has a viable use of the property at the present time and does not intend to change that use without the financial assistance from the Agency and City to accommodate a change. The industrial uses presently on the property (industrial leases that he has) are very successful and the land owner appears to be happy with the present arrangement he has. The financial arrangements need to be accounted for. Staff and the owner have had continuing discussions with the major land owner of that area in that all parties could move forward when funds become available, either through a joint venture, a development by the owner himself, or perhaps anon-profit corporation to build affordable housing. 9 Commissioner Bosch asked in the interim it was felt the construction of the Specific Plan language would allow the land owner to maintain the current uses, in fact, enhance them even though there would be an underlying zone change? Mr. Murphy explained the Specific Plan would allow for the uses to remain as they are and for those uses to be maintained in their present form, which appears to be a satisfactory arrangement to the owner and most of the other owners within the Specific Plan area. In the event of a sale, the use would continue on the land -- the use runs with the land not with the ownership. The people could sell their property in it's present form as an existing use. Mr. Murphy continued...the relationship of the residential to the surroundings is compatible with a step down design on the height of the buildings, with a maximum height being at the 2 1 /2 stories. The existing density to the East of the project area is such that it would be compatible at 2 stories. There was reference to an EIR, but he's not sure what that reference was. To his knowledge, there has not been an EIR prepared on this project. Staff has prepared the Negative Declaration and they feel the mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate. It includes a traffic study prepared by the consultant for the area, it identifies the traffic generation of the proposed uses vs. the traffic generated by the existing uses, and it indicates a net differential of approximately 2,300 cars per day total, which staff doesn't feel is significant for the area. They are only speaking of an additional 80,000 square feet of retail use within the area, in addition to what is already there. The primary difference is the conversion of some of the industrial automotive uses to commercial in the first block and the conversion of the industrial uses in the second block. Much of the parking is on the west side of the railroad tracks (two parking lots). The Negative Declaration addresses noise, preservation and traffic circulation adequately as the three issues staff saw as being significant to the project. In terms of the apartments, the higher density and the comments about safety and crime, staff thought the multi-family projects could be designed in a way that they will be safe and secure, as well as attractive to the surrounding area, and safe from being used as sign boards for graffiti. Those things can be accounted for within the design of the project. Anaheim has developed several projects within it's downtown area that is perhaps similar in nature to what Orange is proposing for the Depot area. He believed Brea was also proposing to build some similar type residential units in their Redevelopment project area of old town Brea. When a property is sold, it will be sold as it is used at the time it is sold. It does not have to conform as a sales property to the new standards. It can be sold as it is presently used. The question about the change in zoning on the property from C-2 to the Retail-Commercial indication in the Specific Plan the new Retail-Commercial indication of the Specific Plan is to be more of a people- oriented retail service area as opposed to the industrial uses that are primarily within the area now. The existing uses would continue. If the use were to change, the Specific Plan will identify uses that are more in the way of people-serving uses. With the railroad station in place and operating as of December 6, 1993, this area will have a different operation and land use orientation than it even has today. That will bring some additional pedestrian traffic and circulation into the area, including the buses. Those buses will be re-routed and in place on December 6. The City Council has already approved that and it is already in place and will occur when the commuter rail station goes on line. To his knowledge, the only economic study that has been performed is with regard to the residential portion of the plan. He didn't believe staff was asked to attempt to deal with economics related to the non-residential portion of the plan; that would be a very hard subject to address academically. He thought any two economists might differ over what the value of a C-2 vs. a C-1 parcel might be within the context of 10 this area. The Old Towne Guidelines and the Southwest Guidelines are incorporated into the Specific Plan, both in terms of verbiage as well as by reference. Any changes that will occur in regard to the Old Towne Guidelines or regulations will be included in the future as well. David Alpaugh, consultant, said the Development Standards, Guidelines and the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan are linked in the sense that the Specific Plan incorporates by reference; the intent was to incorporate those Standards as they apply to the Old Towne area. The Specific Plan would override those Development Standards because of it's position in the law, but by incorporating those Standards by reference it covers the same territory. Mr. Murphy said there was a further question with regard to the issue of the residential within the Specific Plan vs. the Cypress Street neighborhood. Staff looks at these two issues as being completely different from each other. The owners on Cypress Street may not agree, but the residential community to the northeast of the industrially zoned property in this corridor are part of the older residential neighborhood that contains older homes. Part of the issue was the preservation of the architectural appearance of the homes and bulk/mass issues related to the existing residential buildings within that area. The industrial area is heavily developed with large warehouse type buildings on a majority of the land. The proposal is to replace those large warehouse buildings that are not reusable to residential development. Commissioner Cathcart added any time a transition area is being considered from one to another type of use, wherever the line is drawn, it becomes an issue and that's the difficulty in doing these kind of multi-use/density issues. He didn't see any way around that except where the line is drawn. Mr. Murphy said if the property is not identified as medium density residential, then it requires staff to go back and look at alternative uses for the area. Identifying the area at a lower density may not prove to be effective for actual use of the property. He didn't know what those uses were other than leaving the area as industrial, which was not in the best interest of the City. The issue was brought up about the apartments being too close to the tracks. Historically, people live immediately along side railroad tracks and have done that for years very successfully. The underpass issue is not part of this project; it is a decision to be made at some future point in time. Commissioner Bosch must disagree with the underpass not being an issue. A potential mixed use is shown to the north. Why would anyone want to invest in commercial or mixed use on the north side with the likelihood they would be cut off to exposure to the parking, rail stop, the rest of the commercial area at some unknown future. There is no option here. Mr. Murphy thought development of the property north of Maple Avenue may be the last part of the Plan to develop. The decision on the underpass might be made with the decision on the development of the north side of the property unless financing changes. Commissioner Cathcart was not convinced that Maple should go through ever. The railroad tracks are a defining edge to that area. He would hate to see the City bleed any larger of this development to the west. He would like to see it tied more closely to Chapman and the Plaza rather than the other way. It would not be in the best interest of everybody if Maple were to go through. He would like to see it nailed down one way or the other. 11 Mr. Murphy said staff would like that too. It would require some kind of a traffic study to be performed for the Old Towne area in order to know whether it is even going to be needed in the future. Commissioner Bosch brought up the fact that more than a year ago when the Main, Chapman, LaVeta widening projects were before the Commission and City Council, that very issue was raised relative to the easterly LaVeta segments recognizing the need finally to accomplish the Old Towne circulation study that had been referenced in previous General Plans. What is the status of that? Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineering, said relative to the LaVeta studies (south of Chapman, east of Glassell) staff has on-going committee meetings with that neighborhood. He's not directly involved so he couldn't tell the Commission when to expect a report. Commissioner Bosch directed the question of what constitutes a taking, which is a legal issue, to the Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Soo-Hoo quickly went over that issue. He believed the question of what constitutes a taking was in the context of down zoning. The general rule in law is that a taking does not take place unless the Agency takes away all viable economic use of the property. Anything less than that is not a taking. So in the context of down zoning, where the City would substitute one zone for another to create a lesser residential density setting, that does not constitute a taking as defined by the State of California. Commissioner Smith asked what C-1 Old Towne Mixed Use zoning meant? Mr. Murphy said the Commercial-Old Towne designation of the Specific Plan is meant to be more of apeople-serving retail use than the present C-2 zone, which is a heavier zone. It is often oriented more towards automotive repair, alcoholic sales and light industrial types of uses. The real intent is to convert the area through more of a pedestrian traffic people serving retail-commercial area in the southern portion of the area, rather than the automotive, heavier commercial uses. It was Commissioner Smith's understanding that C-1 is the higher zoning in an ordinary sense. Was she wrong about that? Usually C-2 is considered a little less attractive than C-1. Mr. Murphy responded it depends on who you are as to whether it's higher or lower. The C-2 allows more uses than the C-1 allows, and C-3 allows an even greater or heavier industrial type uses than C-2. C-1 zoning is perhaps a little more restrictive to most people than C-2. Commissioner Smith touched on the bus issue. She couldn't verify whether 220 buses was correct. Mr. Murphy said that's approximately the number of buses that presently go through the Plaza area. They're talking about the four bus routes which currently exist. They interchange at Almond and Glassell. The idea is to relocate that bus interchange point from Almond and Glassell to the Depot area. The same buses that go through the area will continue to do so, but will take a different route through the Old Towne area, including the Maple Avenue and Lemon Street routes into the station. 12 Commission Discussion Commissioner Cathcart said the mitigated Negative Declaration is the comprehensive document that has been produced, not an EIR. He would much rather deal with a mitigated Negative Declaration than an EIR because it gives them more room to control what goes on. Mrs. Clark was in error when she read the report. Commissioner Walters asked the Commission to consider moving forward, but with a slightly different proposition. He's not sure if it's legally proper to do. He wondered if the application could be supported by the Commission for the parcels south of Maple; and for the time being exclude those north of Maple, where the problem stems. Mr. Soo-Hoo didn't think there was a legal problem with modifying the proposal. It really is a question as to whether it could be practically achieved from the Planners' standpoint. Commissioner Walters asked staff if they felt a split of the property under consideration would have impact on the Negative Declaration? Mr. Murphy thought the Negative Declaration could be used for half the project because it was less than what was proposed in the Specific Plan. Mr. Godlewski added the Commission would need to carefully look at the mitigation measures to make sure they could bifurcate the mitigation measures as well so that something is not adopted that no longer pertains. Commissioner Bosch said it appeared to him that there was a great deal to be said what's proposed for the area south of Maple Avenue. It allows property owners to continue with what they are doing now as long as they want without restrictions. They seem to be generally in favor of that; there's some concern about specific reclassifications of zoning relative to C-2 to C-1. C-1 uses are commercially viable ones at least at this time in that area of the City. The Depot, in terms of the bus routes, public parking and the commuter railway, are moving ahead. Those are all approved. The circulation requirements of gradual upgrading or change to some specialty commercial in the area are supported with current circulation. He concurred with the concept that the Maple Avenue extension over the railroad tracks should never occur because of the destructive impact it would have on the neighborhoods, both east and west of the tracks, regardless of their density or land use. He sees the current plans for the area north of Maple Avenue within the proposal as being paper plans. There is no financing available for housing subsidy if the City were desirous to do so. There's great concern over density and proximity to railroad tracks, even though it is done in other cities. There is concern over the transition to adjacent lower scale older historic neighborhoods where density has been controlled, where zoning has been reduced. There's a strange condition where even though one property owner is happy with what he has, he's going to have a different zone over the top, which is not going to simplify planning in view of the property in terms of investment in the future. He didn't see any negative side to leaving it as it is north of Maple for now until there could be further study to identify something that is viable. He knows the Maple Avenue underpass is not viable in terms of how destructive it would be. It makes sense to provide more residential in the area, particularly with regard to seniors. The City needs to help provide additional housing and they need a strong pedestrian link down to the gradually transitioning commercial 13 area and to the transit station which would be cut off by an under crossing. He concurs with the concept; they are ready and the plans show adequate mitigation measures and economic support through the study for the Old Towne portion of this south of Maple, but not for the rest. Commissioner Cathcart also agrees. In his business, he does a lot of landscape plans for restaurants. There are several that are doing quite well right now; they are growing. It would be a nice addition to Old Towne to have a restaurant. He believes if the City were able to introduce more people living and working in an urban area, there may be an opportunity to stop some of the graffiti. Graffiti happens when people go home at night. A workable density where people can live and work in Old Towne might be the answer to some of the crime problems as well as graffiti. He's not sure, but it might be an answer. He would like to see specific development opportunities rather than just giving a blanket statement to density. He thought higher density, done well, is fine. Density done poorly is what everyone is trying to avoid. Commissioner Smith was mostly in agreement, but she had a couple of concerns with the southern portion. She was mostly concerned with the housing density north of Maple Avenue and concerned that the only option presented was for housing. There was a lovely proposal presented to them by a private citizen of the possibility of a hotel or hotel-like village for the Depot area. That particular type of tourism market has not been addressed at all in the Specific Plan. It makes some sense or at least it's worth looking into. She would like to see something addressed in the Specific Plan to expand other commercial options besides just industrial or light industrial retail commercial. The City needs to look at the overall density of the entire area. If they don't, they are rapidly creating an inner-city with increased housing density, particularly within a one mile concentration. She is bothered by the buses in the southern section. The idea of buses outside the restaurant is not appetizing. She can't imagine the City is going to market that restaurant to anything other than a fast food court. Where do the buses fit into the Specific Plan? Will the buses always be there? Mr. Murphy explained the buses are not really part of the Specific Plan. The buses have already been approved in the routing, in and out of the area, as part of the commuter rail station. The change in the bus routes is already a completed issue and lies with the commuter rail station decision, unless the City Council modifies that decision. Commissioner Smith thought the buses would be a deterrent to a beautiful plan. She has been in touch with this plan since 1986 and it's almost there. The buses will discourage the pedestrian area and as a tourist spot. She thinks it will kill the restaurant use too. Commissioner Cathcart said there were 220 buses going through the Plaza now. Felix's restaurant has never been more busy. Watson's Drug Store is doing quite fine. The problem is that there is no location to watch over the transfer station. Businesses have to do that now. Business people should not have to police the bus stops. He would like to see it in this new location so it could be managed in one place. He didn't believe the buses would create a problem that could not be overcome in a restaurant business. The Spaghetti Factory at the Fullerton Depot does quite nicely and it not only has trains, but buses and all types of commercial vehicles. He doesn't see it as a detriment. Commissioner Bosch felt there were two separate issues. One was the transient point or hub itself, which will occur by the railway transit station. That's where the monitoring 14 potential comes in and that's the type of policing that's being done by businesses now. That will be improved dramatically. Obviously there will be new routes that will impact businesses that are not impacted now, with relief to others. They have to be aware of that. Existing businesses won't be negatively impacted. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to accept Negative Declaration 1435-93 in that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment or wildlife resources; and to recommend to the City Council to approve General Plan Amendment 8-93 and Zone Change 1164-93, but restrict it's approval to those parcels and properties south of Maple Avenue. The Commission recommends further study be made for the area north of Maple Avenue and to consider no extension of Maple Avenue be made as an underpass through the area. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith would like to recommend further study of the possibilities north of Maple Avenue of looking into other alternatives such as hotel use or other tourist attraction type uses. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEM Transportation Commission appointment of one Planning Commissioner. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to appoint as its member to the Orange Transportation Planning Committee for the remainder of 1993 Commissioner Walters. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, asked where the City was with the Development Standards? Commissioner Bosch stated the Planning Commission has scheduled a public hearing for the evening of Wednesday, September 8, 1993 at 7:00 p: m. to consider the proposed Zoning Ordinance Update. The Ordinance does, in fact, contain the Development Standards for the City. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIEDABSENT: Commissioner Pruett sld 15