Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-13-1999 PC Minutesi 1"_.-- ( J )) j MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange September 13, 1999 Monday - 7:00 p,m.PRESENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith ABSENT:STAFF PRESENT: Commissioner Pruett Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary,John Godlewski, Principal Planner Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 1. ZONE CHANGE 1201-99 & ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 6-99 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to consider a zone change from R-2-6 toR-2-6/R-2-8 with a zoning overlay to better define, in the zoning ordinance, development standards allowed by the Old Towne Design Standards for the uniquely large lots on a portion of Culver Avenue. The site is located on the south side of Culver Awmue between Shaffer Street and Cambridge Street.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1614-99 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.John Godlewski, Principal Planner, reported the City Council changed the zoning on this property in 1993 from R-1-6 to R-2-6. At that time the City Council looked at the parcels and realized that they were unique in size and decided there should be some consideration for compatibility with the surrounding historic neighborhoods, and imposed four mitigation measures, These mitigation measures required that any development that came in would basically be sensitive to the surrounding development and be reviEiwed for that. The R-2-6 that resulted from that zone change was, therefore, not strictly outlined in the zoning ordinance, but what was allowed in the zoning ordinance under R-2-6 included those mitigation measures.Subsequent to the 1993 zone change, there was a historic district designation made in Old Towne,inc'uding these properties. This tightened the City's concern for these areas, and certainly how the City handled applications in all of Old Towne in regards to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA).Prior to that designation, staff looked more closely at properties for their compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods and how the development might affect the historic district as a whole.Also subsequent to the 1993 zone change, the Old Towne Design Standards were adopted as standards, Previously they were adopted as guidelines. The standards made it a requirement that all development projects in Old Towne look to the compatibility issue that was outlined in the mitigation measures in 1993.Tht3 Council's direction to the Planning Commission at this meeting was to look for ways of putting in the zoning ordinance some sort of an overlay zone that would put into the code various standards that could result in development on these properties that would more closely align with the mitigation measures, and those other documents that were not specifically referenced in the zoning ordinance. Two options were recommended for the Planning Commission to study. One is the R-2-6 zone with special standards ovmlay, and the R-2-8 zone with special standards overlay. The City Council reviewed a wide variety of options Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Th'3 staff report goes into a more detailed analysis of what those two zones are. The R-2- 6 overlay included a requirement that the FAR standard that currently in the R-2-6 zone is .7, be reduced to .45,which would decrease the floor area ratio of projects that are developed in the R- 2-6 SS. It also increased the separation between structures from 8 feet to 15 feet. It increased the open space requirements to 400 square feet from 350 square feet per unit. And, would include no more than two units per 13ach structure, and no mom than four garage spaces would be entered from anyone building elevation. These are, all specific standards that came out of a previous hearing that was held.Thl3 R-2-8 zone is very similar except that it is a little bit more restrictive in those areas, The R-2-8 SS :zone would recommend a FAR of .35, The separation between structures would be the same, 8 feet would be changed to 15 feet. The open space requirements would be a little more, to 450 square feet. And, a9ain,no more than two units for each structure, and no more than four garage spaces would be entered from anyone building elevation.Th'3se standards are intended to give an understandable and quantifiable limitation to what can be built on the, properties. The properties would also be subject to the standards that had been subsequently adopted from the 1993 zone change. That being, the Old Towne Design Standards and the Secretary of the Interior Standards that is used in the historic district. One of the reasons the City is studying this area is because of the uniqueness of the size of the parcels, They are all generally 301 feet deep and are relatively narrow, being 65 feet wide to somewhat wider, depending on how the parcels run down the block. Many questions have come up in the numerous study sessions and staff has tried to address !them in some of the attachments.Commissioner Smith wanted to know if the General Plan designation for the area is the same on both sides of the street. Mr. Godlewski believed it is the same designation for the entire area of the quadrant,which is Low Medium Density Residential. The surrounding zoning listed on the first page of the staff report indicates that traditionally and historically the surrounding zoning was R-2-6 on all of the properties surrounding these large lots, and these were the only lots that were zoned R-1-6.Commissioner Smith asked if the units per acre specification changed when the zoning was changed in 1993 to make it R-2-6? Mr, Godlewski will check and get back to the Commission with an answer. Chairman Bosch referred to Attachment #1, the proposal to write special standards for an overlay district.Paragraph C states: "The following standards shall apply to all parcels designated with the SS overlay and are 10,000 squarefeet or greater in area." He thought the wording was a bit awkward. Mr. GodlElwski sU!Jgested correcting the sentence to read: "The following standards shall apply to all parcels designated with the SS overlay, having an area of 10,000 square feet or greater."Chairman Bosch said Attachment #2 is a series of questions and answers which apparently came out of thE! neighborhood meetings and study sessions. In the middle of the page, the question about lot consolidations and lot splits take place after adoption of the new zone, the second sentence is awkward.He asked if the development standards would apply to any lot of 1 0,000 square feet or more, if the ordinance is adopted? The word "and" needs to be inserted: "...prior to the zone change, and parcels under 10,000 sq. ft..." Chairman Bosch had a concern with the last green page of the Negative Declaration, the staff recommendation column. He understands the staff recommendation is really one comment (and the blank line should not indicate another comment). Mr. Godlewski stated that was correct. The entire block relates to that one comment.Mr. Godlewski indicated staff had received a letter from a concerned resident, which was forwarded to the Commissioners and he also had a conversation with Mr. Brimlow, who is unable to be at the meeting. Mr.Brimlow requested that things not Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Thl~ public hearing was opened. Anne Siebert, 340 South Olive, spoke on behalf of the Old Towne Preservation Association Board of Dir>3ctors as their representative. Back in 1994 when the zoning changed on this block of Culver Avenue, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to keep the existing R-1 zoning as there was not enough study done, an EIR was merited, and impacts to the single family neighborhood appearEld to be very significant. However, the City Council overruled the Commission's recommendation, and voted for the R-2-6, with some reservations. She quoted the staff report: "It was never the intent of the City Council to allow the Culver properties to develop to the full extent allowed under the R-2-6 zoning." The OTPA Board of Directors is supporting a return to the R-1 zoning. This would increase the minimum lot coverage per unit to 6,000 square feet. Therefore, allowing at a maximum, two to three units per lot, The mass would be a maximum of 60 or so extra units on the street. This would eliminate the density issue of the number of units that would be built on the street. And, it would definitely minimize the intensity or the bulk and mass, but still allow some development on that block for the neighborhood, It is important to remember this is a single family neighborhood. They urged the Commission to reject the two op.tions being considered, and recommend to the City Council that Culver Avenue be returned to R-1-6 zoning because of the uniqueness of the single family properties.Ray Geiser, 344 South Center Street, was asked by the OTPA to comment on issues which might derive fro11 the adoption of the proposed zoning alternatives. If theR-2-6 SS zone is approved, under the 17.424 sq. ft. allowed for development per acre, the minimum lot area per unit of 3,000 sq. ft. would allow the above square footage to be spread between 14 units. That is seven (7) structures on the property.And only 5,600 sq. ft. of usable open space would be required for the entire lot. For the R-2-8 SS zone,doing the same math and with consideration of the lower FAR and higher usable open space, lot coverage could be about the same or maybe even a little higher. The neighboring smaller lots usually net out at about 40% coverage, depending on the inclusion of a granny pad, garage or other supporting structure.No matter what amount of adjustments are considered with respect to the R-2 zone, the infrastructure of thE' neighborhood still needs to be considered. It should be clear that any build out on Culver would have a major impact on aesthetics, transportation, fire safety, law enforcement, and all other considerations which reject no impact on the negative declaration.Joan Crawford, 394 South Oranqe, thanked the City and staff for being pro-active in taking steps to relieve the confusion on East Culver. Although many people believe this is an interim solution to what they see as a long-range goal, she thanked the City for doing something like this in a relatively short period of time,until the long- range goal can be achieved. Of the options available, she would like to support the H-2- 8 with the overlay adoption. She believed the 35% FAR is far more compatible with Old Towne; how3ver,shl~ would like to see a restriction of 2-car garages per structure instead of the limitation outlined in the proposal. She's not exactly sure when the R-2 zoning was adopted for the majority of Old Towne, but she has to believe that it was when a second unit meant a studio apartment over a garage or something similar to a granny pad rented to others. In either case, the rental unit itself was small and unimposing. It was also a time when everybody didn't have at least two vehicles. The units that are now being developed are beng designed to compete with apartment units at apartment complexes, and the City codes for parking arel also more designed for what an apartment complex is. She doesn't believe either of thesewena the original intent of the R-2 zoning when it was originally adopted. She would also like to see en::ouragement for separate single occupant units with a detached garage, but she wasn't sure how that could be codified. On Page 11 of the negative declaration it indicates that there would be a reduction in thE~ traffic impact, and she didn't understand what that meant.Mr. Godlewski responded the statement is in relation to what the current zoning is.Patty Ricci, 618 East Culver Avenue. wants Plelnning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Tom Strybel. 390 South Pine, opposes the zone change to R-2-6 because it produces an unacceptable density layer in the neighborhood. The properties on the south side of Culver are large, but the size of the lots are determined by the depth. The R-2-6 and R-2-8 zoning would add more traffic and noise. The only fair solution would be to rezone the property to R-1-6.Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, is the President of Orange Taxpayers, and their Board supports the current zoning.Judy Runnells, 816 East Culver, is opposed to the zone change.Herb Runnells, 816 East Culver, is also opposed to the zone change. He wanted to know why their street should be different from any other street in town.Eil'3en Hertfelder, 720 East Culver, believes the R-2 zoning of their property should remain as zoned in 1993. The zoning is not the problem. The problem arises because of the confusion caused by the undear Design Standards in the historic district. She wishes to have the opportunity to develop their land according to the R-2-6 zoning. No additional overlay is needed since it is a historic district and the DI3sign Standards, along with the zoning regulations are in place. They do not want any special standards on their lots.Ralph Zehner, 630 East Culver, stated the present zoning is multi-family. He knows the Commissioners am against the R-2-6 zoning. He believes the City is trying to implement spot zoning. The City Council approved the R-2-6 zoning, He read a letter from the City Attorney's office dated July 15, 1993. The main point of the letter is to create a new zone with specific standards to preserve single family houses; example, maintained as a single family streetscape. There are still two Commissioners that have yet to come out and walk the property. There should be no overlay.Martha Phelan, 375 South Pine Street, said her property is zoned R-1-6. The Commission was given a COJyof a petition that is presently being circulated among the citizens of Orange. The petition is asking thEl City Council to change the zoning of the properties on Culver to R-1-6. There were 161 people who gladly signed the petition and they are continuing to gather more signatures. When the zoning of these properties was changed in 1993, the people who signed the petition were completely unaware of the ramifications of that decision, These people have reviewed the charts from the Planning Department sh Jwing the R-2-6 and R-2-8 with zone overlays, and completely disagree with any plan other than FI-1-6.She asked that the Commission consider their petition and include the petition in their recommendation to thEl City Council.Carl Harnack, 546 East Culver, did not want to consider the R- 2-6 or R-2-8 with overlays until something WclS done with the Old Towne Guidelines. He was against the limit of two units per building. He has a house that could be divided into a tri-plex, like other older houses.Mattie Link, 801 East Culver, spoke about the R- 2-8 zoning. The zoning in her area is all R-1 ; it is not R-2.R- 1 zoning will allow 46 units. The blight of Chalynn Circle should be stopped. R-2-6 and R- 2-8 zoning am both excessive. The change in zoning was done for political reasons and she thought that was illegal.Mike Keller, 632 East Culver, is opposed to changing the zoning from what it is. The inattention of the owners on the south side of Culver has probably created this.Bob Marone, 359 South Pine Street, is opposed to this because it would still be too dense an area. He would like to go back to the R-1-6 zoning.Concetta Randall, 6743 La Cumbre, owns a duplex on Pine Street. When she Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 evorybody else in town. They own large parcels and they should be allowed to develop the property within reason. Shannon Tucker, 206 North Pine Street, clarified that the zone change in 1993 also had a general plan amendment made from Low Density to Low Medium Density. It is rumored that Culver Avenue was retained as R-1-6 to preserve the neighborhood for the single family larger homes. There is R- 3 and R-4 zoning all throughout the same quadrant in Old Towne in sections no bigger than one single lot, whore it is surrounded by R-2. There is spot zoning throughout the quadrant, and there are different densiti€!s on the general plan, She has a vested interest on Culver Avenue, as a property owner, in this process. And,sho would still like to be included in the neighborhood discussions. If further study sessions take place,that owners on the opposite side of the street should also be included, With regard to the R-1-6 zoning,they believe the R-1-6 is the most viable zoning after all the study. People can still build and have income property. The City Council approved the zone change, but the Council realizes there is a problem. And,the Council wants the Planning Commission to study the issues.Thl3 public hearing was closed,Chairman Bosch said there was a question raised relative to what the original zoning was in this area of Old Towne and when R-2-6 zoning came into existence, not for the South Culver property, but for much of the remainder of the quadrant.Mr. Jones replied the City's first zoning ordinance was adopted in either 1946 or 1956 and prior to that there was no zoning. Initially the town developed with the older historic homes in a single family neighborhood. During up and down economic times there was a sense maybe that creating more density helped property values. Many properties increased their densities during periods of time over the years.Commissioner Carlton stated the old saying comes to mind, "Two wrongs don't make a right." She lelt it would be very wrong of the Commission to recommend to the City Council either of the two overlays. She thinks a mistake was made in 1993; that's history and it can't be changed. But, they could also make another wrong decision in recommending the overlay zones. If the Commission recommends to leavEl the zoning as it is, she thinks they are asking for numerous potential controversial projects being brought before the Planning Commission and City Council. That is not productive. There is a difference of opinion as to how many units would be the total build out -- 40 additional units if the zoning were returned to R-1-6.If the zoning were returned to R-1- 6, the owners that had enough space could build 2, 3 or maybe 4 additional units on their property. In her mind, that is within reason. She quoted a sentence from the CEQA Guidelines: " The change in the environment which results from the incremental impact 0'1 the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, would result in a cumulative impact that would be very negative to the community." She sees no merit in the two overlays for many, many reasons. She is in favor of recommending to the City Council that they consider a return to the R-1-6 zoning for the south side of Culver. She would like to see some reasonable development that fits within the community and don't overburden the neighborhood with traffic and excessive bulk and mass.Commissioner Romero's comments were similar. One of the speakers commented of a desire to retain a stable neighborhood. That should be the primary device that the Commission should be giving a recommendation to the City Council on. A stable neighborhood is extremely important. He wants to look at the total potential development that would result from the designated zoning. As it is now, the nei9hborhood zoning is too dense. He has heard from many people that the City Council's decision in 1993 was political. The decision to change the neighborhood to a R-2 zone was not positive for the cornmunity. The street needs to maintain the single family character instead of multi-family zoning. The Commission' s decision will not be agreeable to everyone, but it will work best for the City. He favors changing the zoning back to R-1-6. He would Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Commissioner Smith was interested in knowing what the number of units per acre was under the general plan designation of R-1-6, and what it is now at R-2-6. Then, across the street on the north side of Culver,was the designation changed there, or was it already existing? Part of it is R-2-6 and part of it is R-1-6.Mr. Godlewski said there was a general plan amendment required at the time of the zone change. It was General Plan Amendment 3-93 and it changed the general plan designation from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential. Low Medium is 6 to 15 units per acre. Low Density is 0 to 6 units per acre. No other properties were involved in the 1993 zone change except those indicated in the study are,a for this Culver street study. The zoning to the north on the lower end (400, 500 and 600 blocks) was zoned R-2-6 traditionally for a number of years. It also had the Low Medium Density Residential. The housing tracts, Pine Street and east of Pine Street, are somewhat newer, They were built in the 50's and that's where they got the designation of R-1 and a consistent general plan designation of Low Density Residential. The original part of Old Towne and the majority of this quadrant was zoned R-2 for much of the, history of zoning. The GIS map on the wall behind Commissioner Romero indicates all of the R-2 designations in the City. The majority of the R-2-6 is in the southeast quadrant.Commissioner Smith observed on Culver Avenue that half of the density on the north side of the street is Low Medium, from 6 to 15. And, then at Harwood Street, going east, it is 0 to 6, If you take the span be':ween Shaffer Street and Cambridge Street, it is cut almost in half at Harwood Street, or the properties,64.2 and 652 East Culver. There is Low to Medium Density, 6 to 15 units, from Shaffer to Harwood. And, thE~n continuing east, there is Low Density, from 0 to 6, from Harwood to Cambridge.Commissioner's Smith other question, for the record, is what the potential of build out is on a R-1-6 designation of this property. The property was zoned R-1-6 before it was changed in 1993. What is the potential at R-1-6 on a lot this large?Mr. Godlewski responded the potential would be one unit for every 6,000 square feet of lot area,approximately 3 units per parcel. There are some parcels that are quite a bit larger and some that are smaller, but for the typical parcel, that's correct.Commissioner Smith asked what happens with the existing zone where a single family lot is allowed to build an "anybody" pad on the back of the lot? Would that apply in the R-1-6 zone?Mr. Godlewski answered in the R-1-6 zone, an applicant could apply for an accessory second unit. It is limited in size to 640 square feet.Commissioner Smith had many comments: The question in front of the Commission is which one to choose of the two options -- R-2-6 or R-2-8, The City Council looked at the R-1 zoning and eliminated it as an option, There were reasons given for support and there is quite an extensive study. The Commission and community have been looking at this issue for a year and there is a difference of opinion. She didn't believe it could be ignored of what is being said on either side because both cases make sense. P'30ple have invested in large pieces of property hoping for a return; however, she pointed out the investment was made under the zoning of R-1-6, She personally would like to see most of Old Towne returned to the R-1 zoning. It's one of the densest parts of the City, and it's the old neighborhood. Most of the other residential neighborhoods are protected by being zoned R-1, She thinks it is an unfair burden in Old Towne to have a proportion of multi-family zoning. She thinks a mistake was made in 1993 and she didn't thnk it was made willingly. At the time, people thought they were doing the best thing for the neighborhood. But as time has gone by, the development standards have changed, the designation of thl3 neighborhood, and the property value increase in the neighborhood has changed. It keeps going up and up. True, some people want more density in this area, But it sounds to her that more people do not want more density. She thinks the property rights of everyone in the community need to be considered,especially the rights of the people who own the property, and the people who own the property around it.She disagrees when people say that the problem is the Design Standards. It was a real problem when the City did not have Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 tho Design Standards fit with the zoning. She agrees that the R-2-6 decision was not a positive one for thl~ community; it split the community, As a reminder, at the same time a portion of this same neighborhood was re-zoned and taken from R-4 to R-2, When people wonder what the politics of it was, it was a trade off, The Northwest quadrant was R-3/R-4 and it was changed to R-2. Then, the residents on thE~ South side had the R-1 zoning and they were re-zoned to R-2. She is particularly concerned about tho blight on Chalynn Circle and she doesn't know why the City doesn't do something about that. It's a very risky situation to further increase and talk about increasing the density here,The Council offers the Commission the choice of two sort of good options. It looks like a compromise.She agrees that neither one of them control the density in the way that it should be controlled in this particular area, She personally feels that the large lot size with the potential of building three single family homes and three accessory units retain for the property owners an option to increase the density and to get a very good return on their property. Single family homes are the most precious in the Old Towne neighborhood and go for the highest prices. She realizes that is not a choice the Council has given them,but that is the message that she wants to send back to the Council. She would be in favor of these properties being re-zoned to R-1- 6. And, in the worst scenario, if the Council would not be in agreement of that, and it would be the community's obligation and responsibility to bring that to their attention off why thoy should be in agreement with it, then as the option, she would take the R-2-8 because it is the most restrictive. It reduces the FAR to , 35, it calls for 450 square feet of open space, it calls for two units per structure, and all of those things. She has read hundreds of staff reports, and in this particular case, she can be fooled when it says that the 1993 zone change estimated the R-2-6 zoning to yield a 112 to 127 total dwelling units, per the staff report on Page 2. Now with the overlay, there is no number given for the R-2- 6, but the R-2-8 would reduce the actual total number of possible units to the 79 to 85 range. That sounds great, except that is an addition of 79 to 85 units to that neighborhood. The addition in the single family zone is 46. That is just too much. Therefore, she is in favor of returning this question back to the City Council and telling them the zoning should be R-1-6. They are large lots and still have a tremendous potential for build out, with an addition of some 50 units. Officially, the negative declaration keeps saying thore will be no impacts on the community that aren't open for mitigation in terms of sound, traffic, and infrastructure, but the addition of some 85 units is going to cause some difference in noise, traffic,pollution and infrastructure. She thinks it is a great impact and it should be returned to the R-1-6 zone as SODn as possible.Commissioner Smith has walked Mr. Zehner's property and has also walked the neighborhood many,many times, She is offended by the prediction that the Commission is not going to be fair. The pt30ple who work for the City and who sit here maybe are not fair at some times, but it is never intentionally. They try very hard to do what is the right thing for the community. There can be differences of opinion, but it doesn't mean they are not fair. Also, in terms of the comment relative to spot zoning, the reality is that all of Old Towne is spot zoned. There is every zoning in the City here in the one square mile of Old Towne.They are trying to iron out some of the spot zoning and make it all be compatible and fit together,Chairman Bosch's first recollection of walking the property on the south side of Culver Avenue was in 1950. There has been a rather radical change since then, but what hasn't changed is the quality of the original residences and the overall quality of the neighborhood as a whole, He thinks the property east of HClrwood on the north side of Culver, when it became one of the later orange groves in the Old Towne Square Mile, as it is now known, to be converted to residential uses, placed as a Low Density in Ft-1-6,points out that the R-2-6 re-zoning in 1993 on the south side of Culver was not the removal of a spot zone, but rather could be seen as a reduction in the invasion of the R-1-6 zoning back into the territory it once had in the Southeast quadrant of Old Towne. The R-1-6 zoning is continuous further east. It's on tho west side of Cambridge Street, north of Palmyra Avenue all the way to Almond and to Chapman,except for the corner. And, truly what has happened over the years, has been zoning that has beElfl for tho economic advantage of those who were in control at the time, and who with the best of viewpoint they had, did what they thought was economically the best thing to do for their town. It's important that the Commission consider what are the best uses, what direction will best serve retaining the qualities of the community, and enhancing property Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 now. The impacts on the street will be greatly increased with negative impacts on both the R-2-6 and the R-'1-6 zoning on the north side of Culver Avenue. There has been nothing to mitigate that in the plans that have come forward. There has been one significant proposal come before the City on Culver Avenue but it did not quite meet the test. And the reason the Council has this before the Commission is because thE'y have the same problem, It's not the Old Towne Standards, but it's the remainder of the standards that apply and the uniqueness of these parcels, left the City with a gray area which makes it really hard to judge what ought to happen here. He believes they have tried very fairly to bridge over all of that and many of the decisions have been easily made at the Planning Commission level or by the City Council.The City Council has the right to limit the areas of review, but he feels a personal duty to recommend to thElm relative to the proposal they brought before the Commission, but not hold his tongue relative to what he thinks is the best long-range view point for the property in question. He absolutely agrees with thE' other Commissioners that there was spot zoning in 1993. It was not consistent with the General Plan and it was done backwards. The plan was changed in response to the desire of several property owners for increased density, Because of the ambiguity of other regulations put in place at the time and since thE.n, it has been impossible to have a clear picture of what can be allowed on these properties. He thinks thelt has worked negatively when, as has been pointed out, although again it may not be the best solution for the community, accessory second units and the single family housing on subdivisions of these properties results in the same gain to the housing stock, although it is a slightly different type than those the.t could be in place with R-2-6 zoning as it exists today. He didn't think they were reducing the housing stock that might appear on this land over a period of time. There are a number of people who own the larger lots who don't want them to change and didn't want the re- zoning when it occurred. They wem not listened to at the time and yet are dissuaded from participation in the discussions that have occurrEld by those who desire to see a greater economic return on the property. He thought something could have bef3n worked out that benefited everybody over time. He still hopes for that, but it's not in the Planning Commission's purview, It's inthe City Council's purview, There isn't an easy solution to this ever. But, he is in favor of personally saying to the City Council that if they have to make a decision between the two options, he would like to see the R-2-6 zoning designation stay, but he didn't think that the change in the development standards that are recommended for it are quite strict enough. There is that option too He is worried about any change in zoning. It's unique property with unique lot sizes and unique depth. If the oVBrlay does that, legally that may work but it will continue to confuse everybody with regard to what they can do on their property. They have seen that in the past with the Residential Combining District overlays;it's yet another layer of letters and numbers that serves to confuse and conflict rather than make clear what is happening.He would like to recommend that if the Council wants to stay with what is a multiple family zone, that they would stay with the R-2-6 zone, but change the development standards to apply those that are called out for the R-2-8 zone in terms of open space, floor area ratio and the plan. There is a difference and it probably falls somewhere in- between the two, but he would like to see the confusion resolved. And, what he would really like is to see this returned back to the zoning that occurred on the property before 1993,with the understanding that there has been some beneficial additions that help the economic future for property owners on this block since that time, perhaps not foreseen at the time, and perhaps a cause of thE! problems today with the blossoming of the accessory secondary use, the fine tuning of the de'/elopment standards, which are equally problematic in R-1 zones as they are in R-2, but much clBarer then they were years ago. And, also the National Historical District that overlays this property as a whole and the Secretary of Interior Standards that apply. He thought the best economical potential, the best fulfillment of the needs of the housing stock and probably the most flexibility with regard to arriving a.t the best living environment for the south side of Culver, would be returning to the original zone. If that were to occur, which it is not on the City Council's agenda at this time, everyone would still be unhappy because there would not be enough development allowed for those who want to add more units, and there would be too much development for those who wish to see the scale Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Commissioner Smith stated that all four Commissioners have the same thought of returning to the Fl- 1-6 zoning. They should make this recommendation to the City Council. Then, they could give their opinion of why they reject R-2-6 and R-2-8 zoning with the overlay. They did not get to look at anything about the zone change in 1993. That went directly to the City Council. The Planning Commission had absolutely no input into that decision,Commissioner Carlton felt strongly they should let the City Council know they have considered both of the altHrnatives and it is the Commission's consensus to return to the R-1-6 zoning.Commissioner Romero also does not agree with the Negative Declaration. He can't imagine noise and tralfic not to be a problem,Mr Jones said the negative declaration is an evaluation of the proposed two alternatives in relationship to what the existing zoning and General Plan allow on the property, which is the R-2-6 zoning with the maximum number of units. That was analyzed back in 1993. This negative declaration does not say that there are not more impacts with the build out of a R-2-6 zone. This compares two options that at most,have the same number of units as the existing General Plan and zoning. With the R-2-8, it would have less units and less bulk and mass. The base line is not R-1-6 vs. multiple family. It's R-2-6 with the maximum number of units that exist as proposed, With the new overlay standards, it may not be ideal based upon the fact that there was R-1-6 zoning in 1993, but in comparison to what could be built out right now, the impacts clearly would be the same or less than what is allowed. This project is not adding any units; it's increasing the open space and reducing the bulk and mass by lowering the FAR,Commissioner Smith thought the negative declaration speaks to potential build out of the R-2-6 overlay or the R-2-8 SS. (Mr. Jones interjected, in comparison to the existing R-2-6 zone,) Commissioner Smith had some basic problems with the negative declaration. There is an area called aesthetics. Would the project halle a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The answer is no impact. Substantially degradl3 the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The answer is no impact. The part under cultural resources, would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064,5? The answer is no impact. She disagrees, because she feels there would be an impact. The water and air, will it cause more pollution? She knows in Planning terms,that there is strong criteria that guides where the checks go. She personally did not see how 85 units can be added to a block and say in every category that there is no impact except the only one that has less than significant impact is a substantial or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. That is the only box that was checked. Maybe she needs clarification on that in negative declaration terms,Chairman Bosch understands the negative declaration does not compare the existing development that you see on the land with what would occur under the two proposals recommended to the Commission.Rather, it compares in CEOA terms the existing zoning, the R-2-6, on the land with other restrictions that apply, to what would occur if either of the proposed recommendations would be put into effect. That is what makes it so hard to grasp. It's not the addition of 40, 60 or 80 houses. It's the difference between what you can do now and what would occur with the additional restrictions proposed under either of these recommendations. The motion needs to contain the intent to make it really clear of what the basis of the motion was so it is reported in that portion of the Minutes that goes forward as a recommendation to the City' Council. He can find that the negative declaration was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEOA, and it is correct in that regard. But, it has to be made absolutely clear within a motion that the ne~~ative declaration for the project was only the difference between what could occur on these properties to which it applies, if the full potential of the previous zoning, currently an ordinance, were built out compared to what would occur if the full potential for the proposed zoning were built out. That dOf3sn't mean Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Commissioner Smith said when the negative declaration is explained that way, certainly because of the overlay, the negative declaration would be approved, Because it is more restrictive than the R-2- 6 zoning,but she is afraid of sending the message that the negative declaration is fine so the Commission is in favor of going ahead with the overlays. She thinks an EIR should have been done for this much increase in density in this particular neighborhood. If this one follows up on the first one, then that's a concern of hers. This one is completely and entirely separate, retained only for this evening's measure. The Planners did their job and prepared the proper legal documents to fit with this proposal. She doesn' t want to send the wrong message by approving the negative declaration.Commissioner Carlton is not implying that the negative declaration was done improperly. She would have felt more comfortable if some of these items were checked less than significant with mitigation incorporated because that is what the Commission has been talking about. That's what the zone oVElrlays do. She felt really uncomfortable with all of the no impact squares checked without any further conditions imposed,Chairman Bosch prefers the R-1 zoning, but he believed if either of the recommendations before the Commission were approved, they would result in less bulk, mass and more open space, and less developmental impacts than the existing zoning on the property. In that regard, when comparing those two things, which is the legal requirement, there is no impact.Commissioner Romero would rather not vote on the negative declaration, but make a statement that the Commission believes the problem occurred in 1993, even though the negative declaration is correct,because it is based on the existing R-2-6 zone, The Commission does not agree with the original zone change, which caused the negative declaration to read as it does.Mr, Jones wants the Commission to understand the base line for the negative declaration, but he is not suggesting the Commission has to approve it. If the Commission is uncomfortable, they can deny the negative declaration, or recommend denial along with whatever the Commission's recommendation is.Ms. Binning responded to the negative declaration issue. The Commission' s primary action is some recommendation on the zone change, and secondarily the negative declaration. If the Commission denies the negative declaration, she believes the City Council still wants to hear a recommendation on the zone change. The City Council recognizes, and they do themselves, vote yes on a negative declaration,and no on the project that the negative declaration was based on. They would understand and look beyond the vote on the negative declaration, and look at the vote on the zone change.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Smith that the Planning Commission finds that Negative Declaration 1614-99 was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of thH project presented before the Commission to wit: to review and recommend the environmental impacts which would result from the application of Zone Change 1201-99 and Ordinance Amendment 6-99, with either of two outcomes -- R-2-6 with an overlay or R- 2-8 with an overlay -- and that the negative declaration was an evaluation of potential environmental impacts based upon the difference in build out development which might occur were the properties in question to be re-zoned per the proposed zone and ordinance changes relative to the build out which might occur were the subject properties to be built out per the results of the zoning and development standards currently in place on the property, and not in reference to the existing built environment or zoning on the property which existed prior to Zone Change 1159-93.And that there is no substantial evidence that the projects so defined will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources.AYES: NOES: Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to recommend to the City Council to deny Zone Change 1201-99 and Ordinance Amendment 6-99, but recommend the zoning be changed to R-1-6 without the overlays. The R-1-6 zone retains the stability and single family character of the, neighborhood. The R-1-6 designation will be less intense than the R-2-6 or R-2-8 with overlays. The potential for providing reasonable cost housing within this area of Old Towne exists in the R-1-6 zoning by virtue of application of the accessory second unit ordinance, upon application and conformance to the other standards applicable, without the need to maintain a higher designation of zoning on the property.Therefore, the actual unit count relative to at least one of the overlays may be approximately the same if well founded applications come before the Commission and City Council. That would lessen the confusion with regard to the potential for retaining the historic character of the neighborhood while allowing intensification of the housing stock. The overlay zones do not solve the problem. The proposed de1sity is still too high and carries with it an unacceptable burden of environmental impacts on the existing neghborhood, And, the overlay zones, because of the density, jeopardizes the integrity of the National Register District and the existing single family neighborhood. It also sets a precedent for other large lots in Orange.AYES:NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to adjourn at 9:22 p. m. AYES: