HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-17-1997 PC MinutesdqX), C:-;. d.3 MINUTES
Planning
Commission City
of Orange November
17, 1997 Monday -
7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners
Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith ABSENT: Commissioner
Pruett STAFF PRESENT:
Vern
Jones, Planning Manager and Commission Secretary,Ted Reynolds,
Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum,
Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin,
Recording Secretary IN RE:
CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Smith
requested Item 2 be pulled from the Consent Calendar due to the size of the project.Moved
by
Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero to pull Item 2 for separate discussion.AYES:NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners
Bosch,
Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner
Pruett
MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith
requested Item 3 be pulled from the Consent Calendar due to the very large size of the
building.Moved by
Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero to pull Item 3 for separate discussion.AYES:NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners
Bosch,
Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner
Pruett
MOTION CARRIED 1. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 1997 Moved by
Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the ~inutes of November 3,
1997 as written. \AYES:NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners
Bosch,
Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner
Pruett
MOTION CARRIED 2. MAJOR
SITE PLAN REVIEW 43-97 - TOWN AND COUNTRY The applicant
is proposing demolition of an approximately 141,000 square foot shopping center, and redevelopment of
the site to include four major retail, single-tenant buildings and two tenant-divisibleretailbuildings, with a new parking facility. The total floor area of the new development is approximately105,500 square feet. The project proposal also includes planned improvements to widen Main Street byapproximately16feet, and to install a new traffic signal at the project entrance on Town & Country Road.
Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, presented the full staff report. The project is substantially different inthecharacterandintensityoftheexistingdevelopment, even though it is smaller in terms of squarefootage. There are five larger single tenant retail buildings proposed, not just four. These buildings
range in size from 10,000 to 28,000 square feet. A particular concern about this project i; more with thepublicimprovements. This is a permitted use in the commercial zone. It is a general retail center with
Planning Commission Minutes November 17,1997
some restaurant and multi-tenant retail uses attached to the project. The City is requiring, as conditions
of approval, a traffic signal at the primary access road on Town & Countly. There is also a condition to
widen Main Street, which has changed substantially in the last several hours to include not only a
new northbound lane, but also a dedicated right turn pocket. Staff has asked the applicant to construct
not only dedicated property, but to construct those improvements through revised conditions ofapproval.This project is located in a Joint Powers area with the City of Santa Ana. The City has a history of
both conflict and cooperation concerning projects in this area. Staff has met with the City of Santa
Ana concerning some of the details about this improvement. There are several correspondences:
The Commission was given a letter at this hearing from Mr. A.J. Lufkus, who is objecting on the grounds
that he was not notified; however, a follow up phone call was made and Mr. Lufkus said there was an article
in the newspaper that mis-identified the site. He understood it to be the northern portion
of Town &Country Road. Once it was clarified that was not on the Agenda as part of the public hearing,
Mr. Lufkus retracted his opposition. A second letter is from the County of Orange in response totheNegativeDeclaration. The County is responding to the Draft and is saying the City of Orange
should incorporate provisions that are normally reviewed under the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Those conditions could be interpreted as an expansion to condition 4 in the staff report -- that the
applicant provide evidence that there is an N.P,D.E.S. permit approved before grading plans are issued. There
is also correspondence with the City of Santa Ana where there will be a dedicated right turn lane and
a fourth traffic lane constructed on Main Street as part of the
project.Commissioner Smith asked what the overall plan was for the widening of Main
Street.Mr. Donovan replied the City of Orange does not have an adopted plan because the jurisdiction issplit.The intersection of Main Street and Town & Country is controlled by the City of Santa Ana. Orange
has not identified it as a critical intersection, but the City of Santa Ana has. That has become the focus of
their discussion over the last several days. Ultimately, Main Street may need to be improved to a
much greater width. It is already at least 12 feet wider immediately adjacent to the south of the project site.
In this project, the applicant would need to pull the curb into the same location for construction of that
new lane. The right turn lane that the City of Orange is requiring is approximately 200 feet long
measured from the corner back. It would be a channelized right turn lane to get cars out of the path of
the northbound lane, On the other side of the street, it is constrained to three lanes. The applicant will
be responsible for paying for the street widening. The City of Santa Ana has conditioned a
recent expansion of Main Place Mall to include some improvements on the opposite side of the
intersection where lanes that are headed due west on Town & Country will now be directed so that there would
be two lanes that go directly into Main Place Drive. There are a lot of incremental changes being made on
a project-
by-project basis.Chairman Bosch asked about the duties and authority for the City of Orange relative to
the Joint Powers Authority and Santa Ana's authority relative to the recommendation from them for the right
tu\n channel.He understood the 12 foot widening puts the right-of-way at the ultimate right-of-
way as far as 'he City of Orange's
General Plan of Arterial Highways is concerned. 'Mr. Hohnbaum responded it was his understanding that any changes within
the Joint Powers area is to be mutually discussed between the two cities prior to implementation.
He believed this project has had late discussions,
but did not have that early on.Mr. Donovan stated in the absence of the applicant's concurrence
with the conditions, the City of Santa Ana is requesting a continuance of this hearing and a full Traffic
Impact Analysis that would take some time on the applicant's part to complete, and another month for City staff
to review
and report back to the Planning Commission. .Chairman Bosch wondered if that were a threshold or a
trigger point for some requirements under the J.PA relative to the role of the Planning Commission in response to
the City of Santa Ana's information.Mr. Donovan believed it was more of a response totheNegativeDeclaration. There is the assumption that the document doesn't fully address traffic impacts. One of
the matters that came up in discussion with the City of Santa Ana staff is that the applicant has
already agreed to re-construct Main Street, and the applicant is going to the expense of building
curb, gutter and sidewalk. The difference they are talking about is a flat, asphalt lane, except that there are ramifications
to the
park:
Planning Commission Minutes November 17,1997
Chairman Bosch noted and added to the record the correspondence mentioned by Mr. Donovan.
The public hearing was opened.
Aoolicant. Jack Selman. Architects Orange. 144 Orange Street. addressed the issue of the street
widening. They have been working diligently with staff and are making progress, They knew they would
have to widen the street by one lane and they agreed to widen it by the one lane. They completed the
site plan based on the street widening. He stressed it was very important that they get Planning
Commission approval at this hearing. He now understands the City of Santa Ana wants them to widen an
additional 12 feet, to put in a 200 foot long right turn lane and pay for it. One of their justifications is that
they will be doing similar work at the same time. They didn't realize though that they would be losing 10
parking spaces by widening that section. He asked if there was the ability to do the right hand turn lane,
but not do the full 290 feet, which is extremely long. The 90 foot transition is also very long. If they could
reduce the length, they could agree to the right hand turn lane.
Chairman Bosch believed Mr. Selman's request would be from the northerly driveway to the intersection
rather than extending southerly. (Mr. Selman could extend the pocket 150 feet and give up two or three
parking spaces.)
Mr. Hohnbaum clarified the applicant was talking about a 150 foot long pocket with a 70 foot transition, or
some other standard. The issue could bear some discussion. He cautioned the right hand turn pockets
are not the same as left hand turn pockets. The main reason they are so long is to allow those cars
wishing to turn right into that pocket, to avoid a queuing of the through at the stop light. A left hand turn
pocket may be designed for 100 to 200 feet long to accommodate 400 cars turning that movement. The
same number of cars making a right hand turn turning movement will need a much longer pocket to que
and make their turns. Mr. Hohnbaum thought the 150 to 200 foot pocket would be too short.
Commissioner Smith asked what the advisable turn pocket length is, if 200 feet is too short.
Mr. Hohnbaum needed to know the queuing distance at the intersection with the through traffic. That
length would predicate the length of the right hand turn pocket so it would allow for sufficient opening
after those cars had queued up, waiting for the light to turn green. Typically, 200 feet would not be
sufficient at this intersection.
Commissioner Smith said it appeared from the staff report that they would be over parked even with the
loss of the 10 spaces.
Mr. Selman explained the major tenants in the center have their own parking requirements. They have
compromised already with the 4.9 spaces per 1,000. The issue is driven by the tenant requirements; not
the City's requirements.
Chairman Bosch said the key issue for him, in addition to the right turn pocket, is the appearance of major
building A, which was the subject of discussion at the Design Review Board relative to the proximity to
the street and how the Main Street facade would be articulated, as well as the facade to the south, which
is on the property line. He asked Mr. Selman to explain in detail his interpretation of the Design Review
Board's Minutes and what they are proposing to do to those two facades to ease the appearance of the
building.
Mr. Selman said the elevation on Main Street was really not in question. He thought the Design Review
Board was happy with that as it has quite a bit of articulation and has windows. The rear elevation was of
concern. He brought a drawing of the rear elevation. He tried to carry the same lines and color schemes
and then broke it up vertically with the pilasters. Looking at it logically there is a traffic signal to the north,
which creates a pad between the back side of the building and the signal. When that is developed, the
back of the building will be blocked. However, they have tried to tie it in with the other elevations as
best as they could. The only thing that it is lacking is glass. At the DRB meeting, they did not have that
particular elevation; they tried to verbally describe it.
3
Planning Commission Minutes November 17,1997
Public Comments
Mitch Sit;ldan. Eauity Office of Prooerties Trust. 1100 Town & Country Road, did not oppose this
development, but had a couple of questions. Their building is 100% leased and they own the parcel that
is contiguous to the east side of the proposed development. They would like to know more about the
roof screen detail and the east side elevation. This is a concern because their lower tenants are going to
be looking directly into that east elevation and they want to know how the roof areas and the air
conditioning units are going to be covered, the parapet size, etc. They also understand there is going to
be a row of trees at the lot line and they wanted to know the size of the trees and type of trees. TheyalsounderstandtheCityhasrecommendedthatadditionaltreesbeplantedonthatcontiguouslotline.
They feel strongly there should be a signal at the Lawson and Town & Country intersection where the 22
Freeway drops in adjacent to their property. They trust their entitlement rights will not be affected by this
development if they decide to build a matching tower on that land site.
John Demoni, is a designer who operates a business at the subject location. He is in a lawsuit with the
people who own the center because they are trying to evict him.
Mr. Reynolds informed the public that the Planning Commission does not have jurisdiction over
something that is purely a private matter between a tenant and landlord.
Apolicant's Response
Mr. Selman addressed the concern of the visibility of the rear buildings, At the ORB meeting theyplacedaconditionontheprojecttocomebackwithaplanthataddedadditionaltreesalongtherear
property line. The colored plan on the wall is the most current plan, which includes a number of trees for
screening. The parapet would be approximately 30 inches high and will be higher than any of the
mechanical equipment. They agree with all the conditions and hope that the exact length of the right hand
turn lane can be worked out between the City and the developer.
Chairman Bosch asked if the applicant would stipulate to that, as well as to the east parapet of the
easterly building, being no less high than the top of the mechanical equipment on the roof. (The
applicant replied yes.)
The public hearing was closed.
Chairman Bosch asked Mr. Hohnbaum if he were satisfied with a condition that would allow the exact
length of the right turn lane, northbound Main to eastbound Town & Country, to be determined based
upon agreement with the City of Orange City Engineer's Office.
Mr. Hohnbaum thought that was reasonable.
Commissioner Smith asked about the issue of the signal at Lawson and Town & Country.
Mr. Hohnbaum replied that signal is under the auspices of Cal Trans. He knows it has been a contingentforquitesometime. Cal Trans would be the jurisdiction that would install and operate that signal.
Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Reynolds about the entitlement rights of the Tishman Building in that it
remains intact, even with the proposed development.
Mr. Reynolds was not familiar with the entitlement rights they presently have and could not respond to
the question.
Mr. Jones thought whatever entitlement rights they have or don't have at this point would not be changedbythisproposedproject.
Commissioner Romero did not have a problem with the proposed project and he liked the design.
Commissioner Smith thought the project should go forward without a continuance, with Mr. Hohnbaum's
willingness to negotiate the exact length of the turn lane, and with the condition of the easterly parapetbeinghigherthanthemechanicalequipmentontheroof. This project will be a good improvement for the
Town & Country area.
4
Planning Commission Minutes November 17,1997
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Negative Declaration
1537 -97 finding there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the
environment or wildlife resources.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith
None
Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Major Site Plan
Review 43-97 with conditions 1-19 listed in the staff report, adding condition 20 that the ~ast
parapet of the easterly building shall be no less high than the top of the highest roof top and mechanical unit
on the building; adding condition 21 that the applicant shall dedicate and improve a right hand turn
lane on northbound Main Street, to access eastbound Town & Country, the length of which including
its transition element shall be determined based upon agreement with the City of Orange City Engineer's
Office; and note the approval is subject to the design of the south elevation of major building A per
the elevation drawing presented at this
public
hearing.
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton,
Romero,
Smith None Commissioner Pruett
MOTION CARRIED 3. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 44-97 - PRESENTATION
FOLDER, INC.The applicant is proposing redevelopment of an existing truck terminal to an industrialfacilitycontainingoffice, manufacturing, and warehousing uses. The proposed building will be approximately
67,500 square feet in area and is located at 1130 North
Main Street.The full presentation of the staff report was waived as there was
no opposition.The public hearing
was opened.Applicant. Joseph Tardie. 1818 North Case Street. requested approval of this requestbecausetheyneeda
larger facility.The public hearing
was closed.Commissioner Smith asked that this item be pulled from the Consent Calendar because of the
large size of the building and to see if anyone objected to this project. She had no
further comments.Chairman Bosch thought the project was a substantial improvement over what currently exists on
the site.Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Romero, toapproveNegativeDeclaration1538-97, finding that there is no substantial evidence that the project willhaveasignificantimpactontheenvironment
or
wildlife
resources.
AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Carlton,
Romero, Smith None Commissioner
Pruett MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve
Major Site Plan Review 44-97 with conditions 1-9, as indicated in the staff report, finding that the
project will not cause a deterioration of bordering land uses, it conforms to City developmentstandardsandthespecialdesignguidelinesorplanrequirementsforthearea. Circulation is adequate, City
services are adequate and the project is compatible
to
the
community'
s aesthetics.AYES:NOES:ABSENT:
Commissioners
Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith
None
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING
4. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL 3-97 - PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA
An appeal of the Design Review Board's decision to prohibit an internally illuminated awning with 10
square feet of copy area used for signage. The project site is addressed 310 South Main Street.
This item was continued from the October 20, 1997 hearing at the applicant's request.)
There was no opposition to the item; therefore, the presentation of the full staff report was waived and
the public hearing was opened.
Applicant. Nicholas Samios. Corona del Mar, said he and his son bought the franchise rights to Papa
John's Pizza in December of last year. They selected the City of Orange to open their first two stores
and they opened the first store on East Chapman in July. That location has the traditional Papa John's
logo and back lit awning, which they are requesting at Main Street. A month later they opened their
second store on Main Street and their signage was rejected. They had to open with a basic sign. He
has spent quite a bit of money on this investment and signed a contract with the local cable TV station to
run 26 weeks of Monday night football. He didn't think people recognized the Main Street location as
being part of the same franchise. He passed around pictures showing the signage at both locations.
The ORB said the back lit awnings deters from the architectural significance of the building and the
building was not meant for awnings. He didn't know what that was based on because the shopping
center has two major buildings. One building has three tenants, one of which has awnings. He felt the
architecture of the building and the integrity of the building is not being interrupted by the awnings. He
thought the awnings give it a cleaner, neater look and at night provides more light in an area that has
some problems.
Commissioner Romero believed Papa John's Pizza was very good because of the quality -- not because of
signage. He asked if the awning were part of Papa John's trade dress logo. (Mr. Samios replied yes.)
Commissioner
Romero asked if Mr. Samios would be adverse to just the awning in the front and not on the
front and side because of the setback on the side street.Mr.
Samios did not think it would look good to have the awning end at the corner. It needs a slight return and
he could live with that. He wants his store to look like the other stores, but not like Nick's Pizza.Chairman
Bosch stated the staff report mentions the proposed awning on the side of the building would overhang
the public sidewalk, encroaching into the public right-of-
way.Mr. Samios responded the awning would be above anyone walking by. The awning wouldoverhangbecausethebuildingisbuiltonthepropertylineandsidewalk. However, the ORB approved
the channel letters and they also overhang the sidewalk and infringes on the public right-of-way. It'
s maybe 4 inches vs. 6
or 8 inches.Richard Laub. 2125 West Chanticleer Road. Anaheim, is the property supervisor and
agent for the owners of the property (who are his parents). The partnership does not object to
the illuminated awning at Papa John's Pizza and felt it would be an extra level of safety to the center. It will also
help cut down on the graffiti problems that he addresses on
a week-to-week basis.Commissioner Carlton asked if the Papa John's sign would be lit on the side of
the building or would the entire side of the
awning and building be lit.Mr. Laub believed the applicant was illuminating down the side of the
building. With this lighting there would be an additional level of safety to those who park on the street and
for the people in the apartment complex. Street lighting on
Palmyra is not the best.Robert Aran. 16530 Ventura Blvd. #204. Encino, was the attorney for Papa
John's in Southern California.He said this particular locftion is off of Main Street, back set by more than 100 feet. As a result, the sign that is there can be interpreted to be Nick's Pizza. Mr. Samios' goal includesthetradedressandimagethatthePapaJohn's franchise wants to portray with the back lit awning. It is a
very
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
aesthetically looking sign. It does offer safety for the area. The store in between the uniform store and
the Papa John's store is another small restaurant which has an awning on it already. He thought the
awning sign would represent a substantial improvement, not only to ftle mall, but to the community in that
area.
Apolicant's Response
Mr. Samios suggested to end the awning at the windows. The center is comprised of several buildings,
although the land owner only owns the two they are speaking of.
Chairman Bosch noted on the East Chapman location the trademark dress on the store is only on the
front facade, even though the store is an end unit with exposure to adjacent parking. He saw in the case
of that facade it appears the proportion of the Papa John's logo rising up out of the awning to the heightoftheawningisdifferentfromthatwhichtheapplicantproposedonMainStreet. He understands there
is a higher parapet on the building on East Chapman and perhaps with more length allowing for a larger
surface area of sign under the City's sign ordinance. He was concerned about the proportions of the
awning on the Main Street side, as it relates to the fascia of the building. He had great respect for the
Design Review Board and noted Mr. Samios' project does not conform to the approved sign plan for
the development. He was concerned with the proportion of the awning that fills the entire parapet from
top to bottom. Since there appears to be a range of designs available within the approved corporate
package, he asked if Mr. Samios had considered reducing the depth of the awning portion relative to the
logo so it doesn't appear to overwhelm the entire fascia of the building.
Mr. Samios said he applied for the lesser of the signs on Main Street because of that fact. He intended
for the logo to stay in the same height of the awning so as not to be obtrusive or overwhelming. He
realizes it is a smaller looking store than the Chapman store. They didn't return the awning on the
Chapman store because it returns to nothing. It's not visible by the street or major part of the parkinglot.
Chairman Bosch appreciated the concerns about security. He was sure the reason Mr. Samios wanted
the awning wrapped on the Palmyra side is because it is a larger display and he would be tying the
corporate logo and whole dress to the building together. From a security viewpoint, there is nothing that
precludes additional security lighting down that side of the building to assure pedestrian safety. He was
interested in pursuing all the methods of providing the best safety for the citizens. He was also
concerned that an encroachment permit would still need to be secured for any design, whether it is
channel letters or an awning.
Mr. Samios was willing to consider some kind of return just to make the awning look right. It would not
look right if it ended flush with the corner; it needed some kind of return. He would be hap~y to install
additional lighting on the side of the building. \
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Smith wanted to know the zoning and use of the property that is across the street on
Palmyra.
Mr. Jones replied the zoning on the west side of Main Street, both north and south, is the C-1
zone.Commissioner Carlton could see the importance of the recognition on the sign. It occurred to her
the sidewalk on Palmyra has no grass parkway. She didn't believe the overhang would be as hazardous as
if there was a grass parkway and then a narrower sidewalk. She would be in favor of the sign
as
presented.Commissioner Romero personally could not agree with the ORB's comments that the proposedsignwouldinterruptthearchitecture. He did not care for the existing Papa John's Pizza sign on the front
of the building and believed the company logo is a much cleaner, nicer looking visual appearance and
will add to the
corner.Commissioner Smith would be in favor of allowing the applicant to put up a back lit awning. She
would not like to see it along the whole length of the building, but would be in agreement of it going around
the
Planning Commission Minutes November 17,1997
return to where the windows stop on Palmyra, She would rather \see on the length of the building an
addition of four lights that would illuminate the sidewalk. \
Chairman Bosch had a strong objection to wrapping the back lit awning all the way ~own the Palmyra
Street side. Back lit awnings are entirely a sign in and of themselves, but that disagrees with the
ordinance. Commissioner Smith's comment about returning the corner so it doesn't appear to be a
pasted on element is a good one, returning it back to perhaps overlap a little bit the window lines since
there is a recess there. It will make a good architectural statement on that side. He encouraged the
owners to install security lighting down the remainder of the facade. Approval would be subject to the
owner and applicant securing an encroachment permit into the City right-of-way for any elements
that
go there.Commissioner Carlton suggested the corporate dress appears to have the Papa John's logo
centered in the awning on a facade, and that if the awning were to wrap around to the Palmyra side, to the
radius just past the recess, then the logo should also be moved to center on the portion of the awning
that might be approved on the
Palmyra side.Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, in response to
Design Review Board Appeal No. 3-97 regarding DRB 3228 that the Planning Commission
approve the internally illuminated awning and sign installation proposed by the owner on the Main Street
facade, subject to conformance to the City's Sign Ordinance with regard to sign, copy and size, but that
on Palmyra Street,the extent of the awning be limited to placing the return radius of the awning back to the
window at the westerly edge of the window recess. And further, to recommend to the building
owner that security lighting be installed along the Palmyra facade. This approval is subject to the
application for and approval of encroachment permits for any signage, awning or lighting on
the
Palmyra
facade.
AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Carlton,
Romero, Smith None Commissioner
Pruett MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith thought this particular awning was warranted because it retains the
consistency of the corporate logo on all of the Papa John's Pizza establishments in the City of Orange,
and also because the awning works on this corner property, whereas it may not necessarily work if this
building were located
on the interior.Chairman Bosch said it was fortunate the corporate logo can be appropriately applied
to the facade whereas in many cases corporate logos are inappropriate to the design of the building
and to the context of the community, as well as to the City'
s Sign Ordinance.IN
RE: NEW HEARINGS \5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2190-
97 - TOM GROCHOW A request to demolish an existing garage and construct a 2-story second unit
residential structure above a new 3-car garage in the R-2 zone. The site is located in the Old
Towne District and the new National Registered
District at 325 North Harwood Street.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1533-97 has
been prepared to
evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.John Godlewski, Senior Planner, presented the full staff
report. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow more than 1 1/2 stories in the Old Towne District.
In this case, a two-story second unit behind an existing structure. The existing structure was
originally about 625 square feet and has been added onto in the back, consistent with the design of the
original structure to almost double its size about two years ago, This request is for a new,
separate structure, a demolition of the existing garage-carport structure and replacement with a three-car garage and second
unit above the garage. The 1 1/2 stories is the threshold that was established for Old Towne in
the Old Towne Design Standards, feeling that 1 1/2 stories could be found to be consistent with all
areas of Old Towne. In this particular case, they were looking at the two story
development for its conlpatibility with the surrounding properties in the neighborhood, as well as in Old Towne.
The
Planning Commission Minutes November 17,1997
the plan on the wall was also presented to the ORB. The initial effort was to make the project look asmuchlike11/2 stories as possible. The Design Review Board made a number of recommendations thattheapplicantlaterincorporatedintotheplans. The DRB is the appointed body to determine whetherprojectsareconsistentwiththeOldTowneDesignStandards; however, in the case of the PlanningCommission, the applicant has the option to either bring forward the plans or take them back to the DRBuntilanapprovalcanbereached. In this case the Minutes of the DRB are included in theCommissioners' packets and the majority of those recommendations had been included in the revisedplans.
Commissioner Smith asked what the criteria was for the 1 1/2 stories vs. 2 stories.
Mr. Godlewski said the roof line of the second story carries down to the ceiling plate of the first floor andthatisa11/2 structure, There would be dormer windows in the 1 1/2 story structure. A 2-story structureisbasicallytwoseparateboxesplacedontopofeachotherwitharoofontopofthesecond
floor.The public hearing was
opened.Apolicant. Tom Grochow, 163 North Pine Street, is committed to maintaining the quality of Old Towne.
In May he and his wife received the Good Neighbor Award from O.T.P.A. for their refurbishmentandadditiontothehomeat325NorthHarwood. They purchased the home for two reasons: To createahomefortheirsonandhisfamilyandtodevelopasecondhomeontheR-2 lot for his wife'
s retired parents. The preservation of the 75 year old Pepper tree was a priority during the remodel ofthefronthouse, and it continues to be a commitment for the rear house construction. They are
maintaining a separate fenced side yard for the front house of 790 square feet, and a fenced front yard of480squarefeet. There is a completely landscaped back yard for the rear house of over 520 square feet. The view from the driveway is a front porch and mature landscaping, similar to the front house -- not a garagedoor.The front house square footage is listed at 1,225 square feet in the staff report, but it should benotedthat240squarefeetofthatisoneoftheenclosedgaragesthatwasaddedduringtheremodel. The15footsetbackofthefronthousefromthesidewalk, which is listed as the only non-conformingconditionoftheproperty, is the existing condition established when the house was moved to that lot in the1920's.The section entitled Surrounding Land Use and Zoning states there is only one 2-story secondunitontheblock. Contradicting this, the Evaluation section, Paragraph 4, states there are 10parcelswithsecondunitsandtwoofthoseare2-story units. The 300 block of North Harwoodactuallyhasthree2-story second units at 340, 374, and 359; and one 1 1/2 story at 341. The 1604 square feetoflivingspaceintheproposedrearhouseisnotallusableduetotheirattempttomakeita11/2 story structure. The usable floor space on the second floor is interrupted by the roof line, which reducestheheadheightasonewalksouttowardtheoutsideofthehouse. This project will further revitalizetheproperty, making it more attractive to the neighborhood and adding to the number of quality housingunitsintheCity. The Craftsman Bungalow design is intended to continue the architecturallysignificantfeaturesofthefronthouse, contributing to the historic qualities of the District. The DRB report states the
front house is "not a pure architectural style". He felt their project was within the Design GuidelinesforOldTowneandmeetsthegoalsoftheHistoricPreservationElement. It would become the fourth 2-storyunitinthe300blockofNorthHarwood. Their intent is to make the house appear as if it were a11/2 story structure consistent with the two others that are behind and to the south of theproperty. He submitted three revisions to the Planning Department over the course of four months, trying to get theprojecttoapointwherestaffcouldagreeitwasa11/2 story. He gave up and applied for theConditionalUsePermitfora2-story structure. The proposed structure cannot be seen from someone
standing in front of the front house.Commissioner Smith asked why he did not
go back to the Design Review Board.Mr. Grochow said it has taken him quite a bit of time to get tothePlanningCommission. And, of all the recommendations made by the DRB, they implemented all butone. The one condition they did not implement is the issue of bulk and mass. He could go back to the
DRB
forever and still not get their approval.Commissioner Smith noticed in the design there is a cathedral ceilingoverthelivingroom. She asked him to explain how he chose to
do that because that takes more space.Mr. Grochow said he was
t;
Planning Commission Minutes November 17,1997
Commissioner Smith asked if he investigated with staff the difference between the 1 1/2 story vs. the 2
story.
Mr, Grochow replied quite a bit. He still believes his project is more like a 1 1/2 story than a 2 story.
The height of the building is the same as the house behind them; about 23 1/2 feet to the highest pOint.
Jim Pall in. 315 North Harwood, favored this project because it will improve the entire property and will
make it look nicer.
Tom Matuzak. 340 South Grand Street. represented the Board of Directors of Old Towne Preservation
Association. They believe the current proposal is unacceptable, based on the deviation of the intent
from the Old Towne Design Standards, which imposes limits on new construction. They were specifically
opposed to the massing, scale, shape and proportions, open space, rhythm and pattern, and landscape
features. They felt if this project were approved, it would open the gates for any interpretation of the
Old Towne Design Standards.
Commissioner Smith wanted to know how the O.T.P.A. feels that this project, as designed and revised,
deviates from the Design Standards, given the fact it retains the elements of the original building on the
property.
Mr. Matuzak sees a roof line that looks like it is broken up and he didn't know if it were copying the house
in the front. The design is not offensive, but it certainly is not ideal of the historic neighborhood that it is
placed in. The mass and bulk, coupled with the height will overshadow the positive design of the project.
Commissioner Smith said it was mentioned that no 2 stories fronted on Harwood, and this one does not
front on Harwood either. It is consistent with the streetscape. She wanted to know how many
contributing structures are in the 300 block of North Harwood.
Mr. Matuzak could not speak to that.
Commissioner Smith asked what O.T.P.A. would rather see at this site.
Mr. Matuzak replied they would like to see a duplication of the same thing in the back. A true 1 1/2 story
would be less jarring. The project is just too big for the site.
Commissioner Romero said in looking at the blue prints and at the photos, he would assume the
structure to be 1 1/2 stories.
Chairman Bosch was interested in Mr. Matusak's comments relative to interpretation. Interpretation is
specifically what is required in order to properly implement the intent of the Design Standards and
maintain the integrity of the Historic District. He would like Mr. Matuzak to expand and focus his true
concerns with the project and at what point does it exceed what he sees as complementary bulk and
mass to contributing structures on the site, bearing in mind the primary structure is on the site, followed
by other 1 1/2 story structures on the block.
Mr. Matuzak said regardless of style, there is a predominance of living space on the ground level, on the
street. He was not sure if there was a deviation from that. But that is the layout of that street. This
project elevates about 1600 feet worth of living space above the garage. If the garage were carpeted, it
would be a 3200 square foot house. He thought this was a sizable overstep of what would be
perceived as a street rhythm or a balance.
Chairman Bosch was encouraging more preciseness because there is such a wide variety of opinions as
to what is appropriate and contributing, and does not denigrate from contributing structures when they
see additions proposed in the Historic District. Old Towne does not have a consistency of style or bulk
and mass and that's part of the beauty of the Historic District.
Mr. Matuzak said this project needs to be done with the aesthetic look and feel; he thought this is a
speed bump in the middle of the road. There are probably more precise measures that could be built
in that had to do with the volume of the living space.
10
r- - .-.- "-.-.-. ...-.. -......- ......,,,-,,,....
1.1\00II'" IVI .......'n;u "10 UIV,",IIUVV~ IIC1Vt::'
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
Commissioner Smith wanted to know if O.T.P.A. had taken their concerns to the Grochow's before thehearing.
Mr. Matuzak could not speak for the other Board members, but he had not.
ApDlicant's Response
Mr, Grochow couldn't get 3200 square feet in the garage even if it were carpeted. It's a 30x40 building __a maximum of 2400 square feet. The City required him to take 610 square feet out of the garage to parkcarson. He is at a loss as to why he was at this hearing trying to get a 2-story CUP; he still thinks it isa11/2 story structure and nobody can tell him how to make it a 1 1/2 story any more than anyone cantellhimhowtodealwiththebulkandmassissue, other than just make it
smaller.Commissioner Romero referred to the footprint of the new construction in comparison to theexistingshed. He wanted to know the difference in
size.Mr. Grochow said it was 48 feet wide and 28 feet deep. The new structure is 30 x 40. The shed isabout960squarefeet (footprint) and the house is about 1200 square feet (
footprint).Chairman Bosch asked about the height of the existing shed. He saw that the footprint on thepreviousapprovalisaboutthesameasnow, with the same setback from the current
dwelling.Mr. Grochow said it was 16'6" to the ridge
line.Chairman Bosch appreciated trying to develop a continuity of the roof line on the high ridge because
that seems more in keeping with the existing residence and many of the others in the area. TheChairmanaskediftheapplicantlookedatloweringthatdownabittoseewhattheeffectwouldbewhilepreservingheadroomatthe
stairs.Mr. Grochow said it was originally about 25 1/2 and in the course of different remodels, they were able
to get it down to 231/2. That's the maximum they can reduce it and get the head height that is
needed.The public hearing was
closed.Commissioner Smith asked staff if they knew how many contributing structures there were in the 300blockofNorthHarwood. Her guess is there are not as many as they think because there are so manystuccohousesonthe
street.Mr. Godlewski did not know, but will obtain that
information.Commissioner Romero wanted to know the definition of a contributing
structure.Mr. Godlewski said there were different levels of evaluating the various structures in Old Towne. They are either a contributing structure, which means the predominance of the architectural integrity is stillintact,all the way down to non-contributing, which is a structure that has been severely modifiedorrecentlyconstructed. Most of the 2-story structures in the area were constructed in relatively recenttimeandwerenotoriginallyconstructedto
be that way.Commissioner Smith said there was no question about her commitment to OldTowneandherappreciationforthedesignandhopeforthefuture. That also remains true for what theGrochow's have done in Old Towne, especially with this particular property. In her mind, they can'tanswerthequestionbygoingtotheDesignStandards, The Design Standards do not address bulk and mass. The only thing in the Ordinance to address bulk and mass is the FAR. A number of people inthecommunitybattledforalowFAR. and got a .70 which is an extremely high FAR. This project comes in at .45 FAR. The other problem is the zoning. This is an R-2 property. Any owner of the propertyhastherighttodeveloptwounits. She didn't think the problem was the Grochow's design; the problemistheCity's lack of definition of how to restrict and preserve the design and look they want. She has walked this particular block many times and it is a hodge-podge block of homes inOldTowne. There are several post-1940 1-story structures, the 2-3tOry structures are new. TheyhavestuccoandhavenothingtodowithOldTownedesign. This project does not compare to
the
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
because it is trying to abide by the Design Standards. Eventually, most of the houses on the block will
be demolished and rebuilt to Old Towne design. This project over powers the one in front of it because
the house in front is one of the smallest in Old Towne. It was brought over from Olive as part of a
different house. She congratulates anyone who puts time and money into retaining it in the
neighborhood. In her family they call it the postage stamp house. There's some sort of trade off in
historic preservation -- you give a little and you get a little. She didn't know how to reduce the size of the building
and maintain the rights of the property owner. She wants the historical integrity of the neighborhood
to be preserved, but she also wants to see new growth and development, new buildings and
fresh paint, as well as new landscaping and the preservation of the 75 year old Pepper trees. She thought
they needed to be careful not to get caught up in the dilemma that the Design Standards puts them
in. They need preciseness and the question was asked about what other cities are doing in this type
of situation. In her experience and research, other cities are zoning the neighborhoods R-1. She
didn't know if it really mattered relative to the 1 1/2 story building. It's only 23 feet tall. Her house is 32
feet tall and it is two blocks away. The removal of the shed in the back of the house is a great
improvement. The shed is unsafe and is probably a health and safety hazard. She also thought a
problem is created when no one can really clearly say what the criteria is for a 2-story vs. a 1 1/2
story.She heard the 15 foot setback is existing and is not self-imposed. The fact that it was named
by the ORB as not a pure architectural style -- probably the house it came from was not an expensive
house and maybe it didn't have a pure architectural style that can be named, but it does have style. She
calls the postage stamp house a simple farm house. She would rather see a project with good design
that keeps cars off of the street than what they had in the past with poorly designed second units and
not enough
parking.Commissioner Carlton thought the applicant has shown really good faith in changing his design
and incorporating 95% or so of the suggestions from the ORB. She would like to move this forward
and would be in favor of approving the
project.Chairman Bosch said there was a collection of very unusual artifacts on this block to create a
hodge.podge of homes. He agreed the City's problem is the Design Standards. It was a very hard
fought struggle to get them as far as they are, despite the problems and the holes that are in them.
He encouraged a lot more work to be done to move them ahead from where they are now to help
resolve some of the issues. It would be destructive to the spirit of the Historic District and the residential
streets within it to look for a lavish consistency. In the case of this particular residence, he was more
concerned about what a less concerned, and less interested property owner, if there were one in the future,
would do to the front residence. It's a neat thing to maintain. A key element for him is the bulk and mass -- the
very one, undefined thing. This proposal has one great advantage and that is it takes an existing
structure with bulky mass and one story, it's footprint is virtually the same within a couple of feet, it's
about 16 feet high at the ridge. There is a pre-existing large bulk structure at the rear of theproperty.It's not empty. It doesn't have a small out building. It's a major mass back there. This is replacing it
and is adding to it in height of about seven feet, but again it becomes a short building. In his opinion, it is
a 1 1/2 story residence. There are a few details because of the need to get head room relative to
the stepped roof on portions of the facade that aren't pure in that regard. But, they're also not
inconsistent with a goodly portion of the 1 1/2 story buildings elsewhere in town. The north and south elevations
are consistent with virtually all of the 1 1/2 story structures in town with gable ends. The applicant has done
a fine job in keeping the height down so as to minimize intrusions of bulk and mass. It's still a bigbuilding.If there were no structures this size on the back of the site, he would be concerned about the impact
of the bulk and mass that this causes and the precedent it might cause. Only because of that, he is
less concerned and therefore, look more at the details involved. He thought the applicant has done a fine
job in picking up the basic details of the house in front. It is consistent and true to the structure in front with
a few minor alterations with regard to maintaining similar vents, watching the window trim, introducing
a window light of some type adjacent to the front door to give more detail to the design and lower
the scale of that. And, it does not impose upon the visual privacy of the neighbors. It has also
been respectful to the existing mature landscaping on the site and that's an important part of staying
consistent in interpreting what the intent of the Old Towne Design Guidelines are. He would like to see
something smaller. As the project moves forward into detailed design, it will only improve with some
minor modifications, particularly looking at the details of the intersection of the lower and step roof with
the upper cripple wall at the second living space in the 1 1/2 story structure. He encouraged the
applicant try to continue the feel of the north and south elevations in terms of detail, size of components on
the second floor around to the other side, and particularly the detail on the closet window. If the window
on the east elevation was more in keeping with the window designs on the north and south
elevations,perhaps more linear and still working within a gable design that would be an improvement to
help
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
provide consistency with the design. Because it replaces a building of major bulk and places it in a similar
footprint, it is not setting a precedent with regard to the imposition of\~ major bulk and mass structure into
the rear yard of an existing contributing structure. '
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Mitigated NegativeDeclaration1533-97 including the initial study and comments received during the public review
process,and find there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the
environment,with the adoption of the recommended mitigation
measures.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero,
Smith
None Commissioner Pruett MOTION
CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use
Permit 2190-97 with conditions 1-3 and to add condition 4 that the design include
Design Review Board recommendation for the addition of a window in the entry area that is also consistent
with the physical limitations of the stairway landing beyond, and that the closet window on the east
elevation, second floor,be modified to be more in keeping with the design of the gable end wall windows at the
north and south elevations. And, also find that the approval is granted based upon sound principles of
land use in response to services necessary to the community. It will not cause deterioration of
bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. And, that it has
been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plan for the area in which it
is located, and found that it is appropriately consistent with the Old Towne Design Standards, specifically
in that it replaces an existing building of substantially similar bulk and mass with a minor increase in
height to meet Building Code requirements for living spaces. That the materials, textures and details
are substantially in conformance with the existing contributing structure to the front of the site.
That existing mature landscape features and trees are maintained in the design of the building. That the 1 1/2
story nature of the structure is similar in bulk and mass to the major 1 1/2 story structures within the one block
radius of the site to the existing ones. In that the height of the building has been minimized in keeping
with the nature of the low plate heights and generally lower scale of the single story building
to
the
front.
AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Carlton,
Romero, Smith None Commissioner
Pruett MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith said to avoid this type of discussion in the future, they need to
continue working on the cumulative effect in CEQA. The impact of large projects like this in Old Towne over
time would have a drastic effect on the status of the neighborhood, especially as a National Register
District. She also hoped more work would be done on the FAR. to reduce it to a more manageable size
for t~ Historic District. That the Design Standards, somehow, come up with a precise way of measuring
bulk nd mass and limiting it to the limits they want to have in a historic neighborhood. And, continually be 100
ing at the zoning in the neighborhoods in order to retain
the architectural integrity.Chairman Bosch thought it would be important to direct staff (with the Commission'
s concurrence) to provide a number of items on future applications for modification or development
of properties within the Historic District. One, of which is to provide specific identification of contributing
structures within a one block radius -- not just on the street frontage, but the street behind as well of the
property in question. To come back to the Commission with the latest wisdom on cumulative impacts. This block
is a case where not a lot has happened recently, but now that the conditions have changed
legally, the Commission needs to know where thresholds lie based upon the case law elsewhere in
California. And,also, following the desire to be less subjective on bulk and mass, although all design
issues are subjective once one gets past dictating design, certainly there should be a look at comparative
bulk and mass of proposals relative to existing structures on a property and to the surrounding structures
to which it relates in its immediate
plan area.RECESS - Chairman Bosch recessed the meeting at 9:40 p.
m.RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
13
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
6. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14680; ZONE CHANGE 1191-97 - BEAZER HOMES
A proposal to develop approximately 16 acres with 198 residential units. Also requested is the
realignment of the boundary line between open space and residential zoning classifications, and
establishment of the precise alignment of Walnut Avenue, between Santiago Creek (Its current terminus
on the west side) and Spring Street.
Mitigated Negative Declaration 1531-97 has been prepared to evaluate
the environmental impacts of this
project.Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the full staff report as there was opposition to this item.
The project is the final phase of development of what was formerly called the Conrock property.
The property was originally about 110 acres of land used for sand and gravel operation on both sides
of Santiago Creek. The Conrock property has been developed with approximately 85 units west of
the creek and the applicant (Beazer) has built 485 units north of Walnut, on both sides of Prospect. It
also includeded the new alignment for Prospect Street, connecting it to Collins from Chapman, and
the channelization of the creek bed. The project before the Commission is composed of
several components. First, a zone change request that includes two parts: One, is to realign the boundary
line for what is called the westerly parcel, which is west of Prospect, between Walnut and Spring Street.
The proposal is to expand property that is zoned R-O and reduce the amount of land zoned
M-H. The result of that will be the recreational open space property of about 16 1/2 acres.
The residentially zoned property will be about 5 1/2 acres. The second part of the zone change is to change
the residential part of the westerly parcel and the easterly parcel, which is on the east side of Prospect,
between Walnut and Spring Street, from Mobile Home to R-3. The purpose of the zone change is to
allow the property to be developed not with mobile homes, but in a multi-family
fashion, The applicant is proposing condominiums for the easterly parcel and has included a tentative tract
map application to subdivide the property to allow that development. The project concludes a determination
on a precise alignment for the connection of Walnut Avenue to Spring Street. The General Plan
Circulation Element shows a direct curving connection between Walnut, west of the creek bed and Spring Street, east
of the creek. The City and applicant have both discussed this and resolved that the best way to
develop the alignment is to connect Walnut directly to Prospect Street, and not to connect it directly
to Spring. The proposal includes that the new alignment will be south of the existing street alignment, west of
Prospect Street to avoid an existing park site and City water well site. The precise alignment
would also establish that Walnut Avenue, east of Prospect Street, a portion of it, would be a cui de sac so there
would be no direct route east and west on Walnut. The proposal does include minor site plan review
for the tentative tract map that allows the creation of lots without a direct access to a public
street. The applicant is presently working on some future plans for the development of the park site, but nothing
has been resolved up to this point. The proposed precise alignment and zone change do not
require a General Plan Amendment because the precise alignment is just a refinement onthe existing Circulation
Element, ant;J the zone change for the proposed R-3 zoning is compatible with the
existing low-medium residential d~nsity land use designation for the property, Since the Mitigated
Negative Declaration was circulated on this parcel,staff has received five comments. They are from
the Southern California Association of Governments, the Orange County Transportation Authority, the
County Planning Services Department, the Orange Unified School District and the Orange County
Sanitation District. The Orange County Transportation Authority staff has reviewed the precise alignment and they will
be recommending the approval to the Orange County Transportation Authority Board at their quarterly
meeting in January. Staff has included 41 conditions of approval, which includes four
mitigation measures. The mitigation measures were reduced to the level of insignificant impact on air quality in that it had to do with
the grading of the property, and to reduce to insignificant the impact on noise due to the westerly
parcel
adjacent to an asphalt batch
plant.NOTE:The public hearing was opened.Applicant. James O'Malley. from Beazer Homes of
Southern California. 1100 Town & Country, said the plans reflect the build out of the Rock Creek Ranch
development of approximately 37 acres, They have been working with staff for over a year and he
complimented staff in their professionalism. They looked at many different product types; one that would work well with the
formation of the land and one that would market well and be accepted by the surrounding
community. They have met with numerous groups in the area, both to the north and south of the project. The
main concern is with the Walnut extension.They chose a direct connection from Walnut to Walnut
intersecting at Prospect. The product consists of town homes, which will work well for the area. They range in size from 1300
to 1600 square feet. It's a move up market of 2-story attached units with four
different
Planning Commission Minutes November 17,1997
easterly parcel -- a rectangular piece with 10 1/2 acres. The westerly parcel consi~t.s of approximately 21 acres.
The 16 acre park site is being discussed with City staff and other entities. They ar~ m full concurrence
with the conditions of approval except for one minor change. He refe~red to condition 14 and
requested either a 15 or 20 foot curb return radius. They have contacted the Fire Department and trash
collector on this matter and have gotten their concurrence.Mr.
Jones commented condition 29 is also proposed to be revised, and the Commission was given a copy
of the revised condition. The applicant concurred with the revised condition.Commissioner
Smith wanted to know the applicant's rationale for the revision of condition 14 to reduce the
curb return to 15 or 20 feet.Mr.
O'Malley explained the radius presented in condition 14 is for a standard public street. They have proposed
a private street in a gated community, controlled by a homeowner's association. There is much less
traffic on these private streets. Parking is not allowed on the streets; parking stalls will be provided.Chairman
Bosch's concern on the preferred alignment is how it relates to the existing Walnut Avenue on the
west side of Santiago Creek, particularly to the north right-of-way line, and the front yards of
the existing residences along the existing extension of Walnut Avenue. He believed the
current improvements for the condominium complex developed on the east and south side of Walnut
Avenue have the primary right-of-way condition on that side. Although this is an alignment
map, not an engineering map, it appears that the map for the preferred alternative overlaps
into the existing properties on the north side of Walnut. He wanted to know the applicant's intent since
they are being asked to adopt
a preferred alignment.Joe Faust. Austin Faust Associates, is responsible for the preparation of the
precise alignment. The actual alignment of Walnut, starting on the far west where it ends right now, originally
and under the General Plan alignment actually curves a little bit to the south and then would curve back - a
reverse curve the other direction to line up with Spring Street - to create a giant "S" curve that would have taken
off basically a right hand curve from the point where Walnut ends. The new alignment doesn't
exactly proceed straight but follows a slight right hand curve to get far enough to the south so that it can
curve back and miss the park and well site on the east side, and then curve back up and come into a
direct alignment with the intersection of Prospect and Walnut. They would be considerably south of what is
the west leg of the Prospect-Walnut intersection, which is the cul-de-sac
entrance to the condominium development. The north side of Walnut will end up with more room, not less. There will
be no taking of properties
with the new alignment.Chairman Bosch spoke about the illustration of the westerly property and
the one potential development of the park site, although its impact on the application is to validate the
realignment of the proposed zone change. He wanted the applicant to explain what the entitlement requirements
are relative to the transfer of the open space area as it relates to the overall project approvals in the past.
As part of the planned community approval, what are they required to deliver to the City of Orange
with regard
to the open space.Mr. O'Malley said they were asking for a zone change classification on the 5.6 acres
from M-H to R-3.The balance of the property is zoned R-O and that will be maintained.
Their next step is to draw
some conceptual ideas; only the boundary changes.Mr. Carnes explained the original approval was the zone change on
all of the Conrock property from the park to the various residential densities. There was no requirement
at that time nor any agreements made that if the developer gives the City this amount of park land, their
park fees would be waived. They have had to pay their park fees for all developments, and there is no
agreement at this time to waive those fees in relationship to the park. The park site was originally created because it
use to be a wash pit. To develop it, would be the same as Vandele had to do for their site along
the creek. It would have to be dug out and re-compacted. There are no tie ins between
any development and leaving it as a park.There are no agreements between the property owner and theCityforthe
City to acquire the property for a park.Chairman Bosch spoke to the potential layout of the open space site
and it shows a potential siting of a community building. He asked if that has been sited relative to the
known boundaries of tl"le old wash pit
to
Planning Commission Minutes November 17,1997
Mr. O'Malley said that graphic came from ideas delivered to them from different departments within the
City. They are currently following up on their geotechnical analysis to see if those ideas would be
feasible. An agreement, discussions, exact boundaries or costs have not been discussed with staff.
They are not representing that the plan is a buildable plan until the geotechnical studies are completed.
For discussion, it is purely a zone with certain uses in it. Regarding Joe Faust's discussion on the street
alignment, Exhibit 7 in the environmental document illustrates very clearly there will be no take of separate
property.
Chairman Bosch said he was starting with everything on the west side, although other than the zone
change, the principle issues are on the east side of Prospect Street. He asked if both of these are
identical product as currently perceived. (Yes.) He asked how the product differs in terms of size of
units, general density, amenities to the project just north of Walnut on the west side of Prospect, the
original development.
Mr. O'Malley replied this product is different in many ways. The parcels across the street have a higher
density. Kensington is a single family, detached plan, This condominium project is a lower density --12
1/2 to the acre -- more of a town home design. The dwelling units are slightly larger and are designed for the "
move-up" buyer. The community was concerned about the roof materials that would be used;they
want to see a stone type material used on the roof. They also wanted to see entry monuments so the
area would look like a master planned community, as well as the perimeter walls and landscaping.This
development, when built, will coordinate with the existing developments.Chairman
Bosch was interested in the vehicular access points. The proposal for the rectangular parcel on the
east side has the access point onto Virage, opposite the school so the only properties accessing that
block of Virage from Spring to Walnut would be this development and the school. (Yes.) He wanted
some comment as to the correlation between the drive access to the rectangular parcel and the driveways
to the school. He was also looking at safety with regard to accessibility to the school.Mr.
O'Malley pointed to the location on the map the Chairman was speaking about at Virage and Walnut.The
safest location for ingress and egress would be off of Virage. It's not quite dead center and is offset from
the entry of the school site and parking lot area. Then, there is another entry into the Kensington development.
It is north of the northerly driveway into the school.Chairman
Bosch said the proposed access to the westerly parcel is off of Prospect. He wanted to hear the
rationale for that vs. having it opposite the existing condominium project on the west leg of Walnut.Mr.
O'Malley explained it boils down to sight distance and safety from the existing intersection.. They lookedatanalternativeearlyontyingtheiraccessoffofWalnut. But, the distance between what they own
and the length of Walnut is quite short to the intersection of Walnut and Prospect. This is a much safer
condition to have the property access off of Prospect.Chairman
Bosch asked if there could also be some potential vertical alignment problems if there is a future
crossing at the creek relative to that intersection, if it were on Walnut as well.Mr.
Faust said they did not have the bridge design precisely, but basically no, they wouldn't have a sight distanceproblem. People would be able to see the intersection. The basic reason for not having the access
off of Walnut as opposed to now off of Prospect, is this site, the Walnut frontage of the west parcel
is actually very short (less than 200 feet). The ultimate design of Walnut, when it is finally constructed, the access to the homes to the north, that tract will be moved about another 100 feet over to the
west to give a longer distance for what would be the eastbound to northbound left turn pocket. The primary
reason for not putting it on Walnut was at this point they didn't own the property and they are already
going to relocate the existing access that was there further west and they didn't want to complicate
that with putting a fourth leg to that intersection and have turning movements there.Bob
Bennyhoff. 10642 Morada Drive. OranQe Park Acres, was nervous about what was happening to Walnut.
If you will remember, Mr. Beyer spent a good part of his life fighting the bridge, He noticed the
plans to bring Yorba eventually to intersect with Walnut this side of the bridge. The traffic is apparently
being shifted onto Spring. He wished for a clearer picture of the traffic and how it will chang8 thetrafficpatterns, keeping in mind that the Corridor will be in a couple of years after this developments built. He wanted a better understanding of what the change in the precise alignment will mean to th3 traffic
flow for the East Orange area.16
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
Chairman Bosch's recollection is that the Yorba extension is a special study street, of which alignmenthasn't been set. The special study street at one point was to connect at Wanda Road and Collins, whichisthroughthebackyardsofanotherneighborhood. Also, then how that interfaces with this intersection atthebridgebecomesamajorengineeringissue. Before the alignment took everyone onto Spring andnowitputsthemhalfwaybetweenSpringandBondsotheycangobothways.
It was noted for the record that the Commission received a letter this evening dated November 17 fromBowie, Arneson, Kadi, Wiles and Giannone on behalf of the Orange Unified School District.
William Flory. Oranr;Je Unified School District. 1401 North Handy Street, represented the school's concernregardingtheimpactsthisprojecthasontheschoolfacilities. And, the impacts are not addressed in theMitigatedNegativeDeclaration. His goal is to make the Commission aware of the difficulties that multi-family dwelling units have on the School District. It is not the zone chan~e; it is not whether it is mobilehomesorcondos; it is not the number of units; it's not the builder; nor is It the way the plan is designed.It's strictly the housing impacts on the School District. And, whether it is this developer or anotherdeveloper, they would be having the same conversation. He hoped to stay focused on the concerns andworktogethertofindsolutions. This is the first formal presentation OUSD has made to the PlanningCommissionregardingfacilityfeesanddevelopmentimpacts. For some time he has been working withparentsinthecommunity, community leaders, teachers, principals, elected officials and district leaders ontheproblemscausedbygrowthofthestudentpopulationintheDistrict's attendance area. He passedoutacoupleofhandoutsfortheCommission's review regarding the student population and growth in theDistrict. This growth is coming from high density housing, new development and the transition of olderfamiliesleavingandbeingreplacedbyyounger, child-bearing families. He reported on theovercrowdedconditionsattheschoolsitesintheDistrict. They objected to the impact that growth hasonschoolfacilities. He asked that the Commission delay action on this project until the School DistrictandBeazerHomeshavetheopportunitytoworkoutamitigationagreementtoadequatelyaddresstheimpactstoschool
facilities.Commissioner Smith said this was the first information she has head from the School District in the 5 1/2 years she has been on the Commission. There have been many tract maps and projects beforetheCommissionandthisisthefirsttimethattheSchoolDistrictapproachedtheCitywiththisproblem. She asked where they have been in the past, given the severe problem of the 4% increase instudentpopulation. She wanted to know what kind of mitigation the School District was talking
about.Mr. Flory said when he addressed the Commission last year on another project, there werecertainstatutoryandcaselawrequirementstheDistricthadn't met. So, for the last 10 months he hasbeenworkingonthose. One of which was having their loading standard validated by somebody withauthorityoutsidetheDistrict. This is one of the documents they would use in dealing with the mitigation withthedeveloper. Orange Unified has not had a planner in the past. He is the first planner OUSD haseveremployed. He has been on the jOb a little over one year and there was a lot of work to do. Many issues were never addressed and a lot of policies and procedures needed to be put in
place.Chairman Bosch noted from Ms. Saltzman's letter that State law allows the School District toimposestatutoryschoolfeesondevelopmentprojectsandsetsastandardindollarsandcentspersquarefootdependingontypeofuseandbaseduponthegenerationofstudents. It also references there isnolimitationtothatstatutoryschoolfeebasedoncertainlandusedecisions. That's something that willneedtobediscussed. He asked if the School District and City been cooperating in assuring that theSchoolDistrictcollectstheassessmentithasestablishedpriortoissuanceofbuilding
permits.Mr. Flory responded at this point the School District has been successful in collecting the statutorylimit,but that doesn't mitigate the
impact.Chairman Bosch said the key at this hearing isn't the basic fee, but the difference between that andwhathasbeencalculatedaspurportedtobethefullimpact. Mr. Flory stated Ms. Saltzman would speaktothe
issue.Lysa Saltzman. attorney with Bowie. Arneson. Kadi. Wiles and Giannone. 4920 CamDus Drive, Newport Beach, clarified a couple of questions that were previously addressed to Mr. Flory. Loadingstandardsrefertotheacceptablenumberofstudentsperclassroom. They are established by an entity calledtheStateAllocationBoard, which oversees the Office of Public School Construction, which is formedinrelationwiththeLeroyF. Green School Building Lease Purchase Law of 1976, which outlines the
State
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
funding program for the construction and modernization of school facilities. That approval is necessary in
order for the District to continue to the next step. Because the District has not previously addressed this
Commission or City with respect to the mitigation of school fees, she wanted to start with a brief
overview, which can be found on Page 7 of the correspondence dated November 17,1997. They are
facing an adjustment in January of the school fees. The $1.84 per square foot is found to be inadequatetofullymitigatetheimpactsofnewdevelopment. The District has been diligently pursuing the
establishment of a current, up-to-date fee justification study. She believed the District willbeformallyadoptingitsrevisedpolicysometimepriortotheendoftheyear, and through this statutory
process the City will receive notice. She also briefly outlined her correspondence because she
realized the Commission probably didn't have much time to review it. They are requesting this project
be continued to allow the parties to discuss and enter into dialogue with respect to the appropriate
mitigation, enable the execution of a mitigation agreement, revise the Mitigated Negative Declaration so that it
reflects the conditions of approval that would mitigate the impacts of the project to a level less than
significant, as required by CEQA, prior to continuing on for consideration by the City Council. Absentamitigationagreement, it's incumbent on the Planning Commission to conduct a full Environmental Impact
Report as the impacts described in the fee justification study and evidenced in her letter demonstrate that there
is a significant environmental impact on the physical school facilities of the Orange Unified School District
as a result of this development. Granted this development will generate 42 students, which is
broken down on Page 6. While that may not appear to be a significant number, the schools are severely
impacted and lack the capacity to accommodate students generated from new and existing developments in
the area.With respect to the question as to the amount of mitigation requested, the fee justification
study has indicated that the amount for a single family attached unit would be $4,083. The difficulty is
trying to compare that to how it relates with the statutory school fees, which is done on a square
footage basis.With respect to this project, to fully mitigate the impacts of the project, on an average it would be $2.
63 a square foot, approximately 79 cents more than the $1.84. There are also mitigation amounts
indicated for single family detached homes. Statutory school fees would leave the School Districtatapproximately250indeficitofbeingabletoaccommodatethestudentsgeneratedfrom
this project.Commissioner Smith wondered why Ms. Saltzman's letter to the Commission was so
late. The Commission received this letter at 6:30 p.m. It seems to be a very important matter and
usually the Commission gets information 10 days
in advance.Ms. Saltzman understands that. With this particular project there has been a question as to time. And, as Mr. Flory had stated, in order for them to adequately provide for what the mitigation wouldbe, they needed to complete the fee justification study. That was in the process of being determined atthetimethisprojectwascomingforward. While the District knew that it has a significant impact, it isrequiredbystatutetobeabletodemonstratethenexusbetweenthefeeandtheimpact. So, they were
waiting for that study to be available. And, also, she apologized for the lateness of
the correspondence.Chairman Smith asked if she were hearing it was just a matter of timing that this happens to come
up with the Beazer project, or does it have to do with the demographics or geography of wherethisparticularprojectislocatedintheCity
of Orange.Ms, Saltzman thought it was both, but essentially the School District has known for quite awhilethatitsfacilitieswereseverelyimpacted. However, it has recently evolved to the state in which itcanprovidesufficientinformationtodemonstratewhatitsneedsare. As of a matter of timing, it just sohappensthatthefeejustificationstudywaspreparedandthedatawasavailablewiththetimingofthisproject. And because this project does have a legislative act, a zone change, it would make it right forconsiderationofthefullmitigationrequirementsoftheSchoolDistrict. With respect to evaluating this particularproject, as with any project that may come about in the City, the District would have to demonstrate that there
is an impact. The primary way to do that is to look at what the existing permanent capacity of theschooliswhichisgenerallydeterminedbyaformcalledtheSAB600S, which is approved by the
State Allocation Board, Department of Education. Then, look at what the current enrollment is. There are two
ways to determine that, to which she explained the difference. A comparison of the permanent
facilities needed to be looked at as to the enrollment to determine whether or not the specific area is impacted.
There is additional space in the elementary school for approximately 27 students, but no space for middleorhighschoolstudents. She ventures to guess this type of situation would exist elsewhere in theCitywithotherdevelopments. Many of the schools are using temporary portable classrooms tobepermanentfacilitiestoaccomr'1odate students which clearly are insufficient on a permanent basis to provideaqualityeducationalenvironmentthatthe
students
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
Commissioner Smith asked how does the reduced class size legislation, which is currently in effect, affect
the dollars amounts that could change within two years when that reduced class size is lifted. She
believed this was an experimental stage right now.
Ms. Saltzman replied the class size reduction goes towards the loading standards and would require 20
students in grades K through 3; therefore, there will be a higher impact, less capacity availability at the
elementary schools. In the future, she guessed they will not see less class size reduct!on, but t~ey will
see it growing towards higher grades. The legislature is considering expanding class size reductions to
grades 4 and 5.
Commissioner Smith said the figures are based on that particular legislation right now for reduced class
sizes of 20 students, which to her, seemed to drive the cost of education up.
Ms. Saltzman said the figures are based on the current cost analysis for the facilities. The District looks at
its current need, it looks at class development, existing development and future development. It
projects what its needs would be and based on those projections, it estimates what the cost
requirements would be. Assuming that the loading standards were lower for more grade levels, that
would impact the District's costs because it would require the District to build more facilities. But, as to a
specific amount, she couldn't comment.
Commissioner Carlton said the charts were very interesting. She referred to Page 5 and asked where the
additional 700 students were going to school. Are they attending classes in temporary buildings on
campus. She wanted to know how much land Orange Unified has right now on which they could build
additional schools.
Mr. Flory said they talk about a State living standard and for the sake of discussion, the State living
standard for a middle school is 28.1 students per class room. That's their goal, but current facilities don't
allow it so there are 43-47 students per class room. They are opening schools and redefining some
of the boundary areas in the northern district. Second schools could be added to three sites at Taft,
LaVeta and Anaheim Hills, but they don't have the
funding.Chairman Bosch said it was mentioned about the problem of having to house in temporary class
rooms.For some time, hasn't State law required that the School District provide a certain percentage of
class room capacity in modular, affordable class rooms, and how does that reflect upon the loading standards
in the permanent
capacities.Ms. Saltzman replied there is a requirement when building a State constructed school using State
funding pursuant to the Green Act that they accommodate 20% of the permanent student capacity. Either
an additional 20% in the permanent capacity would require more students on a smaller campus, ~a
school must go year round. The District has not yet constructed a school with State funds pursuant to the
Green Act because there are certain requirements that the District has to meet in order to obtain eli ibility
for funding. She understands the District is in the process of trying to qualify for eligibility, but at this time
is not subject to any of those
requirements.Chairman Bosch asked when that eligibility occurs, what kind of time frame is being looked at and
what impact does that have on the schools in question with regard to this
project.Mr. Flory said they are eligible for a middle school and high school; it's a matter of getting the
application finished and accepted by the State Allocation Board with a date. It also means they need bond
money from the State to fund applications, and they need to find their match, which would be 50% of the facility'
s cost. Middle schools are approximately $40 million and high schools are about $60 million. That
includes land costs for construction. As to the requirement for portables, there is a drive right now to
add portable construction to new buildings. The State requires a portion of the facilities be temporary so
that they can be removed in the down periods of time. Portables were never intended to be
permanent construction. State law, until recently, allowed a portable to be approved by the State architect
and placed on campus and used forever. The Department of State Architect has since realized that many
of the portables that were approved 20 years ago are health hazards. They have begun a process of
reo certification every 10 years. Last year the Los Angeles Office of the Department of State
Architect processed 355 applications for portable class rooms to deal with class size reduction at a cost in
excess of $35 million. That's about $78,000 a unit and there is a year and a half back log for new
orders.
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
Chairman Bosch asked how that relates as they look to the future in the area of this project to the capacity
of the schools involved. Was this move toward obtaining funds and\seeing the need for matching funds
reflected in the fee justification study.
Mr. Flory replied yes. They talked about the backlog of need -- it's the unfunded liability that is sitting out there
that didn't get addressed in the past. All the developers went by and paid the statutory limit so the
gap between the real costs and statutory limit grew. They don't intend to go back to the developers who
are building homes today; all they ask for is the piece that their impact is causing.Chairman
Bosch said in regard to this project, since there will be eventually some equitable resolution to the
issue, what will that mean in terms of physical plant for the School District to serve the needs of the students
generated by this project. Does that mean modulars at Sycamore or Santiago or both. Does It mean
permanent construction. Does it mean leaving it alone, and shifting attendance to other sites where the
District may accumulate funds for additional schools. Exactly what are they looking at.Mr.
Flory responded it was a very complex answer. When they start looking at the high school component
or the middle school component, they start getting into the question of what can they do for boundary
changes, what can they do for multi-track year round programs, what can they do with
combinations of portables and program shifts. The value judgment is going to have to be made by the
Board as to whether they will continue to provide that kind of educational opportunities when they have
housing needs for core programs. Maybe the photography class of 15 will be disbanded and filled with
a science class of 36. It's going to be a lengthy process.
Chairman Bosch asked the question another way because he was interested in the detail relative to this
project. When the developer eventually pays the legally required fee as is determined, that is due
relative to the project, where is the money going.
Mr. Flory said it goes into a special fund that can only be used for school facilities. It cannot be used for
salaries or cars. It can only be used for the construction of housing for students. One of the measures
that is used is cost per square foot for the dwelling unit so that there is some standard that everyone can
use. One of the questions that creates a lot of argument between schools and developers is the student
generation rate. How do you determine the number of students that are generated. They are trying to
use the industry standards as they approach the solution for Orange Unified.
Chairman Bosch said he was a land planner sitting on the Commission and he really wanted to know what
the nexus is between this project and the school facilities, and how it impacts the physical plan for this
site as it relates to one of the District's major assets directly across the street, which is presumed to be a
source of providing service to the students generated here, as well as presumably to Santiago, which is a
charter school now, is one of the two closest middle schools to the site relative to McPherso,n. What's
going to happen because that affects trip generations, it affects traffic movement, circulation\ it affects
congestion near access points to sites. Is the money being generated by this project going to facilities
that serve this project. All of his questions are trying to get to something Mr. Flory is going around.
Maybe Mr. Flory can just say they haven't figured it out yet, but he wanted to know where the money is
going relative to this project.
Mr. Flory said they track the fees that are collected by the attendance area and try to make the
expenditures within that allocation. But that does not necessarily provide the solution. They are talking
about 27 students at Prospect. The cost impacts will vary as to what the solution is. They have not
defined an exact solution for these number of students other than coming up with a standard everyone
can agree to as to what the financial impacts are. They have determined that is $2.63 per square foot.
That is the standard they can define clearly at this point.
Chairman Bosch is looking to establish the nexus in what it means in physical grounds because in other
land use issues the Commission looks at the impact of a project and can assign mitigation measures
based only upon a demonstrated share of the impact, regardless of what it might be -- traffic signals,traffic
lanes or sewage plant improvements, or whatever. He believed schools are similar, although there is
a different basis for formulating the amount. It's important for him to understand as a planner how to best
relate all the needs of the community, but also see what the nexus is to a specific project other than just
a formalistic approach.2)
Planning Commission Minutes November 17,1997
Ms. Saltzman said unfortunately the Commission is at a bit of a disadvantage because they do not have a
copy of the fee justification study. Perhaps the District can make an effort to supply them with a draft and
that may answer the questions raised by the Commission. There are three types of calculations one can
use in establishing a mitigation agreement. What they start at is what is going to be the cost per student,
what is going to be the cost to provide adequate education as mandated by the State, consistent with
the policies of the Orange Unified School District and as required by the community input in that District.
You determine what the cost per student is and break it down by either a dwelling unit amount, which in
this case would be $4,083 per multi-family attached units, or a square footage amount. Therefore,
you divide the square footage by the total dollar amount to find out what the dollar amount per
square footage is. She thought the question Chairman Bosch was asking is if they were to require a
specific amount above statutory school fees, that the District has indicated fully mitigates the impact, how does
it fully mitigate the impact. That's because the $1.84 does not provide the realm of materials,
not necessarily the building construction, but everything that goes into providing a seat for a student.
And,whether or not that seat is going to be at Santiago or whether it is going to be at Prospect,
whether there will be a transfer of territory or boundary of the organizations so that the seat would be at
another school, it's the seat to provide education to that student, based on a cost that is determined today.
She thought what Mr. Flory was trying to indicate is that right now how it would be applied to those
42 students is still subject to master planning with the District. There are other projects to take
into consideration and you have to look at the cumulative impact on a whole for the future development in
the City and how is the District going to plan what its needs are with respect to the costs per student.
Once the Commission has a chance to look through the fee justification study, they will see how those costs
can be paralleled and broken down and will answer the questions of the
Commission.Chairman Bosch appreciated that and thought it would be helpful because as Ms. Saltzman
reflected upon the commitment of the Commission to look in detail at all the aspects of what is necessary to
serve the needs of the community, that's a critical one and they can best serve together as a team by
sharing that information rather than having to guess at where it is going. He was concerned as to how that
relates to the specific project as well as to the strategic level. He appreciates that this direction to formulate
this kind of information is only recently started to be developed by the District. But now we're here with
this project and he presumed the fee justification study has a component in the amount that takes care
of funding the depreciation of existing assets to replace
them.Ms. Saltzman interrupted and stated the fees are adjusted annually pursuant to the Marshall Swift
Class D wood frame construction, but this study merely addresses new development and the impacts of
new development. The rehabilitation of existing facilities would fall under the classification of
modernization.She didn't believe the study addresses
that.Chairman Bosch said it was mentioned the District is going about now to adopt a new
policy.Notwithstanding that Ms. Saltzman states there is legal justification, through a fee justification study,
for fees other than that set as a statutory limit. After the District adopts its new policy, when is it legally
in effect for applications that come before the
City.Ms. Saltzman believed that it takes effect 60 days after it is adopted by the Board, unless there is
an emergency measure. She preferred to consult the Government Code because there is a specific
statute that it states and it may be a shorter period of
time.Chairman Bosch appreciated Ms. Saltzman pointing out the detail of the difference in the fee
calculation they came up with relative to what was previously assumed for the project. Because there are
previous approvals on this project. In fact, the density is lower as proposed, although a different housing
type than had been previously approved. It raises an interest in terms of applicability and is it
really retroactive or just opportunity or recognize the
need.Ms. Saltzman said previously Chairman Bosch had inquired as to the City's procedure for
implementing school fees. She wanted to note on Page 15 of the staff report that it refers to code sections that
would need to be complied with. It's her understanding that the City's procedure in the past has been
merely to default to the Government Code pertaining to the statutory school fees. There has been no
active enforcement other than that developers know they need a Certificate of Compliance to submit to
the City. She knows it was not the District's intent or nor do they believe that the City does not enforce
or 70110w through with the procedure of collecting school fees. What has happened over time is that
the 1.5sue of whether or 'lot that amount is adequate has been left aside and at this point in time that's
what
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
they are addressing and would hope to engage in dialogue with the City so that they can come up with a
program that would be mutually beneficial for development.
Chairman Bosch has had personal experience in that the Building Department will not issu.e a permit ~ntil
a developer comes back with that Certificate from the School District. So the amount IS the District'schallenge.
Ms. Saltzman replied the difference is that now there are no conditions of approval requiring a developertoadequatelymitigatetheimpactsoftheproject. It's merely a default to school fees. What it would takeisanactionbytheCommissiontorecognizethatstatutoryschoolfeesareinsufficienttomitigatetheimpactsoftheprojectandtherefore, a different amount is necessary to fully mitigate and that wouldrequireaconditionofapprovalbythePlanningCommissionandsupportedbytheCityCouncilfor
development projects.
Commissioner Carlton wanted to understand the $808,000 in fees that allegedly go along with this
program. Additional class rooms are not needed at Prospect, but the other two schools are very heavilyoverburdened. Even though those two schools are over burdened, this $808,000 will not necessarily gotoputtentemporaryclassroomsonthosetwocampuses. That money might be used in a different area;the money goes into the pot to address the problems where it is needed most.
Ms. Saltzman explained by law the District is required to use the fees collected for a particular project.For instance, assuming fees were collected for the 198 homes to be developed by Beazer Homes,those fees would have to go towards school facilities for the 42 students generated by the project. NowthosestudentsmaynotactuallybeplacedatSantiagoorEIModena. The School District looks at thebiggerpicturetoseewhatotherprojectsormasterplanningthereistoputaclassroomtogetherthatisconsistentwiththeloadingstandards. That needs to be balanced throughout the District. She was not
sure if the District has master planned what it would do to accommodate the students. If there were ninestudentsgeneratedatthehighschoollevelfromoneproject, that the District would use its best efforts tokeepthoseninestudentstogetherbecausetheywillliveinthesameneighborhoodandcommunity.
Commissioner Carlton asked when that master plan was going to be put forward.
Mr. Flory stated this was a very complex issue and its difficult to understand. The District looks in termsofitstotalgrowth. There are 2,700 different housing projects going on within the District's sphere ofinfluence. They are being developed by 15 different builders. Each project has a piece of twocomponents -- the temporary housing requirement. It doesn't make sense to go out and get a loan for $6 millionwhenthereis $800,000 in the bank to build a new school for six students. It's doesn't make sense togooutandbuyaschoolsite. When looking at West Orange there is not enough electrical power to putanotherportableontheschoolsiteandtheycannothouseanotherstudentonthatcampus. It might beaportableclassroom. It might be transporting the student for two years from one school to another.Itmaybeconvertingtheschooltomulti-year tracks and providing air conditioning. It might be adding aroom. The second piece is permanent construction. That's when they would determine they had enoughmoneytobuildanewschool. His personal challenge is to put together a master plan for all the schoolsintheDistrict. They've started that process.
Ms. Saltzman said these were the type of questions that would need to be explored in an EnvironmentalImpactReport. The EIR would require the examination of the cumulative impacts of development in theCityandinadjacentcitiessuchasAnaheimsothatthePlanningCommissionandSchoolDistrictcouldlookandplanandseewhatdevelopmentprojectswereonline, how many students are projected to begeneratedandhowcantheSchoolDistrictplantoaccommodatethesestudents, as well as analyzing theCirculationElementthataffecttheneedfornewschools.
Mr. Reynolds is a novice to the particular sections of the Government Code Ms. Saltzman has beentalkingabout, but he wanted to thank her because they talked earlier in the day about these issues andhewasabletodosomeresearchthisafternoon. There is a statutory scheme that allows the SchoolDistricttoapprisetheCityoftheovercrowding. He wanted to clarify that is the process the SchoolDistrictisgoingthrough. By doing that, the District is able to come to the City and the City can thenimposethekindofmitigationmeasuresforahigherfeetheyarelookingfor. It seems to him, that neitherissayingtheicanalreadydothat. He looks at the statutory schem/;j and it seems to him that issomethingtheSchoolDistricthastoimplementbeforetheCityhasthec;bility to increase the fees overandabovethestatutoryfeesthatarealreadypermitted.
22
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
Ms. Saltzman said it may actually behoove all of them to get together and discuss these issues because
she believed that Mr. Reynolds is addressing a specific section of the Government Code, which was
designed to address interim facilities and it is a separate body of law from what they are asserting.
Mr. Reynolds asked if they were contending the City already has the authority to adopt mitigation
measures over and above the statutory limits.
Ms. Saltzman replied yes. It's not codified; it's through case law.
Mr. Reynolds said some of the contingents Ms. Saltzman is making with respect to CEOA, there is
another side to this. For example, one primary case reflects that socio-economic impacts do not
trigger the CEOA process unless there is a physical impact caused by that project. If there is going to
be severe overcrowding, which would necessitate the construction of a facility, which is what Chairman
Bosch was getting at, then CEQA would have to address the impacts of the construction that would be
required as a result of the severe overcrowding. He knew that was different and they disagree on what the law
is,but he wanted to point out it's not as clear cut as Ms. Saltzman is contending. There is a lot of case
law that says overcrowding is not something that we have to mitigate unless that necessitates the
physical impact on the environment. CEOA addresses physical impacts; it doesn't address
socio-economic impacts in
this context.Ms. Saltzman reiterated this area of law is not black and white. It is rather gray and for the purposes
of a rather lengthy introduction, she wanted to simplify and provide the Commission with
a general understanding of what the case law is. By no means did she address any of the specifics and
she knew the City Attorney was specifically referring to a case. This enforces the need to continue
the public hearing on this matter to allow the School District to meet with the City Attorney, staff and the
applicant to explore what the required mitigation would be for this
particular project.J, l. Martinez. 3345 East Vine Avenue, had a couple of concerns about the project. He was
not totally opposed to the project. The east part of it, the one facing Spring, he wondered about
those buildings.He wanted to know how tall they were going to be. The other concern was with Vintage Street,
which is the old Prospect. Prospect School faces right where the gate is going to be. There are buses
that stop in that area. The bus area is a major concern to him. He is opposed to cutting off Walnut and
loading up Walnut. He asked if the streets are going to be the same width as the
previous projects.Response
from ADDlicant Mr. O'Malley said it was his understanding that the Walnut extension will not be done
with the development of the east parcel or the west parcel, and maybe not within 5, 7 or 10 years from to
day's date. The precise alignment analysis that was studied is part of a design concern and adjustment,
and not an implementation consideration at this point. As far as the issues of the Orange Unified
School District,he was handed Ms. Saltzman's correspondence at 7:05 p.m. The environmental
document was distributed to many agencies and people on October 13 and he could have easily been
contacted prior to the hearing to discuss the District's issues and draft justification study. He was adamantly
against a continuance and extension of time at this public hearing. He has been working with the
City and consultants for over a year and to bring this up at the last minute is unprofessional and is not
the best way to discuss school fees. Twice, the School District said they did not want to hold up the
project, yet he counted seven times they asked for a continuance. Unfortunately, he had to call in his attorney
and he would like to say a couple of things, in addition to Fred Talerico, who is the author and consultant
on the CEOA document. As to the types of homes they are proposing, the west parcel will be the
exact same product as the east parcel with approximately 67 units. But they are only asking for an entitlement
of that and not a tract map. They hope this is the final phase of the east parcel and continue over to
that area.The height of the buildings is 28 feet, a typical two story height. The width of the private streets
are 28 feet and no parking will be allowed on the streets. The ingress/egress points were discussed
with City staff and they felt it was the best location for that point of access, not only with the School District
but also with how the development
would flow.Mike Titus. attorney for Beazer Homes, was called to the meeting a few hours ago when Mr.
O'Malley received the letter from Ms. Saltzman. His specialty is land use and he has been dealing with
school fee issues for over a decade. He wanted to clarify some of the issues. He felt this was an
important issue,but it did not need to be dealt with now. Nobody seriously contends up and down the
State of California that school districts have problems. The question is whether Beazer is suppose to
cure
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
problems the School District faces today. Mr. Reynolds is absolutely correct on the case law.
Overcrowding is not an environmental impact perse, unless it leads to additional construction. They are
talking about 15 students to a 28,000 student district. These 15 students are not going to cause the
School District to do any type of physical change in construction. Beazer is still going to talk to the School
District. Beazer is a good citizen to the City. Beazer has made an effort to do quality products. They
will meet with the School District whether the Commission approves the project or whether it is continued.
There is no need to continue the matter because there isn't a CEQA issue here. Beazer has already
given $1.5 million to the School District in previously approved and built out projects. What happened to
that money. The School District has to put it into a fund, but it isn't like Beazer isn't paying quite a large
sum of money every time they build a project. They request approval of their project and they will meet
with the School District before the project is heard by the City Council and hopefully they can reach an
agreement. One thing the School District didn't mention is that McPherson Jr. High School is closed. This
is a physical facility the School District can use. Mr, Reynolds pointed out what necessitated all this is
apparently Mr. Flory is doing a very good job of utilizing the School District's ability to get State funding
and other types of funding. As he is going through the process, he is bringing the School District to a
level, but he has not completed the process and Mr. Titus didn't believe Mr. Flory was permitted to
come to the City and say that this is the amount of the impact until they finish their study. Mr. Titus didn't
believe until they passed a Resolution authorizing the School District to go ahead and make these types
of protest that they really have the authority. He thought the District was acting outside of its jurisdiction
at this point.
Chairman Bosch said as the staff report indicates there is a code provision that prior to issuance of
building permits, the applicant shall pay all applicable development fees, including the School District. A
building permit will not be issued until the developer comes back with a Certificate from the School
District office saying they have paid the fee. Obviously, there has to be some agreement on what the
fee is. Who sets the fee, Does City Councilor does the School District set the fee with regard to the
State Board approving the fee.
Mr. Titus explained State law says to cap and the School District will enact a Resolution after it conducts a
study to justify the need for an additional amount of money. The cap is now $1.84. The Planning
Commission or City Council does not have to approve the fee. To impose a fee for development, you
have to have the police power. The City has a police power. but school districts do not. They cannot
impose a fee without the State permitting them to do so. It's a compromise because it was an issue that
came out about whether or not new developers have to bear the burden of all the school districts'
construction costs. A compromise was reached in that the State allowed school districts to impose fees
up to that certain cap, provided they meet the certain findings. If the school districts try to exceed that
cap, it cannot be imposed and the school district cannot hold the Certificate of Compliance in a way to
extort a developer to pay more.
Chairman Bosch was trying to understand the decisions and process and legal authority. The Commission
recommends on land use issues as well as taking action with regard to the environmental study, which is an
approval action, to pass the remainder of the actions forward to the City Council. At some point there
has to be a determination of what is the legitimate fee. He cares very much for the health of the school
system and particularly that everyone bears their fair share of the impacts. How can the Commission
actually focus on the land use issues before them, which do include the school impacts in some form, and
arrive at a conclusion where they can make a recommendation for or against the project, or modifications to
the City Council that allows a method for fairly legally determining what the accurate fee, whether it is the
statutory limit or whether it is an increase above that demonstrated for this project by the School District
to the agency which does have police power, which is the City Council.
Mr. Titus believed Chairman Bosch wanted to know what can the Planning Commission do in connection
with the School District's request. That Beazer pay an additional amount above the statutory cap.
Chairman Bosch was trying to find a way that if the Commission desires to recommend approval on this
project, it can do so without continuing and without losing the ability of the School District and developer
to fairly arrive at a legal and equitable conclusion that mitigates the impacts of this development upon the
school.
Mr. Titus said the Commission could app'ove the project and remember the ultimate determination of the
approval is by the City Council. There is '10 environmental physical impact caused by their project. They
will meet with the School District any way. They will also respond to their letter in writing and to the City
24
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
Council, and basically at that pOint in time the City Council can make a determination about whether or not
a fee is appropriate to mitigate the impact, and if so, what that amouflt is. The School District waited until
the last minute to present this issue and they are improperly applying the law. He recommended sticking
to the facts that CEQA requires physical impacts. The City should, at this point in time, start talking to the
District about imposing higher fees to all projects in general; not just to Beazer.
Commissioner Smith was impressed with the articulation and professionalism of everyone who has
spoken and she has learned a lot this evening. She asked what Mr. Titus meant when he said they will
meet with the School District. Does it mean they will propose a dollar amount to move forward in
mitigation,
Mr. Titus said the first thing that needed to be done is to review the draft study prepared by the School
District. Beazer would then like to meet and discuss the issues with the School District. The District is
asking for a quarter million dollars more in fees, which works out to $16,000 per student. Offhand, he
didn't believe that was appropriate. Maybe they can reach a compromise since they have paid $1.5
million in fees. He would like to be more specific, but can't.
Commissioner Carlton understood the $1.84 per square foot is the statutory amount right now. (Correct.)
The School District is saying they really need $2.63 a square foot to mitigate the over crowding; however,
they can't get that approved unless they go through this process of providing the study and surveys to
the State. That will take "x" number of months to get that done.
Mr. Titus replied the School District could come to the City and ask the City to fund that amount of money.The City could exercise its police power in this matter. The State sets a maximum cap on these fees.
Ms. Saltzman suggested the Planning Commission include an additional condition of approval which would
require that the applicant enter into a mitigation agreement with the School District to provide for
adequate funding of school facilities prior to final approval by the City Councilor prior to recordation of
the final subdivision map. With something to that regard, they would be more than happy to withdraw
their request for a continuance of this project and to meet with the developer to execute that mitigation
agreement, as determined between the developer and School District.
Chairman Bosch stated that was a blank check. On what basis do you determine adequate. What's the
stipulated basis to determine "adequate" that is set some place and is codified.
Ms. Saltzman said that is actually set by the fee justification study of the District. The City is not required
to specify a particular amount. What the District is requesting is that the City provide the mechanism bywhichtheSchoolDistrictcanmeetwiththedevelopertodiscussthisparticularimpasseoftheprojectand
to determine what amount would be appropriate to fully mitigate the matter, She was sure.the District
and Mr. O'Malley could work together to reach something that is satisfactory. Of course, if it 1s not, then
they have the arena of the City Council hearing to discuss it further. I,
Chairman Bosch asked Ms. Saltzman if she could stipulate as to a date when the fee justification study is
nearing completion and would be ready for review.
Ms. Saltzman would have to consult the Board and also look at what their calendar is. She knew it was
their intent to have this approved at their regular Board Meetings prior to the end of the year.
Mr. Flory thought it would help to put a cap on the agreement. The justification fee looks at $2.63 per
square foot. That it would not be greater than $2.63 and it would allow the developer and School District
to work out the difference between the $1.84 and the $2.63. The Board will be taking action on this year's
fee justification before the end of the year.
Mr. Titus believed the Commission already knows what his position would be. That is giving the School
District a blank check and will basically hold up their project. If the Commission needed Beazer to givethemawrittenstatementthattheywilltalkwiththeSchoolDistrict, they will.
The public hearing was closed.
Chairman Bosch wanted to know about the authority, obligations and limitations of the Commission in this
regard.
25
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
Mr. Reynolds said with respect to CEQA he came down the sid~ of the developer's attorney in the
interpretation of where they were. He didn't think there is a physical impact and that the mere over
crowding in of itself does not mean that it triggers a significant impact, which would therefore require an
EIR. He felt comfortable in advising the Commission to move forward and approve the Negative
Declaration. In respect to the fee issue, that's something he will throw back to the Commission based on
what they heard at this hearing. He didn't have any background to determine whether or not the City can
require an additional mitigation fee, over and above the $1.84. The developer's attorney acknowledges
that the Commission has the power to do so and can make a recommendation to the City Council, which
has the authority to determine whether it needs more information or has the information necessary to set a
fee other than the statutory limit.
Commissioner Smith is pleased to hear that the School District has hired Mr. Flory to get this particular
process rolling. She was appalled that it has not been put into effect earlier. It adds to her frustration
with the School District in Orange. To find out Orange is not eligible for the funding that is out there
because proper steps have not been taken is extremely frustrating. She did not think the Beazer
project should be held up because the District has come to this point of awareness at this time. She
would be in favor of doing something tonight. To require an EIR at this time would be inappropriate and
totally unexpected. It's expensive and takes a long time and has a lot of ramifications. She didn't want
to penalize the District in any way, shape or form and would be in favor of some sort of mitigation to
bring something about, but she was not in favor of a condition that the applicant enter into a mitigation
agreement. She would be more inclined to have Beazer sit down with the District and have a good solid
proposal ready for the City Council since they are the ones who will be able to enforce it more than the
Planning Commission could. She did not believe CEQA is called into play because of the over crowding
factor. She thought Beazer should talk to the School District as soon as possible and discuss the
mitigation and the Commission should take action at this hearing.
Commissioner Carlton also thought the Commission should move forward with this project. She was
upset that this came to the Commission at the eleventh hour. She didn't have any feeling of confidence
as to the District's whole analysis being ready in 30 days or 60 days. It's greatly unfair to this project to
hold them to negotiating the school fees. The fee is set and the project should be moved forward.
Chairman Bosch was concerned with the street alignment referring again to the recommended alignment,
which is alternate 4, and noting that in Exhibit 7 of the draft initial study and negative declaration, which is
the street alignment detail, this shows alternate 4 on Walnut, west of Santiago Creek. An 80 foot right-
of-way is shown and actually over lanes super imposed upon the existing private residential property,
north of the current Walnut right-of-way to the building lines of the homes. He didn't find
this acceptable. He thought that street alignment 3 seems to potentially have the same problem.
The street alignment alternate 4 from Santiago Creek to Prospect Avenue be adopted, but that the alignment
be required to be modified and re-presented for approval by the Public Works Department, west
of Walnut~venue so as to not require at any time in the future, if this is implemented, a taking of residential
prop~rty on the north side of Walnut Street. But, that the existing right-of-way line
be maintained. It's important to recognize, although the action before the Commission is to change the
zoning and to adjust the line between the Recreation-Open Space zone and residential
zoning west of Prospect Avenue, that the actual development plans for the residential property and for
potential open space/park site west of Prospect, are not part of the approvals. It's merely a
zoning issue before the Commission in that regard, in addition to the street alignment on that side of the street. That
needs to be made clear in any recommendation that is made by the Planning Commission because
they don't have full details or representation on this and were not privy to any
planning documentation or City requirements for the open space. He didn't have a
problem with the private road radius reduction.Mr. Hohnbaum commented condition 14 is written right now that the
City's standard for public streets is 32 feet. There is an ordinance provision for staff to go down to 25
feet. This condition is to address the internal private street. The purpose of the condition is to provide
for large vehicles such as trash trucks.A 20 foot radius would require the vehicle to make its turn outside of
the inside lane from where it is coming and exceed the turn, once again, not being able to get into
that outside lane. On a private street that is not as much a concern as it would be on a public street.
As far as fire vehicles are concerned,being in an emergency situation, they will be making their
turns from the street proper, not recognizing one side or the other. He believed 15 feet would be too little.
The recommended 25 is a standard. He would feel comfortable with 20 feet, with one exception. The
entrance radius should be per the City standards
and
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
Chairman Bosch would feel comfortable with the internal private street curb return radius shall be no less
than 20 feet and may, in certain instances, within the development plan be required to be more, up to 25
feet, subject to review of the specific geometrics and reviewed by the City Engineer. They are setting a
precedent with regard to acute intersections, even though they don't have acute intersecti~ns on the
rectangular parcel. He was not willing to give that up as a blanket thing. It needs to be reviewed on a
per instance without going less than 20 feet.
Then, there is the proposed revision to condition 29 because of the revised alternate, which reduces the
calculated necessary contribution of the developer toward the Walnut Avenue connection from about a half
million dollars to $26,600.
Mr. Hohnbaum stated the reduction is based upon an actual impact of traffic onto Walnut, and assumingtheWalnutalignmentisselectedorrecommended, the costs of building that alignment are far less than
the cost of building the S alignment. Both of those factors have been factored into the total contribution
and this was mutually agreed to between the developer and City staff.
Chairman Bosch was searching for the Commission's help with regard to the potential for where in their
recommendation to the City Council, and how to construct a recommendation, with regard to the majordebateissuerelativetoCouncil's attention to and determination with regard to school facilities fees
relative to the statutory school fees vs. those that may be determined through the fee justification study
under way with the School District, relative to this project. They've determined it is not an environmental
issue, but obviously it has an impact on the project and the services the community must provide. Is this
somehow a condition of approval of the tentative tract map. It doesn't seem to be appropriate for minor
site plan review. It can't be on the zone change. Or, is it a mute point relative to the ordinance
requirements for payment prior to issuance of building permits, since permits cannot be issued until the
City Council takes action to approve all of the issues that are here, except for the precise alignment.
Commissioner Smith thought it could be included as a condition of approval some where. It appears the
zone change is what triggers the window of opportunity for the School District to even speak to it, but a
zone change cannot be conditioned.
Chairman Bosch stated they must keep in mind their findings and recommendations are relative to the
impacts of the project so there has to be a nexus to this. He didn't know if this were part of a generalrecommendationattachedtothemotion, but not as a condition within the specific portion of it.
Mr. Reynolds thought the developer is going to be motivated to reach an accord with the School District
anyway in some regard so that their project is not slowed down. Clearly, the School District's letter is
talking about litigation so that is the motivating factor to get the developer and School DistricHalkingtogether. The idea of a general recommendation attached to the motion would be the way to inform the
Council of this issue.
Commissioner Smith said that sounded good to her and she fully expected work would be done in the
meantime by the developer and School District so that this debate does not go on again in front of the
City Council. That there would actually be a proposal and package on the table for action.
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Mitigated NegativeDeclaration1531-97 which has been prepared to analyze the potential impacts that this project may have
on the environment and support the Staff Review Committee finding that the project will not have asignificantadverseimpactontheenvironmentwiththeadoptionofthemitigation
measures.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero,
Smith
None Commissioner Pruett MOTION
CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City
Council approyal of Zone Change
1191-
97.
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton,
Romero,
Smith None Commissioner Pruett
MOTION
Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1997
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City Council
approval of Tentative Tract Map 14680, Minor Site Plan Review 45-97, and Precise Alignment of the
Walnut Avenue/Spring Street Connection with conditions 1-41 including revision to condition 14 to read: "
That private streets shall be constructed to City Standard Plan No. 108 or as required by Public
Works Engineering,except that the standard 32 foot curb return radius can be reduced on private drives on the interior of
the site to no less than a 20 foot radius except subject to the determination of the City Engineer of
specific radius requirements for public safety upon review of the engineering plans; and that the entrance return
radius can be no less than the City Standard." Revise condition 29 to read: "Prior to issuance of
grading permits,developer to make a cash contribution in the amount of $26,600 to the City in lieu of construction of
the Walnut Avenue connection across Santiago Creek based upon the traffic impacts from this tract." With regard
to the precise alignment of Walnut Avenue/Spring Street connection, recommend requiring the re-
engineering of the proposed precise alignment at its western connection with the existing Walnut Avenue
right-of-way to return the tangent at the north property line of the existing Walnut Street right-of-way
so as not to require any taking of private property where the improvements are to be
constructed. Also, recommending to the City Council that these actions be approved only upon discussion with the
developer and the School District; that either the statutory School District fee pursuant to appropriate government
code sections be applied, or a different fee be determined
based
upon
an
appropriate fee justification study.AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton,
Romero, Smith None
Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner
Smith, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. The
meeting
adjourned
at
12:30 a.m.AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton,
Romero,
Smith