HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/16/1980 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION
City of Orange
June 16 , 1980
Orange, California
Monday, 7:30 p.m.
The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by
Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Mickelson
ABSENT: Commissioners Ault, Maste r
STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission
PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Jack McGee, Associate
Planner; John Lane, Administrative Advance Planning; Gary Johnson,
City Engineer; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Lon Cahill,
Fire Prevention Bureau; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MAY 19, 1980
Chairman Coontz asked for a correction to the minutes on behalf
of Commissioner Master to read as follows: Page 9, paragraph 4,
where minutes read, "Commissioner Mickelson questioned whether
applicants coming in are scrutinized for their parking needs.
The answer was yes." Next sentence should be changed to read:
"Commissioner Master asked to what percentage of residents in
the tower were former Orange residents...."
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson
to approve the minutes as corrected.
AYES: Commissione rs Coontz, Hart, Mickelson
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners Ault, Master MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS:
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT 2-80 - ITEM A:
Request to amend the City's Land Use Element to indicate Medium
Density Residential for a 14 acre parcel adjacent to Santiago Creek
at the terminus of McPherson Road. (Note: Environmental Impact
Report 629 has been prepared for this project.)
Jack McGee made the presentation of this application for the Staff,
explaining that General Plan Amendment 2-80 Item A consists of
approximately 14 acres situated adjacent to Santiago Creek, at
the terminus of McPherson Road. The applicant has requested an
amendment to the Land Use Element from Park and Low Density
Residential to Medi um Density Residenti al . The site i s presently
undeveloped.
Sand and gravel extraction and processing operations exist to the
northeast with Santiago Creek crossing a corner of the site in a
northeast to southwest dire ction. To the south of the site is a
mixed use area including single and multiple family residential,
office/commercial, and quasi-industrial uses.
Access to the site is gained by way of McPherson Street. No other
access is presently available.
Most of the site was annexed to the City with an R-1-7 zone in 1960.
The eastern portion of the site is a part of Annexation No. 342 which
should be complete by the middle of June. The latter portion will
have an S-G zoning upon annexation.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16 , 1980
Page Two
Mr. McGee pointed out that in 1977 the County of Orange developed
the lower Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan, which indicates the
area as being desirable for public acquisition. Even though this
specific plan for the Creek has never been adopted by the County,
the Environmental Management Agency in a letter of May 15, 1980
recommends against any action at this time. This letter also
describes planned activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
No property acquisitions have taken place to date in this area
for Greenbelt/Recreation purposes.
The applicant has requested a change to Medium Density Residenti al
which would allow 6-15 dwelling units per acre. No definite plans
have been presented as to the type of project proposed.
Mr. McGee further explained that approval of the applicant's request
would enable development of approximately 72 to 180 living units
based on the Medium Density Range. He pointed out that development
of a reasonable number of units could be accomplished with minimal
impacts upon the surroundings. The only potential land use conflict
results from the proximity of the proposed residential uses to the
existing sand and gravel operations to the northeast. More people
in close proximity to these uses and their noise and dust problems
could create increased potential for complaints about the situation.
Mr. McGee stated that while it is true that the County desires the
project area, along with many others, no properties in this area
have yet been acquired. Approaching the Greenbelt plan with a
realistic viewpoint, it is unlikely that all or mast of the listed
properties will be acquired. As a part of any proposal for
residential development of the area, however, the Creek itself
will undoubtedly be improved for public use as both a flood control
facility and ultimately for some recreational use, possibly hiking
or bike trails. In this way the integrity of any ultimate green-
belt linkages along the creek may be preserved.
Mr. McGee explained that EIR 629 has been prepared to discuss the
various impacts created by and imposed upon the ultimate project
area and describes various measures that can be taken to reduce
or mitigate them. Information is provided at a more specific level
within this EIR than might normally be expected in conjunction with
a General Plan Amendment. Such information would, however, be more
applicable to the precise development approval if that need arises.
Some additional supplemental information may also be needed at that
time.
The Staff made two recommendations on this application:
1. Recommend to the City Council to certify that EIR X629 has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
and the State and Local Guidelines for implementation of CEQA and
that the City Council should find that some adverse effects may be
experienced in spite of the stated mitigation measures. These ad-
verse effects are offset by the need for residential development
within the community, and the questionable need for and ability to
provide a recreational use on the site.
2. Recommend to City Council that General Plan Amendment 2-80 Item A
to change the classification for that portion of the site east of
Santiago Creek to Medium Density Residential be approved with the
understanding that development of the site will not exceed ap-
proximately 10 dwelling units per acre, and, that if no project
proposal is implemented within two years, the LUE designation will
be reconsidered for possible reversion to the Park Designation.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16 , 1980
Page Three
Chairman Coontz asked for the rationale for Recommendation #2.
Mr. McGee explained that the site has some rather restricted
circulation problems. It is about 12 developable acres in size
and at present there is only one way into the property on McPherson.
Ten units per acre is a reasonable number with perhaps a secondary
emergency access that might be possible in a few alternate locations
that the applicant is looking at. Chairman Coontz asked about the
recommendation of the no project proposal unless implemented within
two years. Mr. McGee answered that the site is in the creek area
in which there is a great deal of uncertainty at this time, due to
the Corps of Engineers studies, road studies and the potential
recreational plans. It was felt that it could be very appropriate
to review this action within a period of time if no development
occurs to see i f there are further changes that have taken place
which might indicate a di fferent approach to development here. It
may be appropriate to revert it back at that time.
Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that McPherson Street is currently
only dedicated as far as the alley just north of Pearl Street. He
questioned Mr. McGee about this. Mr. McGee answered that this street
is, in fact, dedicated all the way to the south edge of the site,
although it is not paved all that way. It is only paved a little
beyond Pearl Street. Commissioner Mickelson also stated that he
was not clear about whether this is affected by the flood plain
zoning. Mr. Johnson explained that the city is not a part of the
flood insurance program and, therefore, has not adopted a flood
plain zone within city territory. In the absence of the flood in-
surance program, they have been using the official flood map to
identify the potential problems and determine what elevations they
have to protect and raise pads and they will continue to do this.
On June 24, 1980, the City Counci 1 wi 11 re consider the flood insurance
program and if they do, then there will have to be zoning similar to
the County's FP-1 and FP-2 zone and they will have to initiate some
type of method to insure that all new developments will be protected
against a 100-year flood. The maps being referred to are from the
Corps of Engineers. Commissioner Mickelson then asked what those
maps showed for this piece of property. Mr. Johnson answered that
this property was in the A zone which is a 100-year storm area.
Therefore they will have to reclaim and fill in the property and also
define the channel more clearly. Commissioner Mickelson then questioned
whether this property was in the 1 ft. or 2 ft. inundation area and
Mr. Johnson answe re d that in this area they have the exact elevation
because the Corps has done a more detailed study then they have on
the Santa Ana River. Elevations are given rather than a 1 and a 2 ft.
inundation. The developer would have to define the channel more than
it is now and get both the Corps of Engineers and County of Orange
approval on this.
Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing.
Richard Hall, 1926 W. Orangewood, Orange, the applicant, spoke in
favor of this application. He pointed out that he has developed
several projects in the city of Orange and hopefully the Commission,
in their deliberations, will remember the good things that he has
done in the city. He explained that his engineer has met with the
County E.M.A, but it has been quite difficult to have conversations
with the E.M.A, regarding either the flood control channel, which
they would have to improve, or to talk about acquisition of that
particular property for park use. He did speak to them and was told
that in the late 1980s or early 1990s they might acquire this land
for parks , but they did not have the land now, nor did they have the
funds at this time. He pointed out that there have been two recent
community meetings in Orange for the whole Santiago Creek project
plan being done by the Corps and he has attended both. Again, in
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16 , 1980
Page Four
talking with the Corps of Enginee rs, they told him that any
possible development of this are a for parks and recreational use
will be many, many years down the line. Mr. Hall explained that
any development he would do would certainly be quite an under-
taking because of the necessary defining of the flood control
channel and obtaining adequate vehicular access into the property.
He said they are talking about a million dollars to properly
define and improve the flood control channel. He stated that he
had talked to the neighbors to the north and east of this property
and they are amenable to the project.
Commissioner Hart expressed a concern about the fact that this
property had been a dump site . He wondered i f th ere would be a
problem with this. Mr. Hall answe re d that a soils test showed it
to be true that this had once been a dump site and this had sur-
prised him. He explained that they would have to excavate and
pull out all of the materials that are buried under the property.
He was aware of this and would have to take this into consideration
when making his plans for the property. Soils engineers have
assure d him that there will be no problem.
Chairman Coontz wondered if Conrock would help pay the million
dollars for the flood control channel and Mr. Hall said that he
would have to expend this money by himself.
Jim West, 3200 San Fernando Road, Los Angeles, representing Conrock,
stated that he was there to express Conrock 's official opposition
to this application. Reason for the opposition is that this
basically encroaches on Conrock 's operation and they would hope
to see no more development in that area until they are out of the
city of Orange.
Rev. Kenneth Kilian, 36 3 N. Fern, Orange addressed the Commission
in opposition to this application, stating that he felt that if
this were approved and the plan were amended, it would have a severe
negative impact on the area. It would destroy the whole texture
and tone of the Santiago Creek area. To put 100 units of housing at
that particular point, he thought, was a peculiar kind of zoning
because the housing would not relate to anything else that is there
already. To put 100 units on the banks of the creek would encourage
vandalism and other problems. He pointed out that this area
definitely has a restricted access. It is very difficult to reach.
It is not a natural kind of access. This would also encourage: further
development in the area adjacent to it. He would like to see this
request denied. He felt that the park description should stand at
this time.
Commissioner Mickelson commented that we must address the situation
where there is private ownership of property designated by the
government for non-use. This is a problem which must be wrestled
with - a dilemma which must be faced.
Mr. Kilian pointed out that planning must also recognize that there
is a natural land use and we should also think of the best steward-
ship of the use of the area. He further stated, for the city of
Orange to be as developed as it is and to still have this kind of
open space resource in the middle of it is a great opportunity.
Carol Gordon, 345 N. Fern, Orange, stated that she agreed with Mr.
Kilian and she also wanted to know whether the flow of the creek
would be changed. If the flow were to be changed, it would bring
it up against her property.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16 , 1980
Page Five
Mr. Johnson explained that any changes in the channel such as
she is suggesting would have to be accompanied by an improve-
ment to the channel whereby it would not overflow its banks.
He pointed out that this would relate to the million dollars
that they are talking about spending. In other words, the im-
provement would be to help protect the housing that is on all
sides of the creek.
Betty Toepfer, 270 N. Malena Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission
in opposition to this application. She stated that she has lived
in this particular area for the past 17 years, and she opposes
this change because she feels the people are losing the natural
open space in the area. She pointed out that they were supposed
to have a hiking trail along the area where the railroad tracks
once were. That has never come to pass. She felt that open space
is needed. She also mentioned the 1969 rains and flooding of
Santiago Creek, pointing out that this is a flood area and will
continue to be. She didn't think that this plan is advantageous
for the city of Orange. She referred to all the junk, trash and
garbage that has been deposited in that area after the flooding
of the creek.
Ch airman Coontz commented that one of the things that is evident
is that there is a desire by some people for the development of
the Santiago Creek area as a greenbelt to incorporate recreation.
However, ar the same time, the people who are asking that it be
developed as a recreation area are also asking that they be pro-
tected from flood and it is more difficult to do both. She
explained that this is why the project is in the hands of the
County of Orange in conjunction with the Corps of Engineers. She
explained that it is hard to say how long it will take these two
entities to get together with the disparate goals that they have.
She poin~Ced out that protecting from flood danger is not necessarily
the same as developing a natural creekbed greenbelt recreational
plan.
Darlene Young, 327 N. Fern, Orange, addressed the Commission in
opposition to this proposed plan, explaining that she had just
moved into this area. She said that she had checked with the city
of Orange regarding the creekbed and what possibility there might
be of any rezoning in that area. She was told that there would
be no change and now a few months later, she was given the notice
of a possible change. She didn't wish to see a change in zoning.
Tom Rogers, 2747 E. Killingsworth, Orange, spoke in opposition to
this application, stating that in the zoning it shows access to
the old railroad. McPherson was mentioned as an access. To put
10 units per acre on 12 acres, which means 120 units, and assuming
there is one car per household, although there are now assumed to
be two cars per normal household, they would have to use a traffic
signal to get out at McPherson. There is already a signal at Malena,
which would mean two traffic signals within about 50 yards of each
others. He pointed out that to put another ]20 units into this
area would create large traffic problems on Chapman Avenue.
Al Lichtikas, 2727 Killingsworth, Orange, asked a question relative
to the dotted area shown on Exhibits A & B, the southernmost
portion of it, could this be related to something. He said he
knew that there was a chain 1 ink fence about 6 feet high that runs
east and west in that area and asked if the fence is ,parallel to
that southernmost portion in the dotted line area on the a xhibit.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16 , 1980
Page Six
He then stated that he had no particular feelings for or against
this project, but he did agree with the comments regarding access
to the property and he sympathized with his neighbors that some-
thing would have to be taken into conside ration in this matter
and he hoped that the Engineering Staff would do that.
Harley M. Campbell, 189 N. Wheeler, Orange questioned how they
could use 12 acres to build on when the river goes through half
of it.
Weldon Field, 250 N. Pine, Orange, stated that he has been ac-
quai nted with the area since he was 5 years ofd and he had seen
the river take out 20 acres of land overnight. He pointed out
that this piece of property has been used as a dump site and had
everything imaginable dumped into it. He stated that is they think
that is good for housing, they should look at Yorba Park and how
i t has settled over the years .
Richard Hall, the applicant, again responded by stating that he
wanted to clarify that h e had been in touch with Conrock some time
ago in their general offices and they we re in complete concurrence
with his plans when he talked with them. He was surprised that they
are now in opposition. He wished to point this out to the Commission.
As far as the natural terrain, he was very aware that this was a
dump and he can't believe that is what the people would like to
see there. However, he would like to excavate and take care of
this situation. With regard to the flooding situation, he pointed
out that if nothing is done the problem will continue or the Corps
of Engineers will eventually come in and put in a flood control
channel. So whether he does it or they do it, there will be a
flood control channel there. He then explained that there will be
provisions for hiking, biking and jogging trails in conjunction
with the channel right-of-way, plus open space and recreational areas.
However, these latter areas would not be for general public use,
but any planned development must have open space and parklike areas.
Of course, they are only for the use of the people living in that
community. He also pointed out that in the several developments
which he has built in Orange, there are some two to three thousand
trees and shrubs which have been contributed and put into this
community and this would be no exception.
There being no one else to speak to this issue, the Chairman
closed the public hearing.
Chairman Coontz referred to the EIR and read Recommendation #1 in
the Staff Report, which she hoped would begin the discussion.
Commissioner Hart stated that h e had sympathy for the residents
as far as having a park there, but he did not see that anyone would
buy the property to make a park or leave it as open space. He
stated that he was not in favor of the practice of using zoning
as a method of acquiring private property for public use without
just compensation. Compensation is required by the 5th Amendment
of the Constitution and h e believes if the county wants the property
fora park, the county should buy it.
Commissioner Mickelson agreed with Commissioner Hart's viewpoint
and also expressed disappointment that the EIR did not go into more
detail to cover the flooding aspect. He felt that both flooding
and excavation aspects should have been discussed in more detail
in the EIR or in a supplementary report, when a problem was dis-
covered. He felt reluctant to move ahead on a decision on this
parcel when he did not know all the facts. Mr. Johnson replied
that he thought that the EIR had made an assumption, which he
thought was valid, that this problem is one that money can solve.
The EIR makes the assumption that the channel can be defined and
improved to adequately protect both this development and the
adjacent development from flood. As long as that concept fits
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16 , 1980
Page Seven
in with the lower Santiago Creek plan which the County has, then
he felt they are certainly right. He felt that this was the
assumption that was made in this instance. He pointed out that
the letter from the Corps of Engineers discussed the plan, but
not the physical aspects.
Commissioner Hart pointed out a mention of this on page 17 of
the report.
Chairman Coontz asked why Mr. Johnson felt that the E.M.A, did
not wish to speak to this issue. Mr. Johnson answered that they
had dwelt more on the creek plan than the physical requirements
to protect the developments. He explained that the Staff has gone
over this with the applicant and they recognize that it can be
done, but will require Conrock's cooperation.
Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that with enough money anything
can be accomplished, but if you have one person doing something
all by himself, it will have little effect unless the upstream
and downstream neighbors cooperate.
f
Chairman Coontz then read Recommendation #2 in the Staff Report
and pointed out that this kind of tag has not been put on other
project developments. She thought that this would be a protection.
The commissioners then discussed what could be done in the two-year
time period which has been suggested for development of this
property. Commissioner Mickelson questioned whether the 10 units
per acre meant gross acreage. The answer was that if you took out
the channel, it would be gross acreage, or 10 units per acre after
creek acreage is taken out. Mr. McGee pointed out that we are
talking about 12 acres after the creek has been taken out. The
maximum units that could be put in that area would be about 120.
Commissioner Hart asked if there was a way to approve the EIR and
also point out the deficiencies in the report and he was told that
he could do this if he wished to. It was explained that in the
back of the EIR some of the questions are covere d on the map that
is included. The applicant also pointed out that in the back of
the EIR it called out rather specific points.
After further discussion regarding the report, the Planning Staff
felt that the flood control proposal in the EIR was more than
sufficient for the consi derati on of a General Plan Amendment such
as this. If it were approved, they would then be dealing with a
more specific development project in the future and at that time
there would be more detailed proposals regarding channel design
and vehicular access.
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson
to accept EIR 629, but also requesting that more specifics be
reflected in the future development plans on flood control, soils
and traffic.
AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Mickelson
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners Ault, Master MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16, 1980
Page Eight
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz
(in light of statements previously made by Commissioner Hart
which are included in the minutes, with regard to the fact that
he is not in favor of using zoning as a method of acquiring
private property for public use without just compensation) to
recommend to City Council General Plan Amendment 2-80 Item A
to change the classification for that portion of the site east
of Santiago Creek to Medium Density Residential be approved with
the understandi ng that development of the site wi 11 not exceed
10 dwelling units per acre, and, that if no project proposal is
implemented within two years, the LUE designation will be re-
considered for possible reversion to the Park Designation.
AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Mickelson
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners Ault, Master MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Mickelson made a comment that he thought could be
added to the EIR. He stated that there was a concern about the
potential traffic congestion at the intersection of Chapman
Avenue and McPherson and he thought that perhaps Staff should
word a response to that. In his opinion, even with a maximum
of 120 units, which he didn't think would be achieved, the con-
gestion experience at that intersection would not be more than
that intersection could handle. Mr. Murphy thought that this
could be i ncl uded as a part of the future review of the details on
the project.
Chairman Coontz felt that the Commission needs an update on the
Santiago Creek Bed Plan and what the Corps of Engineers is
doing at this time.
Mr. Johnson replied that the initial studies and the public forum
part of the process are complete and they will be formulating a
formal report within the next couple of months. This will be a
preliminary final report. He will be attending a meeting next
week to discuss this report and will let the Commission know about
the results. Chairman Coontz then asked whether there could be a
change in the agenda so that Item #3 could be heard before Item #2,
since the re was such a large audience for that item. Applicant
for Item #2 asked that the agenda remain as is.
IN RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1040 - ENVIRONETICS ARCHITECTS INC.:
A request to allow construction of a 33 foot high office building
abutting the R-1-6 zone at the northwest corner of Chapman Avenue
and Manchester Avenue . ( Note : Negative Declaration 626 was
previously accepted and no further environmental review is
required.)
Stan Soo-Hoo presented this apF~lication on behalf of the Staff,
stating that this is a vacant parcel of three lots, containing
approximately .52 acre of land located at the northwest corner of
Chapman Avenue and Manchester Avenue. The applicant is requesting
a Conditional Use Permit in order to construct an office building
with a 33 foot height located within 660 feet of a single family
residential district.
Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that this parcel has been up before the
Commission several times in the past, with various proposals being
set forth for their re view. On April 25, 1978 the City Council,
after much input from area residents regarding concern for compati-
bility between residential and non-residential uses, found preliminary
plans to develop a 9,411 square foot, 2-story office building
acceptable. Concurrently, a variance was approved by the Planning
Commission to allow a 10 foot setback along Manchester Avenue, as
well as to allow provision of 43 parking spaces in lieu of 46
required by code. A special effort was made at that time to
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16 , 1980
Page Nine
i
minimize the impact of the proposal by facing the narrow building
face toward the residences to the west and eliminating any windows
on that side.
On April 21, 1980, Variance 1576 was denied by the Planning Com-
mission. In that case, the applicant proposed a maximum 45 foot
high, 16,500 square foot office building which would have contained
less than the required off-street parking spaces, more than the
allowable number of compact parking spaces, as well as deficiencies
in the setbacks from streets. That application was denied be-
cause the applicant failed to demonstrate that special circumstances
existed which justified modification of development standards.
Mr. Soo-Hoo explaine d that the applicant is now proposing a develop-
ment of a 12,750 square foot building (2 stories over parking)
which would be 33 feet high (exc]uding roof-top mechanical rooms
which scale out to an additional 7 feet in height.) It was pointed
out that on May 13, 1980 the City Council adopted an urgency
ordinance which requires a conditional use permit for development
projects which exceed 30 feet in height when the project abuts a
residential zone. That ordinance specifically applied to pending
projects for which building permits have not been issued, as well
as to future projects.
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow their
proposal which abuts the residential zone, pursuant to urgency
ordinance. Applicant is also see king review and approval of the
proposal in accordance with the intent to rezone procedure pre-
viously imposed with Zone Change 815. Mr. Soo-Hoo asked the
Commission to note that the front setback requirement of ten feet
would be deviated from by provision of a 9 ft. 2 in. setback along
the Manchester Avenue frontage and a 9 ft. 32 in. setback along
the Chapman Avenue frontage. This deviation would be permitted by
granting of an administrative adjustment.
The applicant proposes to develop the site with a total of 12,750
square feet of gross floor area. 51 off-street parking spaces
would be provided which would be made up of ten compact spaces
and 41 full-sized spaces. Access to the project would be via a
driveway on Manchester Avenue.
I'
Windows are proposed on all four building faces though wood
screening devices are proposed on the north and west facades
facing residential properties in an attempt to provide privacy to
neighboring residences .
Mr. Soo-Hoo stated that the Staff sees no technical problems with
this proposal. However, they feel that the City Council's intent
in adopting this urgency ordinance was to provide for participation
by adjoining property owners.
r
Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that with the exception of a request for
administrative adjustments for reduced setback along the street
frontages the applicant has been able to comply with development
standards specified in the zoning ordinance. Because of the recent
adoption of an emergency ordinance by the City Council, however,
a Conditional Use Permit must be processed with this proposal,
in addition to the intent to rezone procedure. Since the emergency
ordinance was possibly intended to provide for feedback from the
neighboring property owners, Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission receive input at the public hearing and render a decision
based upon an evaluation of the applicant's proposal and comments
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16 , 1980
Page Ten
received. Any decision on this application should be in the
form of a recommendation to the City Council since the intent
to rezone process is involved.
Should the Planning Commission feel that this project warrants
approval, the Staff suggested 17 conditions in their Staff Report.
Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing.
Eric Lerner, 1111 Ohio Avenue, Los Angeles, representing the
applicant, Environetics Architects, Inc., addressed the Commission
in favor of the application. He stated that a letter had been
sent to Mr. Murphy with regard to the issue of the neighbors.
The letter was dated May 12th and mentioned several issues that
were raised by the neighbors of the property in ques tion. There was
a meeting attended by Mr. Denman, for the developer, and William
Welch, James Welch, Jeff Welch, Mr. Quintana, Mr. Espinoza, Doug
Greenquist, and Mr. Gary Farr, all of whom live in houses adjoining
this property. It was the intention of the meeting to obtain both
positive and negative input so that they could proceed with the
approval process in the matter. Some of the issues that were dis-
cussed we re the dust problem created in the area, noise from the
intersection of Chapman/Manchester. The proposed building would
probably provide a barrier for both of these problems. All of the
neighbors expressed a concern about their own visual privacy. Mr.
Lerner explained that the developer would provide visual screening
and would seek approval of the neighbors before they went ahead
with their plans. The neighbors also want sufficient landscaping
and this will be provided at the perimeter of the site. They will
also provide window boxes. He pointed out that the two elevations
not shown on the map will be very similar to those that they do
show. They will both have similar screens. He went on to point
out that a 6 ft. wall is required by the city along the property
line. The neighbors wanted an 8 ft, wall, which the developers
have agreed to. With regard to lighting on the site, they have
agreed to make sure this does not obstruct the neighbors.
Charlene Barnes, 5040 E. Crescent, Anaheim, representing a property
owner to the north who is interested in having his property studied
together with the property in question, as far as rezoning is
conce rned, asked if this would be possible at this time.
Chairman Coontz explained that this application is being considered
separately from the area zoning question.
William Welch, 3720 Sheringham, Orange, addressed :the Commission,
stating that he saw no objection to this building. The other
building which had been reviewed was too tall, but this one is not.
He stated that he would like to see the Commission state that there
must be an 8 ft. wall and that the lighting would not come over
the wall . He felt that the building should take care of the
intersection noise and the dust.
The commissioners asked Mr'. Murphy if the wall would require a
variance or if it could be included in a motion for approval of
the conditional use permit. Mr. Murphy replied that the matter
of an 8 ft, wall would be the decision of the Planning Commission.
However, there is a concern about tall walls in the city and an
8 ft, wall is 33% higher than a 6 ft. wall. He pointed out that
sometimes uou can get the same effect from proper landscaping rather
than a tall wall. There may be a differential in the elevation of
the two sites so that the wall could be taller than 8 ft, on one
~; side or the other if there was some retention involved. However,
i t could be approved as part of the condi ti onal use permit.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16 , 1980
Page Eleven
Jim Welch, 3720 Sheringham, Orange, explained to the Commission
why the neighbors want an 8 ft. wall rather than landscaping.
He felt that this would deter vandalism, crawling up on the
fence, etc.
There being no one else to speak for or against this application,
the chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart
to approve Conditional Use Permit 1040, subject to the findings
and conditions recommended by Staff and recommending to the
City Council that the final ordinance be read on the C-1
Commercial Zoning based upon these planes, and approve the
administrative adjustment.
AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Mickelson
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners Ault, Master MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: AMENDP1ENT 7-80 - CITY OF ORANGE:
An amendment to Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code relating
to the requirement of a conditional use permit for churches in
the C-1 , C-2, and C-3 zones .
Jere Murphy presented this amendment on behalf of the Staff.
He stated that this comes from the City Council who on March 25,
1980 adopted an emergency ordinance requiring a conditional use
permit for a church in commercial zones, when it was learned that
an existing church had acquired additional property in the plaza
area in order to expand, creating concern that such an expansion
could conflict with pending planning proposals. This emergency
ordinance will be effective for a period of 120 days following
its adoption. Subsequently, at its meeting of May 27, 1980, the
City Council directed the Planning Commission to conduct public
hearings regarding the possibility of requiring a conditional
use permit for churches in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zones.
hir. Murphy also explained that, in addition to the amendment as
proposed, the City Council suggested that an alternative be
evaluated whereupon newly constructed churches are excluded from
th e requirement for a conditional use permit since their primary
concern was toward the safety issues of an assembly use within
older buildings as well as toward non-compliance with development
standards such as off-street parking. Lastly, it was reiterated
that certain church related uses such as book stores, thrift
stores, etc. should not be included in this proposal. Mr. Murphy
pointed out that there are 11 churches which would come under this
category. All 11 churches have received notice of this public
hearing. Mr. Murphy also stated that all. other zones in the city
have this conditional use permit requirement other than C-1, C-2,
and C-3 zones. The major concerns of the City Council appear to
be economics, land use corpatibility (primarily parking compatibility
as well as compatibility with other uses in the commercial zone)
and public safety, the occupancy of particularly the older buildings
or non-public buildings like churches, where there might be large
groups of people meeting.
The Staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend
for approval, the code amendment which would require a conditional
use permit for churches locating or expanding in the C-1, C-2, or
C-3 zones.
Commissioner Mickelson wondered whether either the Council or the
Staff had considered this in the light of other assemblies, such as
union halls and such and should any other similar types of buildings
be considered. Mr. Murphy answered that these had not been considered.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16 , 1980
Page Twelve
Commissioner Hart mentioned that Mr. Murphy had referred to
Olde Towne. Since hs is a member of the Olde Towne Steering
Committee, he wondered if the Commission saw a personal conflict
there. He did not feel there was a conflict, but wished to raise
the point. The Commission did not see a personal conflict here.
Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing.
Rick Lyon, 695 Townsinger Drive, Costa Mesa, representing Son
Light Christian Center, addressed the Commission in opposition
to this amendment. He requested that he be allowed to go through
the Staff Report with the Commission. He pointed out that the
problem which the church has is the harm that is done to this
church individually. He showed a map which related to the church,
explaining where the property is located and what is planned.
They will be moving across the street and will have a book store
and meeting rooms. The business across the street is changing
places and moving into their place on the west side of the street.
There will be no loss of customers or sales tax, etc. Son Light,
,~ however, will gain more room for their meetings. He pointed out
that thei r representatives went to the Counci 1 prior to the
purchase of the property across the street and were given an OK.
Eight days after they closed escrow, they received word of this
proposed amendment change.
Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that he sees two different
questions here and asked that these be spoken to separately. One
issue is the property acquisition by Son Light and the urgency
ordinance. The other question is the proposed permanent ordinance
and its relationship to the community at large.
Son Light feels that basically there are three concerns that Staff
had. Land use conflicts, density and health and safety problems.
Mr. Lyon explained that these are not affected here. Parking is
not a concern as they have public parking on both sides of the
street, there is no change in the number of people and no expansion
in what they are doing. Regarding police surveillance, the change
will not affect what the police will have to do. They are only
moving across the street. With regard to the vitality of the
commercial center, there will be no change in the commercial aspect
of the area. Regarding bars and taverns conflicting with the church,
they do not see this as a negative conflict. They have co-existed
all this time and there will be no change in the relationship. He
spoke on the economic issues, such as the sales tax for the city.
Again, there will be no change. If anything, the book store will
still pay sales tax and since it is enlarging, will grow. As far
as property taxes are concerned, it may or may not be a tax exempt
property, but this is a small amount to be considered. He spoke
also on the subject of health and safety, pointing out that there
is no way to compel people to get fire department approval. He
stressed that Son Light has made repeated efforts to get proper
equipment installed by the fire department. He saw the drawbacks
in the case of Son Light as being non-existent. He referre d to
page 12 of the Staff Report where the Staff cited four reasons why
a conditional use permit should be required for the churches in
the commercial districts and stated that Son Light is not a problem
in any of these areas. Their position is that if the re will be a
permanent ordinance requiring a conditional use permit in all other
zones, that Son Light either be exempt because of page 11, #2,
whereby existing churches in.the C-1, C-2, and C-3 districts would
be requi red to secure a cond~ti onal use permi t to physically expand
their activities on church-owned land -- this church is not expanding
its activities.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16 , 1980
Page Thirteen
I
Mr. Lyon suggested that by exempting Son Light from permanent
ordinance that the city would clarify its terms. As it is now,
if Son Light is included, none of the reasons apply to it. Son
Light is the only church that is presently directly affected by
this new ordinance that he knows of. However, the emergency
ordinance affects all C districts and there have to be changes made in
all C districts. He felt that the ordinance is speaking to the typical
churches and Son Light is not a typical church and has none of the
typical problems and will have to go through channels to get around
these things.
He spoke then with regard to his feelings about the proposed
ordinance if Son Light were not involved and he thought that the
basic motivation and recommendations are needed in the whole plan.
He felt that including Son Light muddies the water, because they
do not fit in.
Commissioner Mickelson questioned whether he was asking that Son
Light be exempted from the permanent or the emergency ordinance.
Mr. Lyon replied that he is asking that Son Light be exempted be-
cause of the purchase of the building, not as an overall exemption.
To exempt Son Light from the emergency ordinance would be to set
this church aside and treat it differently from all other churches
and that is not what he is asking. When asked by Commissioner
Mickelson if he opposed the general considerations of the Staff
Report, he replied that he did not.
Pastor Ron Williams, 455 N. Shattuck, Orange, pastor of Plaza Bible
Church, addressed the Commission in opposition to this ordinance.
He is concerned with the cri teri a i n the formation of the report
in that it appears to have grown out of a conclusion without the
research and input from the churches' viewpoint. It would appear
that the church is a non-productive entity in this area. He stated
that he has been the senior pastor of Plaza Bible Church in the
downtown area for 15 years and has seen the change in downtown
Orange over those years . He has seen property that no one else
wanted that the church was willing to occupy and do something with.
He stated that he had seen critical police problems that have been
solved by their fellowship. The church has in no way contributed
to a police problem, but in effect have corrected it. It is like
saying a MASH unit is not critical to a war unit in speaking of
having the church alongside of bars. He pointed out that there is
no specific zoning for churches, therefore they struggle with the
general zoning of the area. He pointed out that where a nation or
a city exalts God, there is great blessing that comes to that nation
or city .
Peter Caruso, 1548 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Orange, pastor of the
Olive Center Church and founder of the Orange Christian School,
addressed the Commission in opposition of this ordinance, stating
that he has been i n this area for over 19 years and he also pointed
out that there is no zoning fora church. He wanted to stand for
the fact that the church contributes to a city in every way and to
restrict it is to restrict: the flow of finances and good will that
come from it to the city. He felt that when the church is strong
and the people are spiritually healthy, this is an asset to the
city - not a detriment. The church has a valid reason to exist and
it helps in every way.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16 , 1980
Page Fourteen
Carl Kapp, 27787 Rota, Mission Viejo, addressed the Commission
on the part of the Son Light Church . He stated that he i s moving
to Orange in a few weeks and is on the board of Son Light. He
explained that they purchased the building to use for their
meetings for what the zoning law said they could use it for. If
they are not allowed to use this building, what should they do
with it? They do not intend to expand - merely to continue as
they have been doing in the past. They even checked with the
Planning Commission on the use of this property.
Jim Scott, 226 W. Chapman, Orange, associate pastor at Plaza
Bible Church, addressed the Commission in opposition to this
amendment, pointing out with regard to the reference to loss of
revenue in the downtown area, that their organization employs 20
people and they have spent $8,000 in restoration of their downtown
building (they have taken over two thrift stores in the plaza
area). Chairman Coontz asked him how he felt about some of the
downtown buildings not being structurally safe and he answered that
he thought a church would not intentionally do something detrimental
or not keep the safety of their people in mind. He asked that the
Commission take time on their decision and not act out of fear. He
pointed out that he could probably support the intention behind the
ordinance but when we are motivated by fear, we tend not to really
think through the issues. This ordinance seems to be directed at
a specific problem that they need to do something about now and
that is of great concern to him.
There being no one else to speak for or against this ordinance, the
chairman closed the public hearing.
Chairman Coontz stated that she felt that there was some fear in-
volved in the decision made by the City Council and concern that the
particular church would expand into this downtown area. On the
other hand, it would appear that there was a certain revitalization
of the downtown area because of the church coming in and other
churches coming in, improving the properties and occupying the
properties. These properties had formerly been vacant. She thought
that the re port was too intense and could be called an overkill.
However, some of the reasonings seem to be good, such as concern
for the safety with regard to the older buildings.
Commissioner Hart agreed with these statements. He felt that the
right of the people to congregate peacefu]ly is somewhat being taken
away and they have that right under the First Amendment of the
Constitution. He felt that they can have an ordinance that would
guarantee the health, safety and welfare of the buildings and if
that is what they want, then they should set that up and not confuse
the issue with something that is too restrictive. It would be
discriminatory if Son Light is not allowed to proceed with property
that is now in escrow if the City Council chose to go along with the
ordinance revision.
Commissioner Mickeison was concerned that the churches have been
singled out. He could see some reasonableness behind the health,
safety and welfare question of public assemblies in buildings that
perhaps are not suited for public assemblies. There are several
other uses from a safety standpoint that are similar in nature.
They have large gatherings of people for specific purposes. He
wondered if there are other laws on teh books that would give a
review of the safety aspects, like establishing a church in one
of the stores downtown. Since a church is not require d to get a
business license, they would not even know they were going into a
store building until after the fact. He agreed with the associate
P ~
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16, 1980
Page Fifteen
pastor of Plaza Bible Church that probably all legitimate churches
had concern for the welfare and safety of their people, but what
about the illegitimate churches, and there are some of those that
they have to contend with from time to time. It is on that basis
that he would be inclined to support a permanent ordinance. How-
ever, his big fear is that government, and especially zoning, has
changed in recent years. A conditional use permit used to be a
permitted use, subject to review, and now it is getting to the
point where a conditional use permit is something you have to come
i n and beg for and you just might get i t i f you are really 1 ucky.
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to deny
Amendment 7-80, with a suggestion that the concern be toward the
health, welfare and safety, wi th special emphasis on structural
safety of older buildings to be used for public assembly uses,
rather than restriction of church uses.
Commissioner Mickelson asked if they were assuming that we might
some day have some standards for this type of assemblies and
Commissioner Hart replied that that is what he was asking for.
Commissioner Mickelson hoped that it was clearly stated that they
come up with ordinance standards rather than conditional use permits.
He pointed out to the churches in attendance that this may some day
mean that they will be before the Commission asking for a variance
to those standards rather than a use permit.
Commissioner Hart re plied that that is a di fferent issue and the
key issue here is a discriminatory restriction on a church.
Commissioner Mickelson supported this strongly.
Mr. Minshew, Assistant City Attorney, asked whether the Commission
would want to give a definition of a church. Commissioner Coontz
indicated that the definition of church is not grammatical in the
Staff Report, on page 2. She suggested that the term church
"is hereby defined as...a building together with..,." that would
be the change that should be made. This does not affect the motion.
'1
Commissioner Mickelson asked if they would have findings in this
motion, based on the comments made by Commissioner Hart, specifically
the comment about singling out churches as opposed to all other
kinds of similar type assemblies.
Mr. Murphy stated that this should be spelled out in the motion.
Commissioner Mickelson wondered if the Commission should not have
the resolution of the action come back to them for review before
it is sent on to the Council. He felt that it was important that
the Commission convey to the Council the meaning behind their actions,
Commissioner Hart asked that the constT.tutional issue that he had
brought up be included in the motion.
It was decided that Staff would review the resolution with the
Chairman so that everything would be included in the final motion.
Chairman Coontz pointed out that if the City Council preferred to
ignore the Commission's recommendation, certainly the ordinance
should be rewritten as far as the definition is concerned. At
this point, the motion does not include Chairman Coontz' revised
definition.
AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Mickelson
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners Ault, Master MOTION CARRIED
i
~, .
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16 , 1980
Page Sixteen
IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
DISCUSSION REGARDING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT
3706 SHERINGHAM:
Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Coontz
that the Staff make a study of the area as recommended and that
they assign a high priority to this study.
AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Mickelson
NOES: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
ABSENT: Commissioners Ault, Master
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Coontz adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m, to reconvene
at 7:30 p.m, on Monday, July 7, 1980 at the Civic Center
Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman, Orange, California.
n
~~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER
SS. OF ADJOURNMENT
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
Jere Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the
Planning Commission of the City of Orange, that the regular meeting
of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange held on June 16, 1980,
said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified
in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on June 17, 1980 at
the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous
place on or near the door of the place at ~vhich said meeting of
June 16, 1980 was held.
.,
..~:~:~ . - - t~.
Jer Murphy, Secr tary
~~,
J
EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 16, 1980.
The regular meeting of the ORange City Planning Commission was called to
order by Ch airman Coontz at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Mickelson
ABSENT: Commissioners Ault, Master
Moved by Chairman Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson that this
meeting adjourn at 10:10 p.m, on Monday, June 16, 1980 to reconvene at
7:30 p.m. Monday, July 7, 1980 at the Ci vi c Center Counci 1 Chambers ,
300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.
I, Jere Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and
correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on Monday, June 16, 1980.
Dated this 17th day of June, 1980 at 2:00 p.m.
ue e Murphy, ~i tyv N ~ anne
to the Planning Commissi
of%Orange.
Secretary
of the City