2013 - March 4''IN OVED
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
Page 1 of 23
March 4, 2013
Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
ABSENT: None
STAFF
PRESENT: Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner
Jennifer Le, Senior Planner
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
REGULAR SESSION
Chair Steiner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
All Commissioners present.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
None
PLANNING MANAGER REPORT:
Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner, stated there was nothing additional.
Chair Steiner reviewed the appeal process.
Consent Calendar:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 2013.
Commissioner Gladson made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the February
4, 2013 Planning Commission meeting with a correction to page 7.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 2 of 23
(2) Continued Hearing:
2.1 TITLE 17 (ZONING AMENDMENT - TRANSITIONAL /SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING
Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of February 4, 2013. An Ordinance
amending Title 17 (Zoning) of the Orange Municipal Code to allow the "transitional
housing" and "supportive housing" in Single - Family Residential, Duplex Residential,
Multi- Family Residential, and Public Institution zoning districts either as a "permitted" or
"conditionally permitted" use, pursuant to State law.
LOCATION: Citywide
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5 — Minor Alterations to
Land Use Limitations). This exemption applies to projects
involving minor alterations to land use limitations, which do not
result in changes in land use or density. The proposed Ordinance
Amendment falls under a Class 5 categorical exemption because it
involves a minor amendment to the Zoning Code that adds
definition for transitional and supportive housing and establishes
land use regulations allowing those uses in zoning districts where
similar housing types are already allowed. Therefore, it does not
change land use or density. It also does not propose or require
physical changes to any specific property.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 06 -13 recommending the
City Council approve an Ordinance amending Title 17 (Zoning) of
the Orange Municipal Code to allow for Transitional Housing and
Supportive Housing in Single - Family Residential, Duplex
Residential, Multi- Family Residential and Public Institution
Zoning districts.
Senior Planner, Jennifer Le, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for questions to Staff. There were none.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for public comment.
Dan Graupensperger, address on file, stated he was opposed to the proposal and he also
understood that the City's hands were somewhat tied. He felt that he was under siege in
his neighborhood with transitional housing and he knew it would come as there was
already some in his neighborhood with all the projects looming in the distance and there
Page 3 of 23
were vacant houses on his street. It was culminating into one thing and he was
concerned about it. He perceived problems down the road. The good neighbor part of it
would be very hard to administer and he had already dealt with that and had spoken with
Ms. Le briefly about that. He had experience with a neighbor who was not a good
neighbor and through several dead dogs and animals and a person in jail, it took 3 years
to get the neighbor to be a good neighbor. It sounded good on paper and he felt the State
had saddled the City with problems. He wanted to give kudos to Staff; Ms. Le had done
a lot of correspondence with him and helped him figure out what was a very difficult
Ordinance to understand and she had made it pretty simple. If the Commissioners ever
spoke with someone at the State level, tell them their constituents were not happy.
Stacy Proctor stated she would defer her comments through Mark Murrel. Mr. Murrel
came forward to address the Commission.
Mark Murrel, address on file, stated Casa Teresa was a non - profit organization that
provided housing for single pregnant women age 18 years and older. Casa Teresa offered
a comprehensive program for counseling, training, prenatal care, parenting and job skills.
The organization had been in existence since 1976 and located on Maple for almost 30
years. Recently due to the constant demands from the clients they served, Casa Teresa
expanded their presence in the City. The Clark property was acquired on Chapman and
Pine. Casa Teresa also purchased the 127 North Pine building, Old Towne Mixed Use
zoned property, in late 2012 and opened in January 2013. Casa's use of the new
property was approved in November 2012. Casa Teresa finished a refurbishing prior to
opening to the public. A major consideration in purchasing the property, and it was
larger than Casa had needed at the current time, was the relatively large land parcel and
the possibility to add onto Casa Teresa in the future. They had discussed this
conceptually with the City prior to closing escrow. While discussing a development plan,
they were informed that a new structure, replacing non - contributing, non - historic
structures on site, was a possibility following City guidelines. Casa Teresa found itself in
an interesting position as the proposed draft ordinance being presented was problematic
for Casa on several fronts. The ordinance further defined supportive and transitional uses
and prohibited them in the Old Towne mixed use zone. Casa was in the Old Towne
mixed use zone with both properties and they were active in one for almost 30 years, with
the other property being more recent. The ordinance addressed transitional or supportive
uses, but with 6 or fewer occupants per dwelling. Casa was already above that and with
additional space they would be well above that. The way the ordinance was defined
presented a problem for Casa Teresa. The draft ordinance also reset the parking
requirement for supportive and transitional uses and brought them to multi family
standards; Casa and other transitional use occupants seldom owned an automobile. By
requiring a new parking count, it would render several facilities non - compliant and
unable to expand based on client needs. Section No. 7 in the draft ordinance allowed for
supportive and transitional housing in the PI zone when the use was ancillary to a church
or a hospital. For a new facility coming in they would need to go to the PI zone and then
only if they were ancillary to a church or hospital and that would never happen. They
were in a difficult place in that they wanted to expand at the Pine Street property, but
were unsure of how that would happen. He was requesting, on behalf of Casa Teresa,
Page 4 of 23
that the Planning Commission reconsider the draft ordinance after speaking to
stakeholders such as Casa that would be directly and financially impacted by the
ordinance. He was requesting more time to discuss the issues and to find a solution.
Chair Steiner asked Mr. Murrell if he had a chance to speak with Staff prior to the
hearing.
Mr. Murrell stated yes, Staff had been extremely helpful and he had spoken with both
Ms. Pehoushek and Ms. Le and they understood that the ordinance presented an issue for
organizations such as Casa. It affected Casa and they had wanted to add a building and
replace older structures on the Pine Street location all in harmony with the historic
district. They were a very quiet operation and there was no parking out on the public
streets and if driving by the Maple project, people would not know that Casa existed
there. They were a very humble operation with no impact to the surrounding areas.
Tim Paone, address on file, stated he represented Home Aide Orange County and was
present to address the proposed ordinance. Home Aide was an organization that built and
renovated shelters for the homeless throughout Orange County. They were responsible
for the hundreds of beds that were available for the homeless throughout the county.
The ordinances that were being adopted by SB -2 were being monitored by his
organization. He had come to the meeting initially in support of the ordinance and he
commended Staff on their hard work, however, they operated in conjunction with service
providers, building industry and other donors in the County and one of the service
providers they worked with was Casa Teresa. He listened carefully to their presentation
and he was concerned that there might be unintended consequences of the ordinance and
he asked the Planning Commission to not proceed until it was clear that organizations,
such as Casa Teresa, were not harmed by the ordinance.
Chair Steiner closed the hearing to public comment and brought the item back to the
Commission for discussion.
Commissioner Gladson stated it might be helpful for Ms. Le to revisit the letter from
Casa Teresa. She stated the transitional and supportive uses were already allowed in the
code and she asked if there was a substantial difference with the new code and she
understood it was an expansion of the use in another zone.
Ms. Le stated Staff's approach understanding what they needed to do to comply with
State law was to look at the existing zoning code and look at permitted uses that were
allowed in each of the zoning districts as well as identifying the use that was most similar
to supportive or transitional housing and to identify the same process for those uses as
was already in the code for similar uses. As a fundamental starting point, that was where
Staff started from. There were several uses in the zoning code that could have
similarities to transitional or supportive housing. In residential zoned single family
residential it was a permitted use and there were also homes for mentally or physically
disabled allowed. Congregate care homes of 6 or fewer residents were also permitted.
There were uses with similarity and they were not the same due to the definition provided
Page 5 of 23
by the State which addressed supportive housing as housing or support for homeless
persons or homeless persons with disabilities and none of the permitted uses in the City's
zoning codes were that specific. It was not exactly the same, but they attempted to find
similar uses.
Ms. Le stated in response to the concerns raised by Casa Teresa in the Old Towne mixed
use zone, Staff had started out by looking at residential zones for transitional and
supportive housing and Staff had heard from some stakeholders to look at mixed use
zones for that type of housing and had done that. Single family residential was allowed
in the Old Towne mixed use zones and that was why they identified supportive or
transitional housing of 6 or fewer residents as a permitted use. Looking at other allowed
uses, they had not found very many similarities. In terms of Casa Teresa's existing
facility, they would be legal non - conforming and would be able to continue on as they
currently existed. The issue was with future expansions. The legal non - conforming
provisions of the Code would not allow for future expansions and that was the issue that
needed to be addressed more specifically. If the Commission would want more time to
look at the issues and to allow for further Staff review, it was up to the discretion of the
Commissioners.
Commission Gladson asked if one of the ideas was to conditionally allow it in the Old
Towne mixed use zone.
Ms. Le stated yes, it was a land use policy matter. At the end of the day if the City
Council and the Planning Commission allowed, they could allow transitional or
supportive housing for 7 or more persons as a permitted use or a conditionally permitted
use and would allow for the expansion as anticipated for Casa Teresa, subject to the
various Development Standards in the code.
Commissioner Grangoff asked if it would open up the door for other transitional homes
to move in.
Ms. Le stated that would make it possible for transitional or supportive housing of 7
occupants or more to locate in the Old Towne mixed use zone subject to the same
requirements and subject to a CUP if that was the way the Commission wanted to go.
Commissioner Gladson asked if it was the desire of the Commission to perhaps provide
that feedback to the City Council as an option. The item was not final with the Planning
Commission as it would be moving to the City Council. It would be something that
could go to the City Council for their consideration.
Chair Steiner stated when zoning was being brought into compliance in various areas of
the City, there had been opportunities for existing businesses to remain where they were
as non - conforming uses and he had also thought for those uses to expand; he asked if that
was correct?
Page 6 of 23
Ms. Le stated that was correct. With adoption of some of the zoning ordinances to bring
compliance with the General Plan, the City Council adopted an ordinance that recognized
existing uses as permitted uses allowing those uses to expand, renovate and reconstruct.
The Planning Commission could recommend something similar to the City Council and
Staff could put together an ordinance that would provide for the same system for existing
supportive and transitional uses.
Commissioner Cathcart asked if they were ready for a motion.
Chair Steiner stated Casa Teresa was an important use in the City and he wanted to
ensure they were in agreement.
Commissioner Cathcart stated he agreed and that was one of the reasons that he felt Staff
should have some time to work something out. He liked the idea of the inclusion of an
expansive terminology to an already existing successful business. Staff should be
allowed to begin working on a solution and return to the Commission with a draft or to
take it directly to the City Council.
Chair Steiner asked Casa Teresa if that direction would allow for more flexibility in what
Casa Teresa was seeking.
Mr. Murrel stated he thought it was a great suggestion and he would be curious as to how
it would work in the commercial zone and in the Old Towne mixed use zone; he thought
it was a good solution.
Chair Steiner asked if language could be added to the resolution in order for the item to
move forward to the City Council; language that would address the issue?
Ms. Le stated it was the decision of the Commission to suggest a direction. She would
not want to craft specific language from the podium, but if it was the desire of the
Commission to suggest a direction to Staff and the City Council, then Staff would take
suggested language to the City Council to accommodate the type of system they were
discussing, that would be amenable.
Commissioner Buttress stated she would rather have Staff come back with a resolution
that would include their recommendation.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, stated that would allow for Staff to circle back
around to the stakeholders with language and feedback that had been received. It was at
the pleasure of the Planning Commission in what direction they would want Staff to
proceed.
Commissioner Gladson stated she was hearing that they were more inclined to continue
the item to allow Staff, with the direction that they had received, to consider the options
discussed to either conditionally allow through a CUP or to change the language to
address specifically Casa Teresa. She was fine with a continuance or not.
Page 7 of 23
Commissioner Grangoff stated he was also okay with a continuance and he was looking
at the issue from the perspective that would not allow expansion for new businesses, but
for those that currently operated. He stated the reason the item was before them and
incidentally it was not something he would support if he was a State Legislator as it
imposed some things on a City and restricted the City in monitoring what occurred in
their neighborhoods and to insure neighborhood's good quality of life, but he understood
the City's hands were tied because the State was imposing the changes. On a
continuance, he asked if that would hurt the City regarding their Housing Element.
Ms. Le stated in terms of the timeline, the deadline the City was under was to have the
ordinance adopted prior to submission of the draft Housing Element to the State for their
review and she anticipated that happening in the summer of 2013. They had some time
to work on it and to work out the details.
Chair Steiner asked if the Commission wanted to continue the item to a date certain or to
allow for more latitude for Staff to work on the proposal. Chair Steiner asked for further
discussion or action.
Commissioner Grangoff made a motion to continue Title 17(Zoning) Amendment -
Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing.
Ms. Le stated they could continue to a date certain of April 1, 2013.
Chair Steiner stated he would not be present at the April 1, 2013 meeting and he wanted
to be present to vote on the item.
Commissioner Buttress stated it could be held off to the next meeting of April 15, 2013.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 8 of 23
(3) New Hearings:
3.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2888 -12 —TONE BARRE
The applicant proposes a fitness studio for instructional low impact fitness and mat
pilates classes in a commercial center.
LOCATION: 2076 N. Tustin
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class
1 — Existing Facilities) because the project includes no
expansion of the existing building.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 11 -13 allowing a
1,020 SF fitness studio as an instructional use.
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions for Staff. There were none
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Brittany Freeman, address on file, stated she had brought her business to the City of
Orange as she had grown up in Orange. She started dancing at the age of 2 ' / 2 and entered
Chapman University as a dance major, but subsequently had to have surgery on her ankle
that ended her career as a ballet dancer. She had been instructing at another studio in the
Orange Plaza area. Barre classes were a low impact class that combined elements of
ballet, pilates and yoga together into a 60 minute class.
Chair Steiner closed the hearing to public comment and brought the item back to the
Commission for further discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Buttress made a motion to adopt PC No. 11 -13 approving CUP No. 2888-
12 -Tone Barre, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, noting the item
was categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 9 of 23
3.2 MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0704 -12; MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 1831 -12; VARIANCE NO. 2222 -12;
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 201 -13; AND DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE NO. 4652 -12 — AMLI RESIDENTIAL
The applicant proposes to redevelop an existing surface parking lot with a new 334 unit
apartment development, leasing office, clubhouse (with fitness center, club room lounge,
and business center), two courtyards (with swimming pool and outdoor lounge areas) and
two abutting parking structures; one will serve the residential development (610 spaces)
while the other will provide replacement parking for the Doubletree Hotel (494 spaces)
that is presently provided in the surface parking lot. The residential unit will be oriented
to area streets & arranged around the two courtyards. The applicant is requesting an 80-
space variance for the apartment complex parking as well as a 1 foot reduction in the
parking structure drive aisle width.
LOCATION: 3537 S. The City Way
NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1831 -12 was prepared
to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the
project, in conformance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with
the Local CEQA Guidelines. The MND finds that the
project will have less than significant impact to the
environment with the implementation of standard
conditions and mitigation measures.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 12 -13 for a new
334 multifamily residential development and associated
parking structures.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented a project overview consistent with the
Staff Report.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. There were none.
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Ken Ryan, address on file, stated he represented AMLI Residential and the entire team
was present to answer any questions the Commission might have. The team was very
appreciative of the City of Orange Staff's hard work. There were only a couple of edits
and he would highlight those. The project had gone through two DRC meetings. There
was one issue, Ms. Pehoushek had pointed it out in the Staff Report, and he believed the
design elements that were integrated into the architectural design were able to be
approved through the Planning Commission. The concern was that as the City of Orange
moved through their zoning amendment process for the sign ordinance, unrelated to
Page 10 of 23
AMLI, there could be a number of issues that came up. There was a fairly aggressive
schedule that had been outlined to get the ordinance on the calendar in April, but under
the best case scenario, that meant that the ordinance change could go to City Council and
with the appeal period and assuming no one had issues, unrelated to them, it could take
effect in July or August; and with that stated, it would put their project on hold.
In the proposal before them, there was a number of design elements integrated into the
architecture. He was asking for consideration by the Planning Commission of that
particular issue and he agreed with Staff's recommendation and Ms. Pehoushek had done
a great job of highlighting some issues. Mr. Ryan stated that he would present a brief
PowerPoint that would highlight the project, and they were really excited about it. There
was a client that wanted to raise the bar in the area and whenever a designer heard that, it
was music to their ears. The design was contextual to the district, but also from a design
perspective, it was something that was visually unique and engaging and those were the
directives that were given to the design team. He was excited about the project from a
pragmatic standpoint; from access and in creating a better situation for the Doubletree
Hotel, in terms of weather and access, the parking structure design had received great
feedback from the neighbors. It was a good idea. They were moving forward with a
sustainable project, it would be a Silver LEED certified project. Last, but not least, the
site was in an emerging district an upscale urban living that was truly walkable with
shopping, employment and entertainment immediately adjacent to the project.
Combined with the design elements integrated into the architecture, it was not just about
the project, but a reflection of the entire emerging district. Those comments were a short
version of the many, many months of hard work that had gone into the project.
Mr. Ryan went through a PowerPoint presentation describing the location and the access
points to the apartment complex and highlighted the design elements that were integrated
into the architecture that appeared on the parking structures. The landscape was reviewed.
The first phase of the proposed project would be the hotel parking structure. He pointed
out the access for the structure and explained there would be access to the apartment
complex structure through the hotel structure when construction was complete. The
apartment was an upscale urban design with amenities in the surrounding courtyard area
with 334 apartments, 494 hotel parking spaces and 610 apartment spaces in a two phase
development. He pointed out the design elements that were integrated into the
architecture and he presented views of the structure from various vantage points. The
elements were integrated into the parking structure, the linticular design elements would
change as one drove by; it was a bit of animation. He presented a night time view and
the landscape plan information.
Mr. Ryan stated the team before the Planning Commission was asking for their
endorsement of the Design Review Committee's recommendation for the Major Site Plan
Review, and to certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and they were very
comfortable with all the requirements of that document and environmental components.
For the parking variance, Ms. Pehoushek had done a great job of presenting that
information. He would also ask the Planning Commission to approve the Administrative
Page 11 of 23
Adjustment that took the landscape to a much better situation and to endorse the Design
Review Committee's recommendation. The PowerPoint moved through various views of
the project and the perspective from Manchester, Chapman and The City Drive. Mr.
Ryan stated that would conclude his presentation and he and his team were available for
questions.
Chair Steiner asked if the text on the parking structure would be just on the structure
facing the City Drive or on both structures.
Mr. Ryan stated it would appear on both The City Drive and Chapman structures. The
architectural elements were integrated in both structures.
Chair Steiner asked if the structures were side by side.
Mr. Ryan stated there were two structures which felt like one structure. Access would be
from the hotel side and another from the residential side. Both structures were able to be
accessed by driving through from one structure to another. The louvers covered both
structures and read as one design element.
Chair Steiner asked if the parking was a shared situation.
Mr. Ryan stated yes. If the hotel guests needed more spaces, and that issue had been
studied in depth, there was access and additional spaces if the apartment residents needed
additional parking there would be nothing to keep them from using those spaces if they
wished to pay for parking.
Commissioner Buttress asked on the structure that read hotel parking, was that the
structure that faced to the north?
Mr. Ryan stated it depended on what direction it was being viewed from. From one
direction, the structure would read Orange and from the other, it would read hotel
parking. Coming from the east side it read Orange.
Commissioner Grangoff stated if the proposal was approved, what would the delay mean
for the sign approvals?
Mr. Ryan stated there were a few things they needed to do. The DRC had presented a
few conditions and there were details to work out for the lighting and return to them with
those details and the final landscape plan. The agreement was to then build the parking
structure for the Doubletree Hotel and they would want to move forward with that
component. From a building perspective, it would be difficult to go into hard design on
the louvers, especially with the bold idea as presented not knowing if it would be
formally approved. It was difficult to get a project financed waiting for the City to
update their zone code for signage. The louvers were architectural elements integrated
into the building.
Page 12 of 23
Chair Steiner asked if there were other Conditions of Approval that needed to be
addressed.
Mr. Ryan stated they were comfortable with all of them except Conditions No. 10 and 88.
They would want some additional language, and they were fine with paying the fees; but
due to the nature of the project and because the parking structures would be going up
first, it was not appropriate to pay school fees for a parking structure. He respectfully
asked the Commission to consider, on those two conditions, some language such as fees
applicable to the residential buildings to be paid at the time those permits were issued.
Chair Steiner asked Staff if they were in agreement with those changes.
Ms. Pehoushek stated it made sense to request the fees upon issuance of the permits for
the residential units.
Commissioner Gladson commented on the parking variance and the reduction in parking
spaces by 80 stalls. Per code, the fact that there was the option for tenants to use hotel
parking further provided her with comfort for the variance. She wanted to understand
that there was confidence in the ability to offer enough parking for all the apartments in
the proposed development.
Mr. Ryan stated his client had other projects that they managed in Southern California
and understood the parking needs. Staff had requested that they commission a study that
had conducted counts to validate the numbers presented and what was appropriate. All
the studies came in with an average of 1.7 and the proposal was spaced at 1.8 and that
was actual supply. In the study on page 2, that was the reality of the parking per unit
which ranged from 1.2 to 1.4 and they were comfortable with the proposal at 1.8. They
were above the average for the area. There were also 5 bus stations nearby.
Commissioner Gladson stated in the simulation she was a bit surprised that the DRC was
not concerned with the 7 t level of the more northerly parking structure. It was not shown
in their graphic and it was visually a bit taller than the 4 story parking structures. The 7
story parking structure would be visible from Manchester, maybe even from The City
Drive and her sense was that it was probably covered, but she was concerned with the
view from the interior space of the units as well as from the street.
Mr. Ryan stated the building was 4 stories or 50' and the top of the louvers would be at
58'. The parking structure floor ranged from 54' to 44'. The perspective from
Manchester, and they had prepared a section from Manchester, and from the line of site,
would not be visible. The parking structure would not be visible.
Commissioner Gladson asked if the louver or fins were on the west elevation.
Mr. Ryan stated they were on the east and north elevations.
Page 13 of 23
Commissioner Gladson stated she was concerned with the western edge and she was
referring to the site plan, the small nitch area detail would need to be looked at to ensure
it matched with the residential spaces.
Mr. Ryan stated they would look at that.
Commissioner Gladson stated there were a street view and a residential view, and she
would envision herself looking at a parking structure from the interior spaces and that
they would want that view to be something very pleasant. On the parking details in the
package, she had not counted all the stalls, but had not found 610 in the package and was
there another basement level?
Mr. Ryan stated there would be 608 with 2 outside.
Commissioner Gladson stated the residential units that faced The City Drive had
balconies on the street edge and she understood the noise studies covered all the interior
noise, but was there sensitivity to some exterior mitigation, particularly to the 32 that
were on the exterior street? Those were great spaces to use, but the greatest area for
ambient noise.
Mr. Ryan stated they had an earlier version at the pre -DRC meeting and they enclosed the
area a bit more for sound and privacy.
Commissioner Gladson stated she was not familiar with the requirement for exterior
noise for residential units and she would defer her concern to Staff.
Ms. Pehoushek stated when the General Plan was updated, and particularly the Noise
Element, Staff took a look at past residential projects and the reality that the City had a
wide variety of noise environments; there were freeways, roadways and railways and
Orange was a noisy community. In the case of the urban mixed use areas, they shifted
the historic approach to dealing with noise in urban environments and to recognize the
realities of life in an urban area in relation to have open space requirements. Staff looked
at other urban areas in the United States in general and how people live in cities and
found that there were areas with high noise levels and balconies. The expectation was
not that it was a quiet place to live due to the building's location. It was the first project
that the standard attenuation was not being required for the exterior patio areas and the
noise analysis and Mitigated Negative Declaration covered those issues.
Commissioner Cathcart stated at St. Joseph's Hospital, at the patient care facility, they
added into the glass Father Bernard's signature and a picture of a nurse 3 or 4 stories
high. He asked if that was looked upon as signage or was it looked upon as way finding
or identification other than signage, as it was part of the architecture. Was there a means
for the AMLI team to build the parking structure and not need to wait for a signage
condition; was there a way to call it something else and how had the St. Joseph's project
been handled?
Page 14 of 23
Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated he could not speak to the St. Joseph's
project, but he could address the project before them as it related to that site. One of the
things that the Commission was being asked to do was Design Review approval and one
of the criteria of the Design Review approval related to the architecture or architectural
features to create building elements and identify features that created visual interest and
architectural style — that was the criteria. The finding had already been articulated; Ms.
Pehoushek included that in her Staff Report. One of the things that had been introduced
in the record by Mr. Ryan was the statement in his description "integrated into the design
elements of the structure ". Design elements were stated over and over and if the
Commission was so inclined, given the presentation and the information introduced into
the record, the Commission found the features to be design elements, that could be
incorporated into the Design Review approval portion of the package. There may need to
be some direction to Staff to add in an additional finding that had already been stated and
it could be done based on the criteria he had just presented.
Chair Steiner stated it could be based on the findings and on a recent project, the CHOC
Hospital. There was no signage that had complied and it was all very unique.
Ms. Pehoushek stated she was not certain of the details of that sign package. She had
been sitting on the Design Review Committee as Staff when that sign package had gone
through.
Commissioner Gladson stated it had come to them as a sign program.
Commissioner Cathcart stated in speaking to that program, was the CHOC bear logo a
sign or was Choco a bear? What was Choco considered?
Commissioner Gladson stated at that time when the sign program came through the
Choco Bear was integrated into the program and was approved as a sign. A sign program
allowed for flexibility, for super graphics and other visual elements, way finding and the
whole gamut. It was a sticky wicket to call the proposed graphics a sign.
Chair Steiner asked was it way finding, marketing or branding.
Mr. Ryan stated it was considered a design element integrated into the architecture.
Commissioner Grangoff stated that when the building is constructed, the construction
would result in the design presented.
Mr. Ryan stated that was a good way of looking at it. It was not as if signage would be
added later. It was an integral aspect of the project. If they needed to wait six months to
find out if the proposal was accepted, they would not be able to get started on how the
louvers would be constructed, he agreed with the comment.
Ms. Pehoushek stated all the signage for the project would be dependent on the sign code
amendment.
Page 15 of 23
Mr. Ryan stated the three elements that were integrated into the building were also
integrated into the architecture, and that included the entry elements. The sign code
stated there could only be one entry monument sign and they had not believed that the
entry pillars that were part of the design elements of the entry architecture was an entry
monument. The elements were tied into the architecture and they had not wanted to wait
for the City to update their sign code.
Chair Steiner stated there were 94 Conditions of Approval and there appeared to be
agreement on Conditions No. 10 and 88.
Mr. Ryan stated he had not felt that they would hear from anyone speaking against the
project and there had been good input and it appeared to be a process issue; that was the
challenge in wanting to move forward.
Commissioner Gladson stated with all due respect to Mr. Ryan, the public hearing had
not advertised signage or a sign graphic of approximately 28' tall. The public had not
been notified to provide any feedback on whether there was any objection to the size of
the signage. The size and enormity of it was very drastic and very different from
anywhere in Orange. The fact that there was nothing like it anywhere in Orange or in
Orange County, that there was lettering close to 30' tall was very substantial and she
would want to hear input from neighbors, businesses and other property owners to share
their input. They could let the horse out of the barn and another project could come
before them with 60' letters and present that as branding and that was what the Planning
Commission needed to be worried about.
Mr. Ryan stated he understood that concern, but there had been a pre -DRC meeting
which was a dangerous thing to do, to go before a body with a non - approvable project;
but they had wanted to gain input from the DRC. They went to every adjacent land owner
and they had met with UCI and the Block at Orange, Doubletree and the Tower of
Orange and they had received some good questions from them about environmental
issues; construction noise, etc. and the CEQA requirements and they had been very
public with their project.
Commissioner Gladson stated why not ask for a development agreement, why not seek an
option where the applicant could gain a benefit on the front end with a comprehensive
one stop visit with the City and to go with that approach?
Mr. Ryan stated he appreciated the comments, but there was much frustration as there
had been those types of discussion in late summer -early fall, and frankly the City was
short staffed. Ms. Pehoushek was carrying about 50 balls right now, and the decision at
that time, a very thoughtful one, was to wait until there was a sign code and it would get
completed before AMLI was before them. But now they were here and it was the reality
of where they were at. His team had to put together a strategy and they had received
support.
Page 16 of 23
Commissioner Gladson stated there was support and Mr. Ryan had stated that the DRC
was supportive, but as she had read through the DRC minutes, that body understood they
had not had the authority to provide an approval, but they gave feedback.
Mr. Ryan stated there had been very specific direction and there had been very specific
questions, and time and money had been spent to make modifications and although
understanding the DRC could not act on it, and the minutes were accurate. The team had
wanted the DRC's input and the DRC was appreciative with all the changes that had been
made and were supportive. A condition had been added to request that a solution be
found in order to approve the proposal.
Chair Steiner stated the part of the City where the project was proposed was as unique as
the conditions that existed in Old Towne. It was a whole different ball game over there.
The design as presented was very bold, and he really liked it.
Commissioner Gladson asked if there were was any public comment on the item.
Chair Steiner stated no, there was no one present to provide further feedback for or
against the project. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission and he had
not wanted to close the Public Hearing. The project was unique and different. There had
been the City Shopping Center in that same area and it was a big zero. Presently the site
was a destination. It was dynamic and he would think a lot of people would want to live
in that area. It was great and he had not had a problem with the size.
Commissioner Grangoff stated he had viewed Uptown Orange as part of the design
elements and to follow up with the comments from Commissioner Cathcart he would
want to see a way to work that portion of the project into a motion to find a way to allow
the project to move forward. He found that the proposed project would bring jobs and a
lot of construction jobs to the City and he appreciated the work Staff had done and the
willingness to bring the sign program forward. Unfortunately he understood how
Government worked and the Councils and Commissions that would be involved and that
ordinances were not approved overnight. He would want to find a way to move the
project forward.
Commissioner Buttress stated she was very impressed with the proposal and it was a very
unique area of Orange. As the mayor liked to say "sweet, sweet Orange ", and there were
very different areas in Orange and it was not a consistent area of red tile roofs or
everything looking the same, it was the unique statement of Orange. Someone could
come to the City in an appropriate place and time and make a statement. She believed the
design, as presented, made an appropriate statement for the area. It was not something
that belonged in Orange Park Acres, but it was appropriate next to the Outlets of Orange
and fit into the area with UCI.
Commissioner Gladson stated she was excited about having residential units next to a
huge 11,000- 13,000 job base and Uptown Orange was the place where they needed
projects. It was fantastic, and to be in support of variances they needed to be proven and
Page 17 of 23
the applicant had made a case why the parking variance was necessary. Fundamentally
she felt the parking garage areas were signage and she had a hard time not calling it
signage and giving the applicant a pass, when for other applicants, it would be a
requirement. For any other multi - family project that would want to come into the
neighborhood or another part of Orange and to do signs of the same magnitude, it was
setting a precedent and it was not good planning. It was not a good place for the City to
be and writing and changing code on the fly, in her professional and personal viewpoint,
was poor planning. The goal of mixed use zoning was to have a platform or vision for
every project that would be proposed for the area. She could probably support the sign
detail and the verbiage if she had the rest of the package. She liked the context of
everything that was planned for Manchester and The City Drive and all the streets
surrounding the project. She maybe a lone vote and had not felt the project was bad, she
supported the project, but she wished the applicant would have been more patient and
allowed the process for a code amendment to occur.
Chair Steiner stated Commissioner Gladson's opinions were very well respected. She
was a real professional and she had thoughtful suggestions and input. Mr. Sheatz had
clarified the details. He was also hoping that Mr. Sheatz would assist them with some
language.
Chair Steiner closed the hearing for public comment and brought the item back to the
Commission for further discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Cathcart stated there were areas in the City that had different atmospheres;
the area by the Block had already broken ground with urban pennants and photos of his
neighbors 30' x 50' and they busted through the fear of making a statement; a statement
was made in that center. The proposal before them was a statement architecturally and he
was thrilled. Chair Steiner was correct in stating that it would be up to the legal
department on figuring out how to make the project work. He had not run across anyone
who had not liked the proposed project; and for a project not to move forward because
everyone liked it, had made no sense to him.
Commissioner Gladson stated if there was a way to bifurcate the project and she had not
wanted the City to get into any sort of legal finagling, the Planning Commission was the
final approving body and she had total trust in the applicant delivering an exceptional
quality project. She understood that there were other projects in the pipeline, and the
verbiage might be totally offensive and they could be stuck, that was where they could
be.
Commissioner Buttress stated Commissioner Cathcart had brought up two very good
examples of situations that were different. Not being on the Planning Commission for
very long, she had not been a part of the Block, and when it was built there were the large
Dave Wilson and John & Connie Chestnut that made for a wonderful statement to the
center and brought the center to another stage. It was not just another shopping center; it
was very interesting and very different. She was not certain how that was handled
through signage. The St. Joseph's reference was part of the building. She also
Page IS of 23
understood Commissioner Gladson's concerns and the wish to bifurcate the project.
Commissioner Gladson stated the visual element was not the lynch pin to the success of
the project, the visual was about 10% of the project; the other components of the project
were wonderful and they needed more of the same type of project in Orange and it would
be copied. She had a problem with the visual element as presented. The visual
simulation that was presented was so important in providing a visual for their review.
Most people were afraid of multi - family projects as they were afraid of what it looked
like, and now they knew what it would look like.
Chair Steiner asked Mr. Sheatz if he had language for them.
Mr. Sheatz stated he had prepared something, but he wanted to ensure he captured
everyone's understanding as well. Language would be incorporated into page 6 of 21 of
the Resolution, under the Design Review Committee approval. Language would be
incorporated that would also approve the design elements for the parking structures as
depicted in the plans. The approval would be attached to the plans. The layout that was
being approved was the layout that appeared in the pictures, and if everyone was in
agreement, what was presented was what they would get. There had been some concern
as to any changes that might occur in the future, and any changes would need to go back
through the Design Review process to be approved again. The Planning Commission's
reasons for approval would need to be reviewed if there would be a change down the
road. It would be difficult for someone in the future to make changes. Mr. Sheatz
wanted to be sure that the Commissioners understood what was being approved was what
had appeared before them in the drawings in regard to the parking structures.
Ms. Pehoushek stated part of the graphics and she had not wanted to refer to them as
signs anymore; part of the architectural feature of the parking structure had an area at the
corner that had verbiage of AMLI and was it the intent to allow that. Many large projects
changed ownership and there might be problems with that situation at a later date.
The Commissioners reviewed the project details.
Chair Steiner asked if Ms. Pehoushek was comfortable with what Mr. Sheatz had
proposed for language.
Ms. Pehoushek stated she believed it they could move forward understanding that DRC
had not considered the graphics because signage had not been part of the project.
Commissioner Gladson stated for her own personal needs, how would she be allowed to
vote yes on the project.
Commissioner Buttress stated Commissioner Gladson had made her feelings known
about the project and how she would vote.
Commissioner Gladson stated she would hate to have the other four Commissioners at a
cocktail party telling her that she had voted no on the project. She publicly had not
Page 19 of 23
wanted anyone to feel that she hated the project.
Chair Steiner stated the public hearing was closed, however, he wanted to ensure the
applicant understood the changes that were proposed.
Mr. Ryan stated he was hopeful that the entire package would move forward, however,
he had understood Mr. Sheatz speaking to the parking garages. The vertical elements
were very slight and part of the architecture.
Chair Steiner stated they had already given the applicant half the loaf.
Ms. Pehoushek stated the vertical elements were projecting signs per the code and as Mr.
Ryan mentioned, they had spoken about the sign issues and the need for code
amendments in the case of projecting signs where those would be allowed and currently it
was only in Old Towne. In the case of the parking structure's architectural elements,
there had been a consensus that those should be considered architectural elements and
now the issue was where the line should be drawn between signage and architectural
elements?
Mr. Sheatz stated they were moving away from just the architectural elements and even
in the presentation by Mr. Ryan only the parking structure had been referred to as
architectural elements.
Commissioner Buttress asked if the project would be able to get through zoning.
Ms. Pehoushek stated she had begun work on that and after tonight, she would continue
this work.
Commissioner Buttress made a motion to adopt PC Resolution 12 -13, approving MSPR
No. 0704 -12, MND No. 1831 -12, Variance No. 222 -12, Administrative Adjustment No.
201 -13 and DRC No. 4652- 125 -AMLI Residential, subject to the conditions contained in
the Staff Report and to incorporate the language as provided by Mr. Sheatz in regard to
the architectural elements of the parking structure; and to eliminate Condition No. 41 and
to amend Conditions No. 10 and 88 as discussed.
SECOND: Commissioner Grangoff
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 20 of 23
3.3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2013 -0001 — CIRCULATION
ELEMENT AMENDMENT
The Circulation and Mobility Element of the General Plan, adopted in March 2010,
describes the City's Critical Intersection Program and Figure CM -2 (Master Plan of
Streets and Highways) and graphically identifies "critical intersections" on a City -wide
map. The "critical intersections" shown on Figure CM -2 does not accurately depict the
intersections in the City with "critical intersection" status. This inconsistency was
discovered after adoption of the 2010 General Plan. The subject General Plan
Amendment corrects Figure CM -2 and makes minor clarifications to the text description
of the Critical Intersection Program. In addition, the subject General Plan Amendment
corrects Figure CM -2 by re- labeling several roadways that are located outside the City
jurisdiction as "Roadways Outside of Planning Area ".
LOCATION:
Citywide
NOTE: Final Program Environmental Impact Report No. 1815 -09
for the Comprehensive General Plan Update was certified
on March 9, 2010 and prepared in accordance with the
California environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR
and its associated traffic analysis evaluated existing and
future "build out" traffic volumes and identified certain
intersections as "needing improvements" to accommodate
those volumes. It was the City's intent to show the
intersections identified in the EIR as "needing
improvements" as "critical intersections" on Figure CM -2
of the Circulation and Mobility Element. However, an error
was made and the intersections identified in the 2010
General Plan EIR as "needing improvements" were not
exactly matched to the "critical intersections" shown on
General Plan Figure CM -2. As such, the proposed General
Plan Amendment makes corrections to the General Plan,
making the General Plan content consistent with the
technical analysis provided in the EIR.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 09 -13
recommending that the City Council approve the amended
Circulation and Mobility Element in order to revise the text
of the City's Critical Intersection Program and to correct
Figure CM -2 to correctly identify "critical intersections"
and re -label certain roadways as "roadways outside of
planning area ".
Page 21 of 23
Senior Planner, Jennifer Le, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. There were none.
Commissioner Gladson stated that the item was a clean up action and the intersections
were of great importance to the Capital Improvement Program and knowing where
improvements were needed in the future, without the detail being correct, would be
difficult to find themselves in compliance.
Ms. Le stated that was correct.
Chair Steiner opened the item for public comment. There was none.
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or action.
Commissioner Gladson made a motion to adopt PC Resolution No. 09 -13, recommending
approval to the City Council, General Plan Amendment 2013 - 0001 - Circulation Element
Amendment, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 22 of 23
3.4 ZONE CHANGE 1269 -13 - LEMON STREET CORRIDOR
The City of Orange General Plan update was adopted in March 2010. The Lemon Street
Corridor 2010 General Plan Land Use Focus Area, located south of Hoover Avenue and
north of Collins Avenue has properties designated Medium Density Residential (MDR),
Light Industrial (LI) and Industrial (1).
LOCATION: South of Hoover Avenue and North of Collins Avenue
NOTE: Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No,
1815 -09 for the Comprehensive General Plan Update was
certified on March 9, 2010 and prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
proposed activity is within the scope of the previously
approved General Plan and is adequately described in the
previously certified General Plan Program EIR for
purposes of CEQA.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 08 -13
recommending the City Council approve Zone Change
1269 -13 and adopt an Ordinance rezoning properties in the
portion of the Lemon Street Corridor 2010 General Plan
Land Use Focus Area south of Hoover Avenue and North o
Collins Avenue to establish consistency between the
Medium Density Residential, Light Industrial and
Industrial General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning
classification in accordance with State Law.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented a project overview consistent with the
Staff Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. There were none.
Chair Steiner opened the item for public comment. There was none.
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or action.
Commissioner Grangoff made a motion to adopt PC Resolution No. 08 -13,
recommending approval to the City Council, Zone Change No. 1269 -13 -Lemon Street
Corridor, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, noting the EIR was
certified through CEQA.
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 23 of 23
(4) ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Buttress made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled
meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, March 18, 2013.
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Meeting Adjourned @ 9:07 p.m.