2011 - February 7Planning Commission Meeting APPROVED February 7, 2011
Page 1 of 20
Minutes
Planning Commission February 7, 2011
City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Cunningham, Imboden, Merino and Steiner
ABSENT: None
STAFF
PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION
Vice Chair Cunningham opened the Administrative Session at 6:46 p.m. with a review of
the Agenda and he asked if there would be any questions on the Agenda items?
Commissioner Merino stated he would have questions on Item No. 2, The Pump Room,
and he would have a question for Staff on Item No. 3, Serrano Woods.
Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, asked Commissioner Buttress if
she had an opportunity to review the tapes for the continued item, The Pump Room.
Commissioner Buttress stated she had reviewed the tapes and read the Planning
Commission Meeting minutes. Mr. Knight stated that Commissioner Buttress would
want to state that she had not been present for the previous presentation of the item,
however, that she had an opportunity to review the tapes and minutes. Assistant City
Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated that after Vice Chair Cunningham brought the item back to
the Commission and closed the Public Comment portion of the hearing she could disclose
that information.
Commissioner Merino stated he would abstain from the approval of the minutes from the
January 17, 2011 Planning Commission meeting as he had been absent from that
meeting. Commissioner Merino asked if the nominations and vote to elect new officers
could be completed during the Administrative Session, as it had been done in the past.
Vice Chair Cunningham stated no. Mr. Sheatz stated it would be done at the start of the
Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Sheatz stated for clarification on the memo received from the applicant's
representative for Item No. 2, The Pump Room, there were several conditions that the
applicant was requesting modifications to and those were:
1. To add that deliveries were made using the rear doors.
2. They wanted to make no mistake about amplified music, and that any music
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 2011
Page 2 of 20
played would not be audible outside, and it was a question about amplification
vs. internal sound system.
3. On the parking lot lighting, the applicant wanted to be clear that their site
occupied a small portion of the larger complex and they had no control over
much of the space. The applicant was stating that he could look into the
situation of no spill over to the residential properties, but was unable to
complete a photometric study as it was just too costly and he had not wanted
to make a commitment to that effect.
4. The applicant was proposing an alternate condition in regard to Happy Hour.
There were a total of 40 Conditions of Approval on the item and 15 with comments noted
by the applicant. The applicant had also questioned the need for the Police Department's
requirement for LEAD Training along with the City's requirement for an Alcohol
Management Plan.
Commissioner Buttress stated that she wanted clarification on Condition No. 13, which
was a condition to ensure that any security personnel would not consume alcohol and she
was concerned that the employer would not be able to ask an employee if they had
consumed a beer prior to coming to work, and she asked if that was a reasonable
condition? Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, stated it was a potential Draft Condition
and he referred her to attachment No. 4.
Vice Chair Cunningham stated on the allowance of Happy Hour, it was his understanding
that they had not allowed such a condition in the past. Commissioner Imboden stated he
recalled that the only allowance the Planning Commission had made in regard to an
allowance for Happy Hour was for the redevelopment project in the Stadium Plaza were
there had been a number of competitor sites that had a Happy Hour in place and the
Planning Commission had made a concession to allow it based on that.
Commissioner Merino stated in light of Commissioner Imboden's resignation he would
make a motion to delay the reorganization of the Planning Commission prior to the
Commission voting on new officers. Vice Chair Cunningham stated it would be his
desire to take nominations and proceed with the reorganization. He stated they could
have that discussion on the dais. Commissioner Merino stated he was concerned with the
ramifications of the reorganization and the appointment by City Council. Mr. Sheatz
stated the reorganization was possible with mid -term resignations and the Commission
could proceed in that manner.
Commissioner Steiner asked if there was anything additional they needed to be informed
of on Item No. 2, The Pump Room? Mr. Sheatz stated the email they had received was
not unreasonable and the clearer the conditions could be made the better as that would
allow for better enforcement of those conditions, and on the training issue the Police
Department was asking for both. Mr. Garcia stated the applicant's representative would
be making a Power Point presentation.
There was no further discussion.
Planning Commission Meeting
Administrative Session adjourned @ 6:56 p.m.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None
REGULAR SESSION
Commission Reorganization:
Election of Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson
February 7, 2011
Page 3 of 20
Commissioner Imboden nominated Commissioner Steiner as Chairperson and
Commissioner Buttress as Vice Chairperson.
Commissioner Merino stated there would be some potential changes to the Planning
Commission with the resignation of Commissioner Imboden, much to his sadness, and he
was considering if it would be wise to provide new members appointed to the
Commission an opportunity, should they join the Commission, to become part of the
reorganization process and if they could wait 30 days that would be respectful of new
appointees.
Commissioner Imboden stated he would continue to put forth the nominees as stated as
they were a Commission with experience and he felt that anyone who came into the
position in the future would have an opportunity to be a part of the reorganization at a
future date and he would want to move forward with the vote and not rely on new comers
to do that.
Commissioner Steiner stated they could look at it either way, the fact that they currently
had a legally constituted 5 member Planning Commission no matter what happened in the
future, gave confidence to the Staff and the community that if Commissioner Buttress and
himself were elected to the positions, that they were prepared to take that leadership role
even if there were going to be new Commissioners appointed in the next 30 days or so.
When he was appointed by Governor Wilson to serve on the Board of Supervisors and he
had taken Don Roth's position. The Board of Supervisor had constituted themselves on
January 1, 1993 and he had been appointed on March 15, 1993; and he thought at that
time that he would have been appointed as Chairman as Mr. Roth had been set to be
Chairman, instead another member had been elected in 1993 to take that position and he
waited until 1997 to take the role as Chair. He felt comfortable and was flattered by the
nomination and he was concerned that there would not be a full Commission over the
next month or so with a lot of important work to do. He had intended to finish out his
son's term on the Planning Commission and it had been a pleasure and an honor to serve
on the Planning Commission and he was prepared to continue on through his term. He
suggested that they vote on the reorganization.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cunningham, Imboden, Merino and Steiner
NOES: None
Planning Commission Meeting
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
February 7, 2011
Page 4 of 20
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner stated they were caught a bit off guard with the news of Commissioner
Imboden's resignation of his position on the Planning Commission and from what his son
had told him that over the four years that he had served on the Planning Commission that
he had respected Commissioner Imboden very, very much and that he was a very
professional person. Chair Steiner stated he had looked to Commissioner Imboden for
his experience with Old Towne issues over the past 6 months and he wished
Commissioner Imboden well and thanked him for his contribution to the City.
Consent Calendar:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
JANUARY 17, 2010
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular
meeting of the Planning Commission on January 17, 2011, as written.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cunningham, Imboden, and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Merino
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
Continued Hearings:
February 7, 2011
Page 5 of 20
(2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2767 -09 — THE PUMP ROOM
This project was continued from the December 6, 2010 Planning Commission meeting in
order for Staff to work with the Orange Police Department to draft conditions for
approval and work toward preparation of an Alcohol Preparedness Manual.
A proposal to upgrade an ABC Type 42 License (On -Sale Beer for Public Premises) to
an ABC Type 48 License (On -Sale General for Public Premises) for an existing bar
within a retail center.
LOCATION: 1532 W. Chapman Avenue
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA
Guidelines 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved) because
CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or
disapproves.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review and take action on Planning Commission Reso 45 -10
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Mike Ayaz, address on file, stated in reference to the recent hot file letter he had the
opportunity to discuss the Conditions with the Orange Police Department's representative
and he was in agreement with all conditions. There was one point he wanted to clarify
and that was on the Pump Room's advertising and the marquee; they had wanted to add
the word "cocktails" if that was permissible. He stated that the Police Department had
made subsequent checks with the neighbors and he believed their findings were that the
business was a good neighbor and they had the support of the surrounding community.
In regard to the security manual, Staff had a copy and he had prepared a Power Point
presentation to cover the components of the 48 page manual that had been developed by
security experts and it covered all foreseeable events. Mr. Ayaz went through several of
the key components of the manual from the Power Point presentation. He stated the
manual covered situations and scenarios and how personnel would handle specific
situations, which included compliance with the terms of the manual, report writing, forms
that would be filled out for specific situations and in house training. The business owner
had spent a considerable amount of money to have the manual prepared and had put in a
lot of time and effort to ensure that he had a lawful operation. He had wanted to discuss
two of the conditions and those were the signage changes and they were requesting a
Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2011
Page 6 of 20
change to the hours of operation to open at 9:00 a.m. He was available for any further
questions.
Chair Steiner asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Commissioner Merino stated when Mr. Ayaz was before the Commission on December
6, 2010, he had asked about the conditions in relationship to whether the business owner
would stop some of the activities that made the site a bikini bar. Several people had
approached him with the concern and issues related to that type of activity and the one
citation that had been previously discussed had also been related to that activity. He
asked if it was still the applicant's contention that any conditions placed in the execution
of that type of a business was not desirable to them?
Mr. Ayaz stated the business had been developed as a bikini bar, and he understood
Commissioner Merino was referring to the 2006 citation and, in short, his answer was no.
Commission Merino stated there had been concerns that had been brought to him and in
that regard one of the things he had hoped to have seen in the manual was some sort of
plan or methodology that would have addressed issues relative to the one citation that had
been issued to the business. In reviewing the manual there was nothing that he found that
would address that type of behavior or issues that might arise from that part of the
business.
Mr. Ayaz stated that State Law covered that component of the business and it was also a
condition of the CUP and was addressed in the manual under employee conduct and dress
code.
Commissioner Merino asked if there was anything in the manual that would address an
individual that was behaving in a manner that would cause a similar citation that had
occurred previously at that site.
Mr. Ayaz stated the document addressed the situation a bit differently and not specific to
the situation that caused the citation, but would limit employee activity. He was
agreeable to supplement the 40 conditions with additional conditions to address any
specific concerns. The employer would take measures to ensure that female employees
dressed appropriately and the Police Department would have the authority to address any
violations.
Chair Steiner stated there was some difference of opinion in regard to the survey of the
neighbors adjacent to the Pump Room with representations made by the applicant that
there had not been any difficulties with the neighbors, however, the Police Department
had provided a different interpretation of that information; and that there were
complaints. He asked if that situation had been resolved.
Orange Police Department Representative, Sergeant Peterson, stated they had gone out
after the applicant had spoken with the neighbors and they had not received any further
Planning Commission Meeting
complaints.
February 7, 2011
Page 7 of 20
Chair Steiner asked Sgt. Peterson if he had the opportunity to review the applicant's list
of conditions vs. the original conditions and if there were any additional comments he
wanted to share.
Sgt. Peterson stated the original 40 Conditions of Approval were agreeable to the Police
Department and he was under the impression that the applicant also agreed with all the
conditions.
Chair Steiner asked Mr. Ayaz if he was looking for a modification to some of the
conditions as presented.
Mr. Ayaz stated he had not previously had the opportunity to sit down with the Police
Department. Prior to the start of the meeting, he had a chance to discuss the conditions
with Sgt. Peterson and he had also discussed the conditions that they were asking for
changes to. The changes that were being requested were to the hours of operation to
open at 9:00 a.m. to accommodate those sporting events that were televised earlier such
as soccer and football and also the sign changes.
Sgt. Peterson stated he was not aware of the information that had been provided in the
Commissioner's hot files.
Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated that there were some
technical problems with the center microphone and he asked the applicant to share the
stage with Sgt. Peterson at the side microphone.
Commissioner Merino stated he had questions for Sgt. Peterson.
Chair Steiner wanted to understand if Sgt. Peterson agreed with the conditions that had
been brought forth by the applicant and now he understood that Sgt. Peterson had not
reviewed those conditions and he would not be able to agree or disagree with the
modifications suggested by the applicant.
Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated what happened was there had been several
emails toward the tail end that had gone back and forth that had contained conditions and
if they could take a brief recess he could discuss the memo that had those notated changes
with Sgt. Peterson. There were emails that had gone back and forth and he had recalled
that he had forwarded those and some of the changes may have already been made, but
they would not know that until Sgt. Peterson had the opportunity to review the
conditions. It appeared very similar to what had been provided to him by the applicant a
few days prior which he had passed along.
Chair Steiner stated the document was dated February 7, 2011, and he could not see how
they could move forward without having Sgt. Peterson review the information.
Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2011
Page 8 of 20
Mr. Ayaz stated for clarification, he had not sent anything on February 7, 2011 and the
proposed conditions that he had sent were dated February 3, 2011; and with that stated he
and Sgt. Peterson had reviewed the conditions that Sgt. Peterson had in his possession
and they were in agreement with all the conditions, with the exception of the signage and
the hours of operation.
Commissioner Imboden stated regarding the letter that was contained in the
Commissioner's hot file, dated February 3, 2011 authored by Mr. Ayaz, could be taken
off the table and they could work with the conditions contained in the Staff Report.
Mr. Ayaz stated that was correct. The only conditions they were requesting changes on
were for signage and hours of operation.
Commissioner Imboden stated based on the request for signage changes and the condition
relating to modification of opening hours; he asked if he could have both Staff and the
Police Department speak to the conditions as they existed and to the effect of the
proposed changes to the conditions?
Chair Steiner stated based on the information brought forth by Commissioner Imboden
they would not need a break and he asked Sgt. Peterson to respond to the request for the
hours of operation to begin at 9:00 a.m. vs. 10:00 a.m.?
Sgt. Peterson stated he agreed with the modification.
Commissioner Merino stated one of the issues that they had not come to grips with was in
reviewing the entire Staff Report, it was Staff's position that they were not in support of
the application and they were speaking as if they would be moving forward on the item
and he wanted to be clear, especially on those issues that they had sent the applicant back
to discuss with the Police Department. It was his feeling that the Police Department
would come back with a change of mind and he understood, through Staff, that the
Orange Police Department was still not in support of the application.
Sgt. Peterson stated the Police Department's position was still in opposition to the
proposal.
Chair Steiner stated they had asked the applicant to provide their policy and procedure
manual and the applicant had done that and they had reviewed the extensive 45 page
document and Commissioner Merino was correct that just because they were speaking to
the Conditions of Approval, it had not meant that the request would be approved or
denied.
Commissioner Merino asked Sgt. Peterson if he had reviewed the manual that had
become such an issue at the last presentation.
Sgt. Peterson stated no.
Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2011
Page 9 of 20
Mr. Ayaz stated the manual had been provided to Staff and they had the manual for over
a year. He had emailed Mr. Garcia with the documents well in advance of the hearing.
Commissioner Cunningham stated in the manual, section 4, page 11, there were two
options if a manager or employees found narcotics or illegal substances in the bar.
Option two stated if the manager deemed it appropriate, the Police Department would not
be called and instead a manager and one employee would take the substance to the
nearest restroom and destroy it. He asked the applicant in what situation would it not be
appropriate to contact the Orange Police Department?
Mr. Ayaz stated in worse circumstances the Orange Police Department would be called.
There were options and if security staff found % gram of marijuana they would flush it, if
it was cocaine that would be a different story. He would not know if the Police
Department would want them to call every time they found %2 a gram of marijuana and
the default would be to call and that was paramount in their training. That was evident in
the calls for service which were primarily made by a Pump Room employee. The
manual provided guidelines and standards.
Commissioner Cunningham stated on Condition No. 2, which referred to exterior
advertising, the applicant wanted to include the word "cocktail" on the sign.
Mr. Ayaz stated currently the sign had the business name and a beer mug and two
females on the sign and before they made any changes they wanted to ensure that what
they were proposing would work. The window signage would all be gone. He was just
referring to the sign.
Chair Steiner stated those were the two areas of concern; and he asked Sgt. Peterson if
the Police Department had any issues with the request for the sign change?
Sgt. Peterson stated no.
Chair Steiner stated the security manual was very thorough.
Mr. Garcia stated in regard to signage, that would be treated differently. There might be
an update to the signage in that complex; a sign program that would not necessarily allow
the type of sign that was on the business currently. Many of the older centers had can or
cabinet signs which were not allowed in the current sign programs throughout the City;
the applicant might be forced to go to a different type of sign if they wanted to change the
sign that currently existed on the building. He would not want to tie any of the conditions
to signage.
Commissioner Merino stated one of the questions that was discussed at the previous
presentation was that the current conditions presented were not conditions that existed
currently?
Mr. Garcia stated that was correct.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 2011
Page 10 of 20
Chair Steiner asked if there were any further questions. There were none.
Chair Steiner commented to Staff and the Police Department that he was not certain how
they could not be supportive of the findings that were very clear in regard to the
inconsistency with the goals and policies dictated by the City's General Plan. The
findings could not be made for that. Conditional Use Permit shall be granted upon sound
principals of land use and response to services required in the community; finding could
not be made according to Staff and the Police Department. No. 3, a Conditional Use
Permit shall not be granted if it shall cause the deterioration of bordering land uses or
create special problems for the area in which it was located; that finding could not be
made. Conditional Use Permit shall be considered in relationship with the effect on the
community or neighborhood plan for the area in which it was located; that finding could
not be made according to the Police Department and City Staff. Lastly, a Conditional
Use Permit, if granted, shall be made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the
general welfare and not the individual welfare of any particular applicant; and again that
finding could not be made. With that stated he would entertain a motion on the request.
Commissioner Buttress stated she had read all the meeting minutes from the December
presentation and she had reviewed the DVD that was furnished to her and she would be
voting on the item.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he understood the findings, but in his mind he had not
seen conditions placed on an application that were so stringent on a purveyor of alcohol
since he had been a member of the Planning Commission. Given the stringency of the
conditions, whereas currently nothing existed, he felt the City would have more leverage
to control behavior at the Pump Room and he was prepared to support approving the
applicant's request with the conditions presented. He would allow the modification of
hours of operation to open at 9:00 a.m. and with the modification to the building exterior
based on the applicant's request.
Commissioner Merino stated he was ready to support a motion, with the emphasis on
what Commission Cunningham had stated. By denying the application, the business
would not cease to operate; it would not stop the purveyor from doing what he was
currently doing. The CUP request gave the City the tools, through the conditions, to
create enforcement and regulations on the location. Although he would have wanted to
have additional conditions imposed that would regulate some of the activities that had
caused problems in the past, specifically in regard to the citation the business had
received, he believed it was better to have some tools instead of none and not to have an
unregulated business.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adopt PC Resolution 45 -10, approving
CUP No. 2767 -09 -The Pump Room, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff
Report and with the modifications to Condition No. 10, modify hours of operation to
allow the business to open at 9:00 a.m., and on Condition No. 22, to allow the word
"cocktails" to be added to the establishment's exterior signage based on the City's
ordinance for sign changes; noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2011
Page 11 of 20
Commissioner Imboden stated before them they had a Resolution for denial with required
findings; to assist Staff and the legal department, he asked Staff if they were comfortable
with an alternative that the Planning Commission was rendering based on the findings
that had been presented.
Mr. Knight stated Staff would not expect the Planning Commission to write or articulate
pages of findings. They would prepare the Resolution for the item and they would need a
few reasons why the Planning Commission would be in support of the application; and
one of those stated was that the City would be better off having conditions in place and
that was a reason that could be incorporated into a finding. If there were other reasons
that were relevant, a general discussion would assist them in preparing a resolution. In
preparing a denial and findings, there were generally two or three reasons listed and those
were items that supported why the facts and decision made sense in building a bridge
between them.
Commissioner Cunningham stated as the maker of the motion, as Commissioner Merino
had stated, The Pump Room already served beer and wine, it was an existing alcohol
establishment and they were not granting a new license where one had not existed.
Secondly, it was evident that the applicant had made an effort to be a good neighbor and
that was evident by the initial complaints as presented by the Police Department in 2008
and 2009. Subsequent to that, the applicant had prepared their good neighbor policy and
neighbors who had complained previously currently had no problems and now supported
the application. The fact that the applicant was willing to comply with the stringent set of
conditions that he had not seen imposed on any other bar in the City was a reason to
move forward with approval. The City would have sufficient recourse to revisit the
application and revoke it if there was not compliance. The applicant had agreed to the
conditions set forth and with that Commission Cunningham felt that the applicant was
willing to abide by those conditions. Based on that information, he supported the
applicant's request.
Chair Steiner stated the motion would include the agreement by the applicant in the
conditions set forth.
Commissioner Cunningham stated yes, that was correct.
SECOND: Commissioner Merino
AYES: Commissioner Cunningham, Imboden, and Merino
NOES: Commissioner Buttress and Steiner
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
New Hearings:
February 7, 2011
Page 12 of 20
(3) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 4504 -10; GENERAL
PLANAMENDMENT 2010 -0002; ZONE CHANGE 1257 -10;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2803 -10; MAJOR SITE PLAN
0639 -10; TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 0027 -10; AND
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1824 -10 —
SERRANO WOODS
A proposal to construct 63 rental apartments (62 affordable) in four buildings with a
27,240 square foot footprint and associated site improvements on a 3.93 acre site that
currently has a turf field, a Church and school building, and accessory modular
classroom buildings. The accessory modular buildings would be removed but the
Church and an associated parking lot would remain separately on a separate parcel
created under a parcel map that is part of the project.
LOCATION: 1820 E. Meats Avenue
NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1824 -10 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.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 02 -11
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item to any questions for Staff.
Commissioner Merino stated on issue No. 3, regarding the church property, Mr. Ortlieb
indicated that the existing church property was legal non - conforming, was that correct?
Mr. Ortlieb stated there were non - conforming uses.
Commissioner Merino stated the property, as he reviewed it without the project being
approved, had the potential to mitigate those non - conformities.
Mr. Ortlieb stated that was correct.
Commissioner Merino stated if the proposed project was completed, it was his
impression that there would be an impossibility that the non - conforming issue could ever
be resolved for that Church site, and he asked if that was correct?
Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2011
Page 13 of 20
Mr. Ortlieb stated he was not certain if he could agree with the statement without having
the applicant provide an area analysis of the site to show, for example, additional parking
lot landscape provided in accordance with the code, or that drive aisles could be
expanded to comply with the current code.
Commissioner Merino stated the reason he asked the question was that if the existing
property was non - conforming and could be improved if 2 /3rds of it was taken away,
would that make it less likely that the site could become conforming?
Mr. Ortlieb stated he was not certain he could answer that.
Commissioner Merino stated on the issue of using one lot coverage vs. FAR to the
benefit of the applicant, he asked Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, if there was any
concern on issue 10 where Staff had taken the opportunity to use an interpretation to the
applicant's advantage.
Mr. Sheatz stated no.
Commissioner Merino asked if there was any concern that a precedent was being set for
future projects that would come before the Planning Commission or the City Council and
Staff would go in the opposite direction; and an applicant would come back and question
why they had not been allowed to interpret the data in the same manner?
Mr. Sheatz stated no.
Commissioner Merino stated on the Mitigated Negative Declaration; one of the issues he
looked for was with the existing neighborhood. It currently had what appeared to him as
a pretty severe parking problem, not just the property, but the surrounding area and he
asked Mr. Ortlieb if he agreed with that statement?
Mr. Ortlieb stated he had not been to the site during the hours that could confirm that
statement.
Commissioner Merino stated based on his personal experience and that being the case; he
had reviewed the Environmental Documents and the Staff Report and had not found
anything other than the impacts within the property, and nothing on how the
neighborhood would be affected or how the impact would be mitigated. Having been on
the Planning Commission for some time other Environmental Documents that he had
reviewed contained components that dealt with the larger impacts.
Mr. Ortlieb stated, with regard to parking specifically on the proposed project, Staff
always took the position that if the project complied with the code requirements of on -site
parking, then the finding would be that there was not an impact. The proposed project
complied and exceeded by three spaces for the required parking.
Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2011
Page 14 of 20
Commissioner Merino stated he wanted to understand that Staff was stating that on most
projects it was Staff's position that if the proposed project complied within the confines
of the application itself, they would not deal with the environmental impacts beyond the
project. That had not been previous practice or his experience with larger projects and
several that he could come up with off the top of his head.
Mr. Ortlieb stated if the project met code required parking, there would not be a finding
as to significant impacts on parking to the neighborhood as parking would be providing
within the confines of the project and according to what the code requirements dictated.
The idea was that if there was code required parking provided on site, there would not be
an impact to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Merino stated he understood the code issue and fulfilling the requirements
of the project itself, however, the Environmental Impact Report went outside the project
and addressed the impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods and he asked if that was
correct.
Mr. Ortlieb stated that absolutely was correct.
Commissioner Merino asked if Mr. Ortlieb could direct him in the impact document or in
the Staff Report where there was information that dealt with the impact to the
neighborhood.
Mr. Ortlieb stated he would need a few minutes to locate that information.
Chair Steiner stated he would continue with other comments /questions while Mr. Ortlieb
located that information.
Chair Steiner stated he had been to the project site and the immediate area of the site and
the parking was related to residents not parking in their garages and having their garages
filled with storage. He was puzzled why the applicant would be responsible for those
deficiencies of the adjacent property owners when the applicant had provided 150 spaces
on the proposed project.
Commissioner Merino stated his concern was that there appeared to be a lack of analysis
of any impact beyond the property and he could not find where that analysis had been
done. The project met its own requirements, but typically in an EIR, there was some
justification of areas outside the project.
Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated in the Environmental
Impact Law, Commissioner Merino was correct that an EIR and Negative Declaration
would contain the impacts such as traffic and how that would affect the surrounding area
and that was entirely true. What Mr. Ortlieb was attempting to convey was that there was
a situation where code was met and it was anticipated that with sufficient parking
provided on site, that there would not be an impact to the surrounding area; and a study
would not be made in a circumstance where sufficient parking was provided and
Planning Commission Meeting
therefore no impact.
February 7, 2011
Page 15 of 20
Commissioner Merino stated he understood that, however, typically there was some
justification as to why there would not be impacts or overflow beyond the property. For
instance on a previous application, there had been an analysis of the number of visitors
expected who could potentially come to the site and if there was a larger number than
anticipated, there had been some mitigation measures reviewed, and with the application
before them he had not found any of that.
Mr. Knight stated that could be true, but once again the proposed project met the code
requirements and that in itself was sufficient to show that there would not be an impact.
The level of analysis on any given area was directly related to the amount of empirical
information that they had; and the premise that the City, in adopting a parking
requirement that had specific obligations and if the code was followed would not create
an impact off -site. For example if the area was already an R -3 and the applicant was
going to just build an apartment complex, there would not be a CUP, aside from a DRC
Review, it would just be an administerial action with no environmental action required,
because the project would have met the code.
Commissioner Merino stated if a project had a significant level of impact, it was up to the
City to render a determination through a preliminary review and whether an EIR was
required.
Mr. Knight stated administerial projects under the California Environmental Air Quality
Act had not required an environmental analysis; that was one of the prime rules of
CEQA. If the City had an adminsterial project that went forward, there was not a need
for any environmental analysis. In the project before them it was a discretionary action
and it contained the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Ortlieb could take a look to see
if there was additional justification, but the answer was what Staff had already shared.
Commissioner Merino stated after his review of the information provided he had not
found any further justification.
Chair Steiner asked if there was anything further that Mr. Ortlieb wanted to add.
Mr. Ortlieb stated Commissioner Merino had an acute observation and in the CEQA
guidelines there had previously existed a review criteria pertaining to parking which had
been removed when CEQA guidelines had been updated and it was no longer a review
factor that was itemized out in the EIR and that might explain why Commissioner
Merino's recollection of other projects had contained that information and why it was
absent in the current application.
Commissioner Merino stated, for the record, CEQA Law had changed and that review
was no longer required and the reason to why it was not enforced.
Mr. Ortlieb stated that was essentially correct.
Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2011
Page 16 of 20
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Barry Cottle, address on file, stated he was present with several members of the project
team to propose the development and maintenance of Serrano Woods. The proposed
project was a high quality apartment community, similar to the Citrus Grove project that
had been brought before the Commission two years ago and that they had completed
construction on approximately five months ago. They were a hands -on management
company; they were very fair and very strict with their residents. There would be
professionally trained managers on -site and they had graffiti and trash policies and they
proposed cameras on -site and strict occupancy controls for the project. He worked very
hard to also be a good neighbor and he had received a letter from a Citrus Grove neighbor
that he presented to the Commissioners. There had been a neighbor directly to the west
on the Citrus Grove project and they had met with that neighbor who had not wanted to
have the project built and over time they had gotten to know him and the letter was from
that neighbor who had stated the project fit into the neighborhood and that there had not
been any problems with the property or the residents and they wanted to share that letter
with the Commission.
Mr. Cottle stated they had attempted to speak with all three surrounding properties, and
they had been able to speak with two of the neighbors. They had spoken with one of the
neighbors just that afternoon and she had some interesting comments about the Ficas
trees that they had proposed to replace and she was pleased to hear that, as she had a bee
problem and she had shared that she had spent a considerable amount of money keeping
the bees out of her attic. She was also happy to hear that they would have an owner's
meeting and she would meet with them in a few weeks to review the renderings of the
project. Another neighbor whom they had spoken with was in favor of the project and
the third neighbor, who was a veterinarian, was not available. They would have a
community room on site and that would be an approximate 1900 square foot room that
would be for use by the residents, and not just the residents of Serrano Woods, but for the
residents of the neighborhood. The site would be open to the neighborhood and there
would be activities that would include computer training, after school tutoring and social
service programs for both adults and children and it would be a site that would be run by
the church. It was a location to expand what had started at the church at the Friendly
Center and that would be on their site. They had 150 parking spaces which were slightly
more than what was required; they were able to successfully manage that as they had
strict controls on occupancy. It was a gated community and they would not allow other
people to go on to the site and there was no need for residents to park off site. They were
anticipating LEAD gold on the Citrus project and the proposed project was a green
project. They would also apply for LEAD gold on the current project and the site would
contain a lot of landscaping. They wanted a concession on the height of the front yard
fence and it was higher than was normally permitted, it was a tubular steel wrought iron
fence and would not block anything.
Commissioner Buttress asked how long had he and his partners been in business?
Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2011
Page 17 of 20
Mr. Cottle stated he had been in the real estate business for over 35 years and Orange
Housing was started in 1990 and they had celebrated their 20 year in business. Every
affordable housing project that they had been involved in had never been sold; the very
first project on Pixley and the other on Walnut were still owned by them today. Those
projects appeared the same as when they were been built 15 years ago. It was never their
intention to sell their projects. It was a big deal to go through finding property, financing
and construction and he had not wanted to start over on projects.
Chair Steiner stated he assumed the project would be similar to the Citrus Grove project
in that there would be three story and two story buildings there.
Mr. Cottle stated he had just checked with his architect and the Citrus Grove apartments
were at a height of 35 feet and there would be similarities between the two projects, the
proposed project would have some heights of 36 feet.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for Public Comment. There was none. Chair Steiner
closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or
action.
Commissioner Imboden stated there was some discussion about the non - conforming
issues and developmental standards that existed on the Church property and he asked if
the development before them would cause any deficiencies?
Mr. Ortlieb stated it would not cause any; they existed on the ground currently.
Commissioner Imboden asked if Mr. Ortlieb could respond to the response from the
public on issues that had been raised; first in regard to a potential for increased traffic in
what was already a congested intersection on Meats and Tustin and the concerns were for
the impacts on traffic and if any traffic studies had been conducted?
Mr. Ortlieb stated a traffic study had not been completed. Essentially there was a
baseline as there had been a church with a school and the school would no longer exist
and therefore cancelled any potential impacts of the project; as a school would generate
more traffic trips vs. a residential use.
Commissioner Imboden asked for Mr. Ortlieb's response to the concerns regarding
construction traffic and the residual dust, dirt, noise and congestion and the
inconveniences it would cause?
Mr. Ortlieb stated there were standard conditions regarding grading operations, watering,
landscaping and completing that in phases if necessary, the other area was the air quality
impact analysis and there was not a trigger for a project of the proposed size that would
trigger a significant impact.
Commissioner Imboden stated if the proposed project were approved, the community
would have the opportunity; if there should be excessive levels of noise or dirt, to
Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2011
Page 18 of 20
contact the City and the City would investigate those issues.
Chair Steiner asked, as a matter of record, was the applicant in concurrence with the 82
Conditions of Approval?
Mr. Cottle stated yes.
Chair Steiner stated the letter from Faridoon Karamati and his concerns would be entered
into the record. He also wanted to read into the record that the project utilized good
architectural design and included appropriate set backs. The project met code
requirements which included required applications and procedures for deviations; filled
an affordable housing need in the City, utilized appropriate building materials and
provided integrated landscape theme and used landscaping to better massing of the
project and the surrounding uses, used landscaping to provide for the totality of the site;
provided for adequate on -site circulation and parking and based on the Mitigated
Negative Declaration reduced impacts to less than significant levels. It was a very fine
project and Staff had done a fine job of pulling all the complex components together.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he had met with the applicant last week regarding the
project and he agreed with the comments made by Chair Steiner, it was a well thought
out project and a good project for the City. Judging by previous developments and the
track record of the applicant, as an example Citrus Grove which was beautifully done and
a much needed affordable housing project in the City. It was a win -win situation for
affordable housing and for the church.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adopt PC Resolution 02 -11, approving
Design Review Committee No. 4504 -10; General Plan Amendment No. 2010 -002; Zone
Change No. 1257 -10; Conditional Use Permit No. 2803 -10; Major Site Plan 0639 -10;
Tentative Parcel Map 0027 -10; and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1824 -10- Serrano
Woods, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Imboden stated he shared the beliefs and comments put forth and it was a
win -win opportunity and provided affordable housing in the community.
Commissioner Merino stated Mr. Cottle and his firm had not brought bad things in front
of the Commission and every project that they had brought forth had been wonderful
projects and Citrus Grove was one, however, Citrus Grove was in a different type of
neighborhood and a different location and the impacts were different on that
neighborhood. He had a lack of comfort which would not allow him to support the
project. Commissioner Imboden had pointed out that the existing church property was
non - conforming. He believed that the proposed project would aggravate that non-
conforming status and would prevent it from ever becoming a conforming project ever
again. While the parking analysis might not be required by the EIR, that had not meant it
should not be done and in visiting the neighborhood and reviewing the issues that existed
he would have wanted to have some stipulations that would have given him more comfort
that the proposed project would not have a greater traffic or parking impact. Lastly, he
Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2011
Page 19 of 20
was not comfortable in picking or choosing lot coverage vs. FAR to make determinations
for a particular applicant's advantage; while the proposed project was deserving and
brought things they needed to the City he was not certain they could have accomplished
the same in another manner. With great regret to Mr. Cottle, there were issues that
prevented him from supporting the proposed project.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES`. Commissioners Buttress, Cunningham, Imboden, and Steiner
NOES: Commissioner Merino
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner stated prior to the adjournment he wanted to ensure that the vote was
recorded correctly for The Pump Room.
Recording Secretary, Sandi Dimick, read the vote as recorded: motion to approve the
proposed project made by Commissioner Cunningham, Second by Commissioner
Merino, all in favor Commissioner Cunningham, Commissioner Imboden and
Commissioner Merino. Opposed Commissioners Buttress and Chair Steiner.
(4) ADJOURNMENT:
Adjournment to the next regular Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for
Wednesday, February 23, 2011.
Commissioner Imboden made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Planning
Commission Meeting on February 23, 2011.
Commissioner Imboden stated he wanted to thank the Commissioners that he shared the
dais with and he had the utmost respect for each of them and although they had not
always voted along the same lines, he had tremendous respect and could not expect them
to always get it right. But all joking aside, both past and present Commissioners that he
had served with in what would have been 6 years next month he had the utmost respect
for. He wanted to thank City Staff for all that they had done in providing information and
fielding the difficult questions that the Commissioners put forth and keeping their cool in
the process and he respected them for that.
Commissioner Cunningham stated it had been a tremendous pleasure serving with
Commissioner Imboden and he had been a tremendous resource especially on Old Towne
issues and his expertise was appreciated and he was sad to see him go and he wished him
bon voyage.
Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2011
Page 20 of 20
SECOND: Commissioner Merino
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cunningham, Imboden, Merino and Steiner
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
MOTION CARRIED
Meeting Adjourned @ 8:46 p.m.