Loading...
2009 - September 9Planning Commission Minutes Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange APPROVED September 9, 2009 1 of 32 September 9, 2009 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner Amir Farahani, Traffic Engineer Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:47 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Items No. 1 and No. 2 Approval of Minutes from the regular Meetings of August 3 and August 17. No changes or corrections were noted. On the August 17 Minutes, Commissioners Merino and Whitaker would abstain as they had not been present. Item No. 3, General Plan Update. Chair Steiner asked for a list of the remaining components. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated there were 5 focus areas left for presentation and review, those focus areas were: Focus Area No. 3 S. Main/Uptown Orange Focus Area No. 4 W. Chapman Focus Area No. 6 Industrial Areas Focus Area No. 7 11th Street Focus Area No. 8 Eckhoff/Collins Focus Area No. 5, Old Towne, was continued to the next Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Steiner asked if there were any areas that would present a recusal for any of the Commissioners. Mr. Sheatz stated there were no areas on the Agenda that would require a recusal. Chair Steiner stated the hearing for Item No. 3 would not go beyond 10:00 p.m., in order to allow time for the continued Item No. 4. Commissioner Whitaker stated he had understood where there had been some debate on Item No. 4, and he felt the clarification for that issue would be brief and suggested moving Item No. 4 up on the Agenda to be heard first. Chair Steiner stated if there was no objection he would suggest moving Item No. 4 to be heard first. Mr. Sheatz stated he had not been contacted by any members of the public on the item and his presentation would be approximately 30 seconds in length. Page 1 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 2 of 32 Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, asked Commissioners Whitaker and Merino if they had reviewed the DVD from the August 17, 2009 PC Meeting? Commissioners Merino and Whitaker stated they had reviewed the minutes and the DVD from the August 17, 2009 meeting. Chair Steiner stated there was nothing further to review on the Agenda, and asked for any updates from Staff. Mr. Knight stated Sergeant Fred Lopez would no longer be the Orange Police Department's Planning Commission representative and Sergeant Ross Peterson would be his replacement. He asked if the Commissioners would want Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, to give an approximately 10 minute presentation on the how and why of the General Plan, and the process behind it? Ms. Pehoushek stated it was more of an informational presentation for the public audience. Commissioner Merino stated he had sensed some frustration from the public in wanting to get to the presentations of the Focus Areas and further review was not necessary. Chair Steiner stated that was his consensus as well. Chair Steiner asked Ms. Pehoushek if she was in receipt of correspondence from Environmental Services, LLC at 1863 N. Neville, and he asked what Focus Area that related to. Ms. Pehoushek stated she was not familiar with the letter. There was no further discussion. Administrative Session closed at 6:57 p.m. REGULAR SESSION: Chair Steiner stated there would be a reordering of the Agenda. Item No. 4 was a continuation from the last Planning Commissioner Meeting and it was a quick Agenda Item. There was one clarification item. Both Commissioners Merino and Whitaker were absent from that hearing, but had since had an opportunity to review the DVD recording of the meeting and had reviewed the Staff Report and Meeting Minutes. Commissioner Merino and Commissioner Whitaker both stated they had reviewed the DVD recording of the meeting and had reviewed the Staff Report and Meeting Minutes. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR METING OF AUGUST 3, 2009. Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the Minutes from the Regular Scheduled Planning Commission Meeting of August 3, 2009 as written. Page 2 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 3 of 32 SECOND: Commissioner Whitaker AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED (2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 2009. Commissioner Imboden made a motion to approve the Minutes from the Regular Scheduled Planning Commission Meeting of August 17, 2009 as written. SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Merino and Whitaker ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED (3) COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE -GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2009-0001 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 1815-09; LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -ORDINANCE NO. 12-09 The Comprehensive General Plan Update represents a complete updating of the City's 1989 General Plan (amended in 2005), including Land Use, Circulation and Mobility, Growth Management, Natural Resources, Public Safety, Noise, Cultural Resources (Historic Preservation), Infrastructure, Urban Design, and Economic Development Elements. The General Plan establishes a Community Vision supported by goals, policies, and implementation programs. Ordinance No. 12-09 adds Section 17.38.030 and 17.38.040 to the Orange Municipal Code relating to uses made non-conforming due to the General Plan Update and termination ofnon-conforming uses. Action on this item includes adoption of the City's updated Historic Resources Inventory. Due to the complexity of the program, multiple Planning Commission hearings have been scheduled for consideration of the General Plan Update. Tentative dates and organization of the meeting dates are as follows: 9/09/09 -Continued discussion of Land Use, Circulation & Mobility, and Growth Management Elements Page 3 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 4 of 32 9/21 /09 -Natural Resources and Cultural Resources Elements 10/5/09 -Public Safety, Noise, Infrastructure, Urban Design, and Economic Development Elements NOTE: The environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan update and its project alternatives were evaluated by Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) No. 1815-09, which was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et. seq. and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. The 45-day public review period was initiated on February 13, 2009 ending on March 30, 2009. Copies of the document were available for public review at the Orange Public Library & Local History Center (Main), Taft Branch, and El Modena Branch Libraries and at City Hall. The draft Ordinance Amendment is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because it involves a modification to standards affecting Focus Area-wide standards rather than a specific development project. There is no public review required. Chair Steiner stated at the last hearing the Focus Areas reviewed were Katella and Chapman, and the Focus Area for Old Towne had been continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of September 21, 2009. He would open the hearing with a review of Focus Area No. 3, S. Main. Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of General Plan Update, Focus Area No. 3 -South Main, consistent with the Staff Report. She stated in regard to issue areas and community feedback, Staff received a request on behalf of the property owner at 500 S. Main that the existing Commercial designation that applied to the property be changed to Urban Mixed Use, rather than the Urban Office Professional designation. The request was made as the Urban Mixed Use classification was more compatible with the property owner's long term plan for the property. Other feedback received by Staff included an objection to the proposed Land Use Change that accommodated additional residential units in West Orange and a particular concern was traffic congestion and potential high turn over rates from tenants in that area. There was also a concern for a lack of park land to serve additional residents and trail safety. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for public comments. There was none. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Whitaker stated he was reviewing the letter dated March 26 regarding 500 South Main Street and the proposed designation change for the Union Bank Square. He asked for Staff's perspective on the request for that change to Urban Mixed Use? ~;: , Page 4 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 5 of 32 Ms. Pehoushek stated it seemed like a logical request, she was not certain how public the 4 information was that the City had received in their discussions with the property owner. The types of uses the property owner planned for was consistent with the transition to a medical corridor and the uses and activities that supported not only the medical institutions in the area, but also the offices in the area. Commissioner Whitaker asked if Staff had any objection to the request by the property owner, as the proposed plan had the designation as Urban Office Professional. Ms. Pehoushek stated it was a logical request. Commissioner Whitaker asked if there would be more traffic with the Urban Mixed Use designation. Ms. Pehoushek stated she might call upon the City's Traffic Engineer to present the trip generation information and how that related to the use designation. Chair Steiner asked if she could describe the difference from a Planner's perspective of a Mixed Use and an Urban Office Professional Use. Ms. Pehoushek stated the Urban Office Professional Designation was intended to accommodate higher density developments, the types of developments that existed on the OCTA property or in the area around the Block of Orange, where there were some office towers. The Urban Mixed Use designation was a combination of not only Commercial and Office uses, but also included residential uses. The intent of the Urban Mixed Use would be to create an environment that included living, employment, shopping and entertainment opportunities. Both were for higher intensity developments, one incorporated a residential component, and the other would not. Commissioner Merino stated with the Urban Mixed Use the positive outcome would be, with both of the designations being relatively intense uses, with adding the Commercial component there would be the potential to provide the office workers with opportunities for going to lunch close by. Ms. Pehoushek stated with the Urban Mixed Use or other Mixed Use designations being proposed in the General Plan was not that they would necessarily be requiring a Mixed Use project to be built on every single site, but to provide a Land Use framework that would accommodate those properties where it made sense to develop those projects. Chair Steiner stated in reference to the trip generation inquiry, he asked the Traffic Engineer to provide that information. Commissioner Whitaker asked, with Urban Office vs. Urban Mixed Use and with 500 S. Main being a particularly heavy traffic area with some gridlock occurring in the middle of the day, which use would generate a greater trip usage? Traffic Engineer, Amir Farahani, stated generally the Mixed Use designation would have a lower trip generation. The idea was to incorporate Residential and Commercial in the Page 5 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes same general area to lower trip generation. September 9, 2009 6 of 32 Commissioner Merino stated how he interpreted the Traffic Engineer's statement was that the intensity of the visits to the medical offices that occurred in that area created a greater trip generation to go into those offices. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for any further discussion or action. Commissioner Whitaker stated with the exception for 500 S. Main to change the designation to Urban Mixed Use as opposed to Urban Office Professional, it would allow more flexibility to the land owner and create less traffic trips on the street. Staff had not felt that was taking away from the overall plan for the area and he would be in support of the proposed designation with the one exception. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion for a consensus vote to recommend that Focus Area No. 3, South Main, be submitted to the City Council as proposed with the exception of the property at 500 South Main, which would be the west side of Main Street, south of La Veta, to have a designation of Urban Mixed Use. SECOND: Commissioner Merino AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of General Plan Update Focus Area No. 4, West Chapman consistent with the Staff Report. She stated the City had received a number of letters from the Park Royal Mobile Home Park objecting the re- designation of the park from Low/Medium Residential to Urban Mixed Use. A number of concerns were expressed about the future potential of redevelopment for Park Royal and the loss of affordable housing options for those residing there. Many of those residents were seniors or financially constrained or disabled residents. There were also objections raised expressing concerns about additional residential units in West Orange, the particular issues were traffic congestion, high turn over associated with apartments, the lack of park land and trail safety. Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions for Staff. Commissioner Whitaker stated in reviewing the map, in reference to Park Royal Mobile Home Park, he asked which portion of the Focus Area had that referred to? Ms. Pehoushek stated Park Royal was on Rampart Street, if he was familiar with the two new large apartment complexes across from the Denny's/Motel 6, it was north on Rampart. There was a pretty large Mobile Home Park on that street. In reviewing the map it was the orange area designated on the map, just west of the Santa Ana River. Page 6 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 7 of 32 Chair Steiner asked for the particular street address of the affected community? Ms. Pehoushek stated 300 N. Rampart. Commissioner Merino asked the Traffic Engineer, Amir Farahani, what the factor of increase would be, between the Low/Medium Residential designation and the Urban Mixed Use? Was it a factor of 2%, 5% or 10%, between the different land use descriptions? Mr. Farahani stated it was dependent on the number of units proposed, as he mentioned previously, generally the Mixed Use had lower density and it varied from 5% to 15% of trip reductions. Commissioner Merino stated if they took the worse case scenario, the worse being that it would be built out to the highest density and the Urban Mixed Use was 15%, could it be more than that? Mr. Farahani stated he had not calculated the numbers. Commissioner Merino stated as a general rule of thumb, the difference between the two uses would be approximately 15%. Mr. Farahani stated it would be about 15%. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for public comment. Margarita Fleener, address on file, stated she was a resident of Park Royal. She had concerns regarding the land use change for her area. The proposed changes for housing and population would seriously impact the public services, schools, recreational facilities and traffic congestion. The area was impacted by existing housing and commercial use in Orange and also from the extensive building and elements in the Platinum Triangle of Anaheim. Park Royal Mobile Home Park provided affordable housing for young families as well as to many seniors, disabled residents and those on fixed incomes. It gave them an opportunity to afford a home and take care of their families on a small piece of land that they rented and maintained. Her response to 33-1 and 37-6, noted that the City intended to include the Mobile Home Park in the land use permitted in the Urban Mixed Use land designation and she asked why they needed the change? The proposed land use changes inferred to the current homeowners and perspective buyers that the City was objecting and the long term vision was to see Park Royal gone. She urged the Commission to maintain the Low/Medium Residential designation for the area. Ms. Fleener stated they lived at the Orange Crush and the traffic currently was very serious and very congested and anyone that traveled on Chapman at 5:00 understood what it was like to sit through five stop signs within less than a mile and it would get much worse with the construction and what was occurring in Anaheim and the Artic Project. Bobbie Magnusson, address on file, stated she had the concerns of most of the residents "` """ who resided in the mobile home park. If the land use designation was changed it would also change the zoning which would lead to the area no longer being a mobile home park. Page 7 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 8 of 32 As long as the area remained mobile home park zoned and with the Low/Medium Residential, residents would have an opportunity to keep their homes. The mobile homes were all that they had, and if they sold them in a better economy they could get from $100,000 to $150,000 for their homes. If the use was changed, the properties and their homes would become $50,000 to $60,000, if they were lucky. The homeowners were in their late 80's and probably most likely to have trust accounts for their children. With the proposed change in land use, it opened up a change and the property could be sold from underneath them and the residents would not have a place to live. As far as getting anything back in selling the park, they might get 1 to 2% of what they thought it was worth and it would leave many residents living on the streets. They had seen that happen in other areas. She asked the Commission to reconsider and leave the mobile home park alone. Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for any further discussion. Commissioner Whitaker stated currently there were a number of overlays in the uptown Orange area that allowed the various developments to occur. He asked what was the driving force in proposing one land use designation for the entire area and elimination of the overlays. Would anything be left as legal non-conforming? Ms. Pehoushek stated the rationale behind eliminating the overlays was that the Urban Mixed Use would accommodate everything that the various overlays were attempting to accomplish. The overlays that accommodated residential units in some areas would be captured by the Urban Mixed Use, and the overlays that had accommodated some of the higher density uses would be captured by the FAR that would be allowed. Nothing would become legal non-conforming. One of the things that they had looked at carefully was the mobile home park and the City recognized its importance as a component of affordable housing in the community. Was it the intent with the zoning that went along with the Urban Mixed Use, that it would allow a mobile home park to exist in the Urban Mixed Use area. On page LU29, there was a table that showed land use zoning consistency and the mobile home park designation was listed on the table. As those standards for zoning were being currently developed, there was nothing marked on that table for Mixed Use as of yet. Chair Steiner clarified that the reference to mobile home park was listed as MH. Ms. Pehoushek stated that was correct. As the project manager on the Mixed Use Zoning Project, she stated that mobile homes would be a permitted use in the Urban Mixed Use area. In the housing element which was also being updated, mobile home parks were being recognized as an affordable housing component. The intent was not to create mobile home parks as anon-conforming use. Chair Steiner asked if the designation of Urban Mixed Use would place mobile home parks in a legal non-conforming situation. "'`°" Commissioner Merino stated he echoed what the resident had asked, if the existing land use designation was going to be acceptable under the proposed change why was the Page 8 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 9 of 32 change being made and what was Staff driving towards in a larger planning perspective. He asked if there was a goal or conceptual plan for the area that was attempting to be achieved. Ms. Pehoushek stated, from a planning standpoint, there were a few dynamics in play. One of the things was the fact that there were areas of under utilized properties, such as areas characterized by large surface parking lots that could have the potential for in-fill developments with the possibility for residential uses included or the potential for repositioning of retail centers. The areas that were being discussed included UCI Medical Center, the Block of Orange, and a rapid transit line that would be going into service in the future. There were a number of dynamics that were coming together that they had seen in recent years, the Cinedome site that had developed into residential uses, the Ramada Inn and Drive-In sites had been developed into residential uses. Property owners got to a point where they perhaps wanted to do something different with their properties. The proposed land use designation would provide for a long term time line and provided flexibility for property owners. The dynamics of the area with the employment, the transit and all of those things lead to the Mixed Use designation. There was also a regional housing need notification that had come from the State level to designate areas in the City for future housing developments. Much of the City of Orange was established and the option for creating new locations for housing were commercial areas that, over the course of time, had aged and were in some instances better suited for housing based on the parcel sizes available and the property owner situation. There were several smaller sites that were owned by many property owners and they were looking at it from a long term development situation and from a future housing situation. From the State level there was quite a bit of legislative activity surrounding green house gas emissions and cities were being looked at in terms of their uses for development and transportation opportunities and how a city could plan for the future in reducing the amount of emissions generated. The emission generation was tied directly to vehicle miles traveled and the convenience where people worked, lived and shopped. That type of planning fed into the larger picture as well. Commissioner Merino stated he had not quite gotten his answer. He asked about the homeowner's question, if a mobile home was an acceptable land use within the change, why was the change being proposed? Ms. Pehoushek stated the mobile home owner was not ultimately the land owner and over the course of time there had been inquiries and contacts about that particular piece of property. The timing was certainly up to the property owner and there may never be a change or there might be a change. The city was responding to the potential for what could be happening in the market place as well. Currently the conversion of a mobile home park was a very complex process. Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated Ms. Pehoushek was stating that the land use change would not mandate a change; the change from Low/Medium Density to Urban Mixed Use would not mandate a change. As it stood, the area was zoned mobile home park. There was the General Plan and Zoning. The area was mobile home park zoned. An applicant could request to get more density to remove Page 9 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 10 of 32 the trailer homes and change the site to an apartment complex, and that could currently happen. Chair Steiner asked if that change could be done unilaterally, without any approvals. Mr. Knight stated the approvals would need to be made through the city through public hearings and to the City Council. The City was not mandating a change, they were looking at 20 years into the future and understanding if there needed to be change or if the homeowners would be protected by maintaining the same zoning district. The residents would have legal conforming mobile homes in the event they wanted to sell their homes. At some point in the future, if the property owner would want to seek a change, and the city was not mandating a change, but if a property owner wanted to make a change, the city was looking toward the future with those types of developments that Ms. Pehoushek had described. Commissioner Merino stated in some ways would the property become more attractive with the proposed change in use and make the property more valuable? Mr. Knight stated that was a very generalized statement. Obviously with more intensity on the property, ultimately it could create more value and it was a valid observation. Whether that would occur would be driven by market forces and a discussion by the property owners and all the residents. There were requirements and state law that would govern that process. Planning had done what it could to protect the property owners and to maintain the current zoning designation. If, in the future, the property owner was seeking a different use and the city had placed a different designation on the property that it wanted to see in the future, if there would be a change, and the City was not mandating any change, a change could occur or the area could remain the same. Chair Steiner asked if a change were to occur in the future, would it occur through a public procedure. Mr. Knight stated that was correct. There would be a Public Hearing and that would be before the City Council. The issues would be vented through that process. Commissioner Merino stated that would be true in either case, they were currently holding a Public Hearing for the re-designation in land use and the homeowners were present to voice their concerns, and yes there would be another hearing which became subjective and at the discretionary powers of the City Council and the Planning Commission to decide currently or in the future. Mr. Knight stated the City would contemplate a zoning change to Urban Mixed Use and there would be that discussion at some point in time. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or action. Commissioner Whitaker stated he understood where Staff was headed and the mobile -~ home park was a particularly delicate issue. His own feeling was that there were enough safeguards in maintaining the current zoning and the fact that California had a rather Page 10 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 11 of 32 strict mobile home residency law. If a park owner ever came to the City requesting a change in the site and wanted to close the mobile home park, there was a rather extensive noticing procedure and also compensation and mitigation measures that had to get passed by City Council that designated the compensation that would be given to the mobile home park residents. He stated that the proposal was not mandating change, but would allow potential changes to areas immediately adjacent to the future rapid transit hub and the Platinum Triangle area. He was supportive of the change and understood the need for flexibility for land use by property owners while protecting the existing residents. Commissioner Merino stated he took an opposite view of the situation. The opportunity for someone to seek a change and to deal with the individual leaseholders or property owners within the mobile home park was open to them as well. The fact that it was an allowable use within the proposed land use designation, he could not see why they could not protect the interests of the owners that had spoken during Public Comment and not wait until a developer approached the City to deal with the situation. He had understood Staff's perspective and to resolve the area and the reason to push it to a more urban development that would work with the Anaheim properties to the north, he also had to agree with the resident's perspective to allow them to deal with the property owner at a time that the change was requested. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion for a consensus vote to recommend that Focus Area No. 4, West Chapman be submitted to the City Council as proposed. SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: Commissioner Merino ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of Focus Area No. 6, Industrial Areas, consistent with the Staff Report. Ms. Pehoushek stated that Staff had received telephone contact from the owner of an Industrial parcel at the end of Cully Drive and the individual also submitted an email that was provided to the Commission during the administrative session. At the eastern most end of Cully Drive there was a parcel that was associated with Industrial activity that had a specific street address and that property owner requested retention in the Industrial designation for that property. Other properties that had been the subject of Staff contact had been residential structures that fronted Batavia at the point where Cully intersected Batavia. Those structures have been primarily converted into non-residential uses and occupied by businesses such as kennels, rental offices and various Industrial activities or served larger parcels behind them. Many of the individuals in those properties had contact with the City requesting retention in the Industrial Use designation that they currently had. ~°' °' Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Page 11 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 12 of 32 Commissioner Imboden stated that there had been correspondence from property owners on both sides of Batavia and asked if that was correct? Ms. Pehoushek stated that was correct. Commissioner Imboden stated on the property that was at the eastern most end of Cully Drive that was associated with an adjacent property, was that being used for Industrial purposes? The subject property in terms of the residential designation was being used residentially, and he asked if, in fact, it was being used in that manner? Ms. Pehoushek stated the property that fronted Pacific was a contractor yard and the bulk of the activity for that site was accessed from Pacific, and the business office and employee access was from Cully Drive. Commissioner Merino stated that he needed help in understanding, based on the previous study area, and he was in support of Staff's plan to deal with Cully, however, he was a bit concerned that there was an overall vision that Staff had for the previous land use area and in this proposed land use, it was the exact opposite of what had been done. He was concerned that there was inconsistency in creating a bubble of Industrial areas on Cully Drive. He asked for clarification on the proposal. Ms. Pehoushek stated she would provide him with a little context on Cully Drive. The area that was a County island had been annexed by the City a few years ago. At that point when it was annexed, the designation for that area of Cully was Industrial. When the public outreach process was being conducted for the General Plan Update, there were individuals that lived in single family residences on Cully that were not aware that their homes had an Industrial Land Use designation and during that process there was a rather large opposition in retaining the Industrial designation on Cully Drive. Over the course of time during those study sessions, Staff was directed to re-designate Cully Drive as residential. Commissioner Merino stated he understood the history of Cully Drive. The observation he was making was that there was a vision on the previous study area and Staff had not wanted to take an area and carve it out, such as the mobile home park site, and it appeared that the answer to that was within the Urban Mixed Use designation that was a category within the land use designation. With the current proposal, an area would be actually carved out and given a different land use designation. He asked if Staff had felt, with political pressure or from the input from the public, that it made sense to carve Cully Drive out? Ms. Pehoushek stated the representation of Cully Drive as residential was a result of direction provided to Staff during the study sessions. Commissioner Whitaker stated with the rapid transit area near Anaheim Stadium and the fact that there was an Urban Mixed Use area on Katella; he asked if Staff had considered any type of overlays for the Industrial areas? He had not wanted to have existing uses become legal non-conforming, however, he would want there to be flexibility. Would it not seem that those areas that in perhaps 20 years that were M1 today, that there could be Page 12 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 13 of 32 a market trend toward Urban Mixed Use or single family housing, and he asked if Staff had considered overlays such as the ones that had been placed on the Platinum Triangle where none of those businesses that existed were declared legal non-conforming and allowed projects to develop that were determined by the market place? Ms. Pehoushek stated Staff had not looked at Industrial areas as areas for anything other than Industrial. They had attempted to provide a balance between residential activities, employment generating areas and basically a revenue base of the City in the Industrial areas. It was important to understand that surrounding cities were phasing out their Industrial areas, while the City of Orange had a stable and diverse Industrial area and wanted to maintain the integrity of that area, and to provide a framework that would allow the companies that existed to remain in the City to generate revenue and employment opportunities. Staff had not looked at reducing the size any further than existed. Commissioner Whitaker asked if Ms. Pehoushek had looked at some of the letters that had been received from the property owners along Cully Drive. There were Industrial Use property owners that had not wanted the single family residential designation and he asked if Staff had come up with a way to essentially tackle what existed on the ground? He had not wanted anyone's residence to become legal non-conforming. Ms. Pehoushek stated in going out to that area and looking at the properties, it had not appeared that any of the properties that fronted Batavia were strictly for residential use, there was the kennel that appeared to have a residence as well as a kennel operation and one of the properties that they had received correspondence from, where an individual was residing in the house which was a caretaker type of situation. As the properties currently had an Industrial Use designation and had that designation for a number of years. On the issue of legal non-conforming on the properties that fronted Batavia, she had spoken with 3 of the property owners that represented the majority of the property owners, and all of them had objected the change to a residential use. Those property owners were interested in acquiring other properties. Chair Steiner opened the Public Comment portion of the meeting. Rick Hamm, addresses on file, stated he was the property owner on the property at the end of Cully. The property was approved Industrial. There had been construction companies on the premises for 20 years. He purchased the property approximately 15 years ago and had made improvements to the property. It was not residential. The site had a common driveway that went from Cully to Pacific. The construction trucks exited on Pacific and Staff generally entered from Pacific and there was not much activity on Cully. To bring the property back to residential would create anon-conforming situation and the property would require significant renovations and cost to return it to a residence. There was a small grass yard in the front, however, the back and side yards were paved. There was a warehouse in the back and there had been gas tanks on the property. The location was a prime location for a construction company. He currently leased the property. If the designation was returned to residential it would create a problem. Page 13 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 14 of 32 Llana Hamm, address on file, stated prior to purchasing the property the site was used by an asphalt company. They had placed the property on sewer and there were gas tanks installed which had since been removed. They had purchased the property because it was M1 property and the whole area was M1, there were kennels and there were all types of strange things on that street. It was a residential street in the middle of an Industrial area. Everyone's backyard was Industrial. The homes were purchased because they were in an Industrial area, and they were not for people to live in. Their property was accessed from Pacific Street and not from Cully Drive. The back address had a big gate and that was the mailing address, 2314 Pacific. She had spoken with Mr. Knight and he had looked up the site on an aerial map and had stated that clearly the area was Industrial as far back as the maps went and he assured her that there would be no problem changing the designation. When she had spoken with Ms. Pehoushek she had been told that the designation from residential had not been changed yet and that was the reason she was present to explain what the property was used for. Chair Steiner stated he wanted to clarify a speaker card that he had retained from the August 3, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting from James Streitz. He asked if Mr. Streitz was present. He was not. It was noted for the record that he had been present at the August 3, 2009 meeting and he had listed himself as opposed to the Focus Area. Alan Smith, address on file, stated he was an Orange native and so was his father and grandmother. He had watched the development of Orange over a number of years and he wondered, on the Carleton re-zoning, there were 4 tilt up Industrial loading docks and it was clearly Industrial, and to change that to Commercial would be difficult as the site was Industrial. If he understood correctly what Ms. Pehoushek had stated, to reinvent their property to another use would be very difficult for his type of property to convert to Commercial. His site was strictly a large 20,000 square foot tilt up with very little parking. If he had the opportunity he would want to purchase the building next to him or behind him, and with the proposed re-zoning that would make it very unattractive and he had not understood why the City would want to change an Industrial Use to a potential Commercial Use. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commissioner for discussion or action. Commissioner Merino stated he had a bit of difficulty with the study area and it appeared there were a lot of changes being made to accommodate individual concerns. Cully was an area that was a bit of a mess, there was a lot of difficult issues and he was not certain that all the options had been explored to create an acceptable solution. He was not fully sold in changing some of the areas to Industrial and the information presented was sufficient reasoning to make that change. He was leaning toward not supporting the proposed use change or to have the Focus Area return to Staff for more work with public input. Mr. Knight stated he wanted to provide a clarification item that the last speaker with the address of West Carleton was actually on the Focus Area for Katella, and not in the Industrial Focus Area. That item could be brought back up or at the September 21, 2009 ~~ meeting if the Chair wished to have additional information on that item. The straw votes were not totally binding and would allow them to go back and review those areas to Page 14 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes include the additional input. September 9, 2009 15 of 32 Commissioner Whitaker stated if he recalled correctly, there were substantial changes to the Katella Avenue Focus Area. In the entire General Commercial Zone they had proposed an overlay that would allow the existing Industrial Uses and those concerns had been addressed. If when the consensus resolution was brought back from Staff they could review the manner in which the Industrial Uses had been dealt with and they could bring it back if it would come back up for a vote. Commissioner Whitaker stated his concern on the Industrial Focus Area was that he was not certain how to deal with Cully Drive without spot zoning individual properties. He had not wanted to overuse the term overlay, but he happened to like them. The question for Staff would be, due to the large number of light Industrial Uses in the Cully area, would there be a way to combine Low Density Residential with an overlay inside the area to provide for the residents to allow them to keep their homes, get their loans and sell their properties as single family residences? In reviewing the letters received from the business owners on the west side of Batavia, that would have single family residential with the proposed use change and those on Pacific would have the same designation and he had a hard time with that recommendation. He asked if there was a solution that Staff was recommending for that area. Ms. Pehoushek stated in that particular case Staff had not spoke of providing for the uses with overlays. They had been moving forward with the proposed land use change without it falling into a spot zoning situation. If the Commission went the route of leaving the properties that fronted Batavia with an Industrial designation and the parcel at the end of Cully, it would not create any potential problems and she asked the Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, if he had anything to add? Mr. Sheatz stated they had briefly spoken about the issue and Ms. Pehoushek's description was adequate. Commissioner Whitaker stated the contiguity of the Industrial properties next to the ones on the side of Batavia with respect to the property that abutted Pacific would be logical to push those into the Industrial Use area with the remainder of the properties becoming R1. Commissioner Merino stated he could understand a long term vision for the area being something. Would Staff want the residential migrating out, some sort of vision with the island in the larger Industrial context; would Staff want a long term vision such as the ones they had for other study areas. He asked if it would be possible to create a micro area such as the Depot Area. Would it have some logic to zoom in and move the area in a particular direction and with public input and would the public buy in? Ms. Pehoushek stated the Cully cul-de-sac was a pretty small confined space, regardless of the number of parcels involved. The long term perspective could be what was already occurring on the west side of Batavia where Industrial property owners had purchased properties as they had come up for sale and the surrounding Industrial properties would -- be acquired to ultimately meld into a larger Industrial area. Page 15 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 16 of 32 Commissioner Merino asked when those parcels were purchased, would the property owner be required to seek a change of use, and would they have that option available to " them at that time. Ms. Pehoushek stated it would be reasonable that a property owner would acquire several parcels and then seek a change. Commissioner Merino stated with that occurring, the residential island would essentially be whittled away by the Industrial property owners, where Cully would shrink until it no longer existed. Ms. Pehoushek stated a point that could be made would be that any proposal that would come forward for a General Plan Amendment would need to be presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council for a Public Hearing. It would be subject to approval. Commissioner Merino stated it appeared Staff would be prolonging the inevitable that would come to them at a future date. Ms. Pehoushek stated that was possible. Commissioner Merino stated it appeared that Staffs vision was that the Industrial Area would eventually consume the residential area, and he asked if that was a correct perception. Ms. Pehoushek stated that logically the area would become one large block of an Industrial district. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or action. Commissioner Imboden stated he would prefer that they explore another option, whether it is the peripheral properties that were currently being used as Industrial properties fall to the Industrial side. He understood that the proposed use for the focus area was in response to the property owners in that area, but they were also hearing input from the property owners of the Industrial sites in the area. He had not understood why Staff would want to apply a new identification to the properties that would not reflect what was being done there. He understood where the proposal came from, and why Staff had brought it forth, but in understanding what existed on the ground and the future interest of the property owners, he would want them to attempt to carve it away if that was a possibility. Chair Steiner asked what Commissioner Imboden proposed that they do for the Focus Area? Commissioner Imboden stated in moving ahead with the proposed designation, he would want the property at the east end of Cully that connected with Pacific to be an Industrial Use designation as well as the properties that fronted Batavia. Page 16 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 17 of 32 Commissioner Cunningham stated he agreed with what had been stated, and Cully was not a logical place. It appeared they were moving from one extreme to the other, there was a small residential area and an Industrial Area and the City would wave a wand and change the use to residential. That was not reality; he would rather take an approach that Commissioner Whitaker recommended, such as an overlay, which would allow the forces to work themselves out in the years ahead. Was it a trend toward Industrial or Residential? He felt it said something about the economy that property owners were objecting to a residential designation on their property and generally it was the other way around. He would want to see those properties that had an Industrial use designation retain that, and that there would be a solution that allowed both uses. Chair Steiner stated hypothetically, if there was a majority of the Commission that supported exploring overlays, and he was getting the sense that it was not something that they would want to just do, and possibly the potential for such a solution would merit some further exploration. He asked what her thoughts were on that. Ms. Pehoushek stated she would defer that question to John Bridges, the City's General Plan Consultant. Commissioner Merino asked if someone could explain how an Industrial and a Residential overlay would work as those uses seemed entirely incompatible. Mr. Bridges stated they had gone the other way with this proposal to simplify the land use designations. Overlays were used in General Plans; however, they tended to complicate situations by placing another layer of possibilities on top of another land use category. He had recommended having clear land use categories and both State Law and City processes allowed for changes to those categories based on an individual property owner's request or a City action. He would not recommend an overlay, as they were speaking about two distinctly different land uses, a Low Density Residential category surrounded by Industrial Uses. Unlike the situation on West Chapman where there was a land use category of Urban Mixed Use which allowed other uses, there was not an Industrial category that would allow residential. He thought Commissioner Merino's characterization of eventually the Industrial would take over the residential would be likely in that area and the residential may go away in the future. As Ms. Pehoushek had pointed out, there were many residents who had come to the workshops expressing their concern in identifying the area as just Residential. Chair Steiner stated there appeared to be as many opinions on the item as there were uses. He was not un-persuaded by both arguments that had been made, he acknowledged that there was a process in place that would allow the residential uses to slowly be eliminated. The process was involved and lengthy and encumbered by a very bureaucratic process. He understood the concern with overlays and the concerns expressed by Commissioner Merino with the overlay in permitting two incompatible uses and there was the concern by Commissioner Whitaker in creating non-conforming uses. Quite frankly it was a bit of a goat rodeo. Commissioner Imboden stated he was willing to explore either direction. He asked Ms. Pehoushek if the properties as they stood today were legal non-conforming. Page 17 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 18 of 32 Ms. Pehoushek stated when the properties were annexed from the County, the General Plan and zoning were inconsistent. There was an Industrial General Plan designation and a Residential zoning. The residential uses that existed were not consistent with the General Plan and they had not been consistent with the General Plan even before they had been annexed. Commissioner Imboden stated it was all in response to what was on the ground and the interest of existing property owners. There were a large number of property owners that were concerned with protecting the residential character of Cully Drive. They admitted they were people living in homes in the middle of an Industrial neighborhood, but it was what they wanted it and the proposal for the Focus Area responded to that. There were property owners at the peripheral of Cully Drive that were using their properties that were more aligned to the current General Plan. He had some concern that an overlay would protect both of those interests. He was leaning more towards accommodating both sides, and if there were property owners who bought properties in the future and wanted to request a land use change, they could go through that process. Although it could be a complicated process, it needed to be in the area that abutted Residential Uses to Industrial Uses. Commissioner Merino asked if there could be the option to leave the area alone. The area was a mess, but it was a mess that worked. Ms. Pehoushek stated if they left the area alone, the next step in the process under State Law was that the General Plan and Zoning needed to be consistent. They would return to the Cully Drive area and designate it as Industrial. Commissioner Whitaker stated he had been at several of the workshops in 2005 where there had been concerns expressed by Cully Drive residents that in 2004 and 2005 because their properties had been annexed in attempting to refinance, they were charged more by their lenders due to the legal non-conforming status of their properties. There had been a refinance boom going on in 2004 and 2005 and many residents were not aware that their properties carried that land use designation until they had applied for refinancing of their properties. He felt it was important that it was incumbent upon the Commission to make their land uses consistent with their uses. Chair Steiner asked if he was recommending achieving that through overlays. Commissioner Whitaker stated an overlay would be one way, but Commissioner Imboden's recommendation was persuasive. At this point he would be agreeable to carve off the properties at the end of the street. Chair Steiner stated it appeared that the Commission was moving in the general idea of proceeding in the direction of Commissioner Imboden's recommendation. Commissioner Merino stated he was not certain what that direction was. ~"'°' Commissioner Whitaker stated he felt that Commissioner Imboden had explained it as well as he could. Page 18 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 19 of 32 Commissioner Merino stated not clear enough for his purposes. Commissioner Imboden stated he would re-state his direction in a motion and asked if there was any further discussion with the Focus Area before they moved forward? Commissioner Imboden made a motion for a consensus vote to recommend that Focus Area No. 6, Industrial Area, be submitted to the City Council as proposed, with the exception of those parcels on Cully Drive abutting Batavia on the east and west sides. These area should be brought into the surrounding use of Light Industrial as well as the property at the eastern end of Cully Drive with the address of 515 Cully Drive. Commissioner Merino stated it appeared that they were moving toward spot land use designations and he was concerned with that. Commissioner Whitaker stated that with Mr. Sheatz's and Ms. Pehoushek's explanation of contiguity, he was comfortable with the motion and he would second the motion. SECOND: Commissioner Whitaker AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: Commissioner Merino ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of Focus Area No. 7 -Lemon Street consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Merino asked Ms. Pehoushek what had driven the land use change. The area was not much larger than the area of Cully which they had previously discussed. Ms. Pehoushek stated the particular area they were discussing was adjacent to apartments on Hoover and Wilson that were undergoing renovations. When Staff began the General Plan Update there were various owners from the larger parcels who were actively marketing their properties residentially, despite the Industrial designation. There were a lot of different dynamics and interests in the area at a point in time when the land use alternatives were being formulated. The thinking was that the areas east of Lemon provided critical land mass areas for potentially revitalizing the residential aspect of the area to allow the area to take on a stronger neighborhood feel. The concept moved forward to designate the area Medium Density Residential. In recent months the City approved a General Plan Amendment that accommodated an affordable housing unit on one of the parcels on Lemon. Commissioner Merino stated it appeared that the last sentence of her statement summed it up, that the City had an interest in a future affordable housing project. . ,. Page 19 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 20 of 32 Ms. Pehoushek stated there was that activity in the area. In the inception of the project in 2004 when the economy was in a different state, Staff had received frequent inquiries from the public about potential residential developments on some of the parcels in the Lemon area. With the change in the economy, there had been a change of perspective. Commissioner Merino asked if that meant that the assumption was no longer valid, and it could be a toss-up at this point. Ms. Pehoushek stated the City still believed the area was in transition and there were properties that existed that had the potential for different viability. At the moment there had not been a lot of investment in the area, with the exception of Brenna Lane. Commissioner Merino stated there was the railroad that went through the area on the west side. He asked if there had been correspondence from some of the owners of the Industrial properties in the area that stated there would need to be mediation required to convert the area to residential and that mediation would be tremendous. Had Staff received such letters? Ms. Pehoushek stated yes they had received letters from the Industrial property owners in the area. Commissioner Merino asked if she concurred with the statements. Ms. Pehoushek stated she was not familiar with the hazardous materials conditions that existed. The letters were submitted during the Public Comment period during the EIR. Chair Steiner stated he wanted to note, for the record, that the earlier name he had called for Public Comment, James Streitz, was also the signature that was on a letter that was received August 3, 2009, with a heading of Environmental Services, LLC. with an office in Santa Ana. The letter listed a number of uses that would be disallowed if the General Plan Amendment was approved. Commissioner Whitaker stated he was reviewing a map of the area and he asked which parcels on Lemon had been re-designated by the City Council as affordable family housing. Ms. Pehoushek stated it was the parcel just north of Brenna Lane where Wilson intersected with Lemon. The area was pointed out on the map. Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated the parcel was designated as Medium Density Residential. Commissioner Whitaker stated there was a more updated Industrial Park just south of Brenna Lane, with parking in front and he asked if they had heard from that property owner. That property had appeared to be fairly leased. Ms. Pehoushek stated she was not certain if they had heard from that property owner. Page 20 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 21 of 32 Commissioner Whitaker stated with the change to Medium Density Residential any of the Industrial uses would then be considered legal non-conforming. Ms. Pehoushek stated that was correct. There was a companion ordinance that had been prepared to address legal non-conforming status in the area as well as in the Katella Corridor. Commissioner Cunningham stated if he understood correctly, if the Industrial operations that existed now went out of business, those property owners would have 12 months to find another tenant and if that would not take place during that period of time, the grandfathered Industrial Use would go away. He asked if that was correct? Ms. Pehoushek stated with the existing zoning ordinance there was a 6 month time frame, with the proposed Ordinance Amendment the time frame would be expanded to 12 months. That applied to single tenant Industrial properties. In the case of an Industrial Park or multiple tenant property, if a majority of the property was occupied and in use, that would maintain the legal non-conforming status. Commissioner Cunningham asked if the use change had been driven by regional housing requirements and was that part of the reason to drop Residential Zoning in that area? Ms. Pehoushek stated the initial motivation was primarily to come up with a concept to revitalize that particular neighborhood. The Industrial users had issues with the apartment dwellers and Glassell on the west side was a natural breaking point with the railroad being another natural breaking point to the Industrial areas. Going south on Collins there was quite a bit of Industrial area that led to the Depot area. The initial motivation was how to assemble a greater critical mass area that, in 20 years, could be revamped into a larger master development situation. The opportunity to create more housing fed into the regional housing need and the possible opportunity to provide affordable housing. Commissioner Cunningham stated he had met with the property owner that Ms. Pehoushek had referenced earlier; he had explained that during an earlier time period that property owner had been interested in residential uses. With the market disappearing, he wanted to make note that although that property owner had been interested a few years ago in residential uses, currently that was not the case. Commissioner Cunningham stated he had not seen by Staff a real justification for a change in zoning to residential, in light of the uncertain future of residential development. He had heard the discussion regarding transitions, but he was not certain the trend would be toward residential and he was curious why Staff had chosen the direction of residential development. Chair Steiner stated it appeared that the move toward a change to Residential Use was market driven. He shared some of the concerns of his colleagues. If at one moment in time the current market situation had driven the decision to change the use, as proposed, why wouldn't a market based determination similarly drive their current decision? Ms. Pehoushek stated that was a good question. One of the messages that they had heard from the property owners back in the day was that the nature of the particular Industrial Page 21 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 22 of 32 properties, and not all of them, but some of the older properties were not offering amenities to current Industrial space seekers. Some of the tenants that were in transition were having difficulties finding Industrial tenants. She was not a real estate expert, but she would leave it to the Industrial tenants to share that information. Chair Steiner stated it was mentioned briefly, in extending the time frame from 6 to 12 months, was she familiar with that proposed ordinance? Ms. Pehoushek stated it was a part of the Commissioner's packet and that information was provided at the August 3, 2009 meeting. That component was designed specifically to accommodate particular property owners that would find. that they were in a situation where they had an Industrial property that they would be forced to market. Chair Steiner stated the proposal to extend the time frame from 6 to 12 months would figure into some of their determinations to change the area to a residential use, in as much as it seemingly acknowledged the gravity of the imposition of the re-designation. Ms. Pehoushek stated it was a significant shift in the Land Use Policy. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for Public Comment, and stated he had met with Peter Whittingham. Commissioners Cunningham and Whitaker stated they had met with him also. Peter Whittingham, address on file, stated he represented the property owner, Hagar Pacific, at 341 W. Collins and referenced the area on the map. The purpose of his comments were to ask that the Commission formally reject the proposed Land Use designation to Medium Residential Use and urged them to recommend to the City Council a Land Use designation that was consistent with the current Industrial Zoning designation, with that being Industrial maximum density of .75 FAR. The approximately 7 acre site was bordered on the west by approximately 900' of railroad tracks and on the north and east by other Industrial properties and Collins to the south. The property was currently home to roughly 76,500 square feet of tilt up and metal buildings that were built in 1960. The area was better known as the commercial metal forming site and its use as a manufacturing facility was consistent with the current Industrial Zoning. The property owner was disturbed by various elements of the proposed designation; none more so than the thought of amulti-family development within such close proximity of the frequently used rail line. Beyond the safety hazard, diesel locomotive emissions were among the most hazardous and toxic emission regulated by the EPA and the office of Environment Health and Hazardous Assessment. Amulti-family development would undoubtedly be home to many children and elderly residents who would be classified as sensitive receptors and be at greater risk to the exposure to locomotive emissions. The properties across the rail lines were proposed to retain their Industrial designation, further calling in the logic for adding a Residential Use designation into the area. With the health and safety concerns, one would also need to consider the inherent factors of noise, dust and visual aesthetics. City Staff had mentioned that the proposal included an Ordinance Amendment extended from 6 to 12 months, the grandfather period, for replacement of non-conforming uses; frankly that was a misnomer, no matter how long a period those properties had that ran along the rail line, they were not suited to family developments. Page 22 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 23 of 32 To Commissioner Whitaker's question about the project that Ms. Pehoushek mentioned, it was worth noting that the property had not abutted the railroad tracks. Hagar Pacific owned a number of Commercial, Industrial, Retail and Residential properties in Southern California and elsewhere and wanted to maximize the value of their properties, their knowledge of real estate and the capital market was considerable and they believed the change in land use to Residential would reduce the value of their property. The City's goal to develop residential property could be achieved elsewhere, but the proposed area was not one of those locations. To the question anticipating a potential overlay, the property owner believed that would not increase property value but would be a poor land use tool. For this and other reasons that were raised during the Public Comment period and included within the EIR, he respectfully encouraged the Commission to revise the land use designation to an Industrial Use which would provide for the same range of uses that had been afforded the property owners of the area. Laura Thomas, address on file, stated she was on the Advisory Committee and she had the opportunity to be a part of that 5 years ago, which was a long time ago, and as the proposal had been brought up she wanted to share with them the spirit of what those discussions had been. The thought was regarding the area along Lemon, Industrial with some unique buildings, as the businesses would transition out, that the buildings would evolve into unique loft properties instead of having to demo the buildings and start over. That was the spirit of it; it was along those lines of not wanting to totally wipe out the buildings. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action. Commissioner Merino stated the proposed Land Use change had not made sense to him. Even if they were to not take the safety concerns, he had been too many City Council meetings over the years and there had been many concerns addressed with residential projects that ran along the railroad lines. They sought quiet zones to mitigate some of those issues. In placing residential areas, of any sort, next to rail lines, he believes creates more problems for the City. Whether the City wanted to build low income housing, which made no sense next to rail lines, as those residents would suffer the same issues. In terms of resolving the issues with the adjacent properties and the existing residential, if higher density residential complexes would be added that would increase the amount of parking demands and make those areas much larger than the Industrial Uses that existed. The Industrial sites had a relatively low parking demand. In placing residential developments, there would be an increase in parking and traffic. For a number of reasons he believed the proposed change was not the wisest decision and the market had also changed. Commissioner Whitaker stated he had an interest in having more housing in particular areas and he knew of folks who were interested in the area around Hoover and Wilson, however, when looking at what existed on those sites, there were facilities that were actually fairly nice, fairly new and had a decent street appearance. With the City having ~'`~ changed the General Plan designation on the one parcel that abutted Brenna with apartments going in, he could understand that possibly having the 3 parcels on the north Page 23 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 24 of 32 of Brenna having a designation of Medium Density Residential. He could not see anything in the Industrial Park to the south changing in designation, there was no blight in that area and the area was too complex to attempt to change the use. Commissioner Imboden stated his overall response to the proposal was brought forth by interested property owners and where the market may have been headed, they had seen a significant shift. He had initially thought that he might be asking for a change in the proposed ordinance to extend it beyond the additional 6 months, but now he was starting to see that perhaps that approach would not fit into the current market. His major response was to allow what had happened in the past when needed property owners could come forth to the City, and what was unique was that the proposed study area contained rather large parcels. Most of those could be developed individually as residential developments and he appreciated Staff's interest in seeing the potential for a development of larger master planned developments, however, he felt the market was not in their favor for those types of developments. Commissioner Imboden stated that he could be persuaded by the comments heard .that there were natural lines of demarcation and he could consider those properties having a change in designation. Commissioner Cunningham stated the proposal struck him as a plan created in greater prosperity with the vote being held in a time of a really deep recession. Market conditions had changed and if they were to move forward as proposed, an outcome of having property owners losing their Industrial tenants and not being able to find buyers for conversion to residential properties. The City would end up with less economic activity on those sites. He drove by the area several times a week and he had not thought of it as a residential area. Glassell was the natural line of demarcation, with the restaurants and homes on one side and there were mobile homes and really ratty apartments further up, and the Industrial area, and that was the reality of what existed. To re-designate the area as residential had not made sense from a Planning perspective and he opposed the project area in totality. Chair Steiner stated he was persuaded by Commissioner Whitaker's comments, and he would not support having the land use designation being change wholeheartedly. One of the reasons he would not support that was that it would not be consistent with what existed, however, Commissioner Whitaker's comments for the parcels north to allow those to be designated Medium Density Residential. To the immediate east of those sites was also residential. He would be supportive of Commissioner Whitaker's suggestion. Commissioner Cunningham asked for a clarification of Commissioner Whitaker's suggestion? Commissioner Whitaker stated, referencing a parcel on the map, what was already designated a Medium Density Residential, the thought that everything north of the new apartment complex that was going in that was immediately adjacent to other apartment complexes, that those sites could be designated in the direction of Staff's proposal to Medium Density Residential. He stated that all other areas could be left as Industrial. Commissioner Cunningham stated that made a good deal of sense to him. Page 24 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 25 of 32 Commissioner Whitaker made a motion for a consensus vote to recommend that Focus Area No. 7, Lemon be submitted to the City Council to approve the Medium Density Residential land use for the 3 parcels north of Brenna Lane Industrial Park, and that for the remainder of the Focus Area to reject that designation and leave those sites as Industrial Uses. SECOND: Commissioner Imboden AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: Commissioner Merino ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of Focus Area No. 8, Eckhoff/Collins consistent with the Staff Report. Commissioner Whitaker stated he was looking at his General Plan book and at the Staff Report and one was referenced as Eckhoff Street/Collins and the other was referenced as Eckhoff Street/Orangewood? Ms. Pehoushek stated they were the same Focus Area. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Imboden stated for clarification, as it was a bit difficult to tell, on the proposal that was being presented he could not understand the separation from neighborhood scale operation to Industrial Park Use, and he asked for clarification? Ms. Pehoushek stated everything with a purple coloration was currently Industrial zoned and developed with office. Commissioner Imboden stated everything west of Poplar Street was taken to but not including the properties on Sequoia. Ms. Pehoushek stated that was correct. Chair Steiner stated there were no Public Comment cards received on the item and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action. Commissioner Merino stated the proposal made perfect sense to him and he understood Staff's rationale and it was the right thing to do and felt that was the reason the City had not received property owner or resident input or opposition. The proposal was a good move for the area and he was in support of the change. Commissioner Whitaker stated much of the area had an FAR of .6 and it was going to a 1.0 FAR. Page 25 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 26 of 32 Ms. Pehoushek stated one of the fundamental shifts that had occurred in the land use designation with the various Industrial designations. In terms of the Light Industrial district, those had a floor area ratio of .4, and some with a floor area ratio of .6. As Staff had worked through the fiscal and market analysis in the early stages of the project and floor industrial spaces in looking toward the future; it seemed strategic to provide greater development potential for Light Industrial properties and the reason for the consolidation of FARs and an increase in the level to 1.0. Another thing found in some areas of the City with Heavy Industrial uses, were those sites that had a maximum FAR of 1.5, but were largely underdeveloped based on that FAR. There was a reduction made in the development capacity of the Heavy Industrial and the associated traffic capacity was shifted to the Light Industrial areas. Commissioner Whitaker stated everything was being taken to the three story height limit and in taking the inventory was there anything between the railroad tracks and Orangewood that was over three stories? Ms. Pehoushek stated no. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or a motion. Commissioner Merino made a motion for a consensus vote to recommend Focus Area No. 8 -Lemon, be submitted to the City Council for approval as proposed. SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Chair Steiner stated the Agenda indicated that the discussion would be on Land Use Circulation, Mobility and the Growth Management element for the August 3, 2009 Meeting and on September 9, 2009 the discussion would be on Natural and Cultural Resource Elements, seeing that neither had been addressed, he suggested that they would continue the hearing until 10:00 p.m. and begin the discussion on Land Use Circulation, Mobility and the Growth Management element. Mr. Knight stated that was fine and the Growth Management element was on the Agenda for September 21, 2009. Chair Steiner stated he was in receipt of speaker cards for the Circulation element and he would hear that after a 5 minute break. The meeting resumed with a presentation from Staff. Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of the Circulation and Mobility element consistent with the Staff Report. Page 26 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 27 of 32 Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Merino stated one of the things that the Commission was being asked to approve was the current street designations in Old Towne, as OCTA had not allowed the City to downgrade them yet. He asked if that was correct. Ms. Pehoushek stated that was correct, and the consistency was very important to the City, in terms of eligibility for roadway funding. Commissioner Merino stated the problem he had with that was clearly the community and Staff, as they were pursuing downgrades. He would like to see the streets aligned with the desires of the community. The streets would not be widened for the larger OCTA plan, but they should align with the desires of the community to not be widened. The Commission was being asked to comply with the fact that it was that way, but they had not wanted it as proposed, and how could he square his vote that would mitigate his concern. They wanted to see a downgrade on those streets, but he was being told he would not have that option, as there was the need to comply with the OCTA`s plan. Ms. Pehoushek stated one of the things important to know about the Circulation element was that it involved documents that stated the City intended to work with the OCTA to downgrade those streets, and there was also an item in the implementation plan, which was specifically program No.V, on page 42 that played out the City's intention. She deferred further questions to the Traffic Engineer. Traffic Engineer, Amir Farahani, stated during the process of downgrading they had sent correspondence to OCTA to downgrade Walnut Avenue, Cambridge and La Veta. They looked at other arterials, Chapman from Lemon to Grand and Glassell from Le Veta to Walnut. The existing MPAH designation was for four lanes, and they requested that there be a downgrade to two lanes. In looking at arterials surrounding the Plaza that would impact the existing and future traffic concerns on Glassell and Chapman, OCTA was inclined to do that, but the only issue was the time frame. Also, Staff had to come up with some means, and the Plaza was the best place to allow the downgrade to two lanes. It had not seemed that there was any big problem, with the exception of timing. Commissioner Merino asked Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Sheatz if the Commission could make a recommendation to the City Council that the Planning Commission supported Staff's recommendation, however, it would be contingent upon OCTA's approval of the downgrade? Chair Steiner asked Commissioner Merino to hold that questions until after they had heard Public Comment. He understood the question, and it was a good question, it would be better asked upon forming a motion. Commissioner Cunningham stated he was attempting to get his head around all the letters that the Planning Commission had received from the OTPA. The OTPA was utterly convinced that the General Plan Update would result in Glassell and La Veta becoming ~`~"" four lane thoroughfares. He stated what they were attempting to do was to have the City be in sinc with the county and the MPAH, but there would be no intention in Page 27 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 28 of 32 implementing the change. He got the impression that the reason for the way it was being done was to get Measure A money and that there would be no intention for the future of turning those areas into four lane highways. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Farahani stated they were classifying it as two lane arterials instead of calling the streets residential. They were all placed in the documents as two lane facilities and it would not take any benefits away. Any moment a request would be brought forward for traffic calming or neighborhood permit parking it would all be based on an individual case basis. The new designation would be submitted under the description of two lanes. Commissioner Cunningham stated he wondered where the OTPA had gotten the impression that the streets would become four lanes. His recollection was that the information was a yes, but the City would not really be doing it. Ms. Pehoushek stated by purely looking at the definition of roadway classifications under the definition, the area could technically be widened to a four lane street. That was acknowledged through the General Plan process. The roadway was designated in a certain way, but in the context of Old Towne, it would not be feasible. Chair Steiner stated what he was hearing was that to the extent that a person were under the impression that the roads could become four lanes, it was Ms. Pehoushek's speculation that it was arrived from the definition only. Ms. Pehoushek stated it was an issue similar to the Cully Drive situation, the streets had been a certain way and the designation had been the same for years, and because there had been discussion through the process, it was something that had been in place for years. Commissioner Merino stated they were not just speaking about it, the Commission would be taking a consensus vote on an issue that would reinforce or revalidate the fact that they understood there was the potential of a four lane highway. He wanted it to be made clear that there was a valid concern over that issue. Ms. Pehoushek stated it was important to note that the Circulation element was not just something on a map, but Staff's intention for Old Towne. Commissioner Imboden stated on the downgrades that Staff spoke about, they had shown up in the final EIR. Prior to that in the draft EIR, the downgrades were not discussed. He was going back to the question of why was there so much concern if it was never going to happen; and it was in the initial documents stating that it was the direction that the City had intended to move in. Regardless of whether it would actually happen or not, that was what was in print. Ms. Pehoushek stated on the physical map itself, yes. In the text of the draft and the public review and the text of the EIR there was discussion about the widening of streets in Old Towne not being feasible. There had been confusion with the public about what ~" the City's intention was. During the public review period and the time that the Traffic Division was working with the OCTA and Staff, information was received that the Page 28 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 29 of 32 OCTA was finding the downgrades of certain streets acceptable. That had occurred after the public review period and those changes had appeared in the final EIR. Commissioner Imboden stated he wanted it to be clear that there had been changes since the document had been published. Chair Steiner stated he felt none of the Commissioners were under the impression that a four lane highway running through the Plaza was a possibility. He could understand why people might have had that impression, but he had not wanted to spend too much time discussing that issue and their role was to make a recommendation. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for Public Comment. Laura Thomas, address on file, stated she was on the Orange Park Acres Board. She wanted to speak regarding the major arterial classification that was proposed for the Villa Park Road that transitioned to Santiago Canyon Road. She asked that the Commission consider very closely before agreeing with the proposal for that road. There was not any home building to the east and none in the near future and as a realtor with the decrease in home prices and unemployment at 9% plus, they would not be seeing residential soon. She stated they were in un-chartered waters of what was to be in the future and if they looked back, they were 2 days away from 9/11, and the impacts of how people made life decisions and things were looked at differently than they had 8 years ago, and things would be looked at differently over the next 8 years. She asked the Commission to retain the existing primary status of Santiago Road as there was no compelling reason to make the change to a major arterial classification. She supported the downgrading of Old Towne streets. Theresa Sears, address on file, thanked Chair Steiner for accommodating the speakers. She stated her concern was exactly what was occurring with the Old Towne issue. Currently on the Master Plan of Streets & Highways of Orange, the street designation on Wanda through Villa Park to Hughes was primary, from Hughes to Jamboree it was primary and part of it was major and all classified as an augmented primary arterial. The General Plan suggested that the designation be upgraded to a major arterial. She knew that it was not feasible due to the houses along Santiago Canyon Road and in Villa Park, the median and other road limitations. She would like the City to not upgrade, there could always be amendments to the Master Plan, downgrading was difficult and taking Jamboree and Culver off the Master Plan was very difficult. Due to the economy and the unstable housing market and the plans in the east and the future of what the Irvine Company would do, she felt it would be more appropriate when the vision was clearer to leave the current designation. Roy Shahbazzan, address on file, stated he wanted to speak broadly on the City's transportation system and what he hoped to see in the future. He was pleased to see what he perceived as a change in mindset that was taking place over the last few years, while there may have been a time when there might have been a move towards more lanes on a road would be better, currently the solution was not to move in that direction. He walked to various places, took the bus to work, bicycling on occasion and he recognized the City was planned decades ago with a different mind set and there were barriers to get around. Page 29 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 30 of 32 He was not certain how often the Commissioners walked to places they needed to go to, but there were often barriers, such as freeway ramps, buildings, parking lots with no clear walkways, and cyclist sometimes had no place to lock a bike. He was present not to complain about those issues, but to provide a perspective that if things were not planned with alternative transportation modes in mind, it often became difficult and alternative modes of transportation were lost. He hoped that in the Commission's decision and their future decisions they would think of different modes of transportations and decisions could be made from that perspective. Peter Jacklin, address on file, is the Chair of the newly formed Orange Park Association's Traffic Committee. One of their first orders of business was to hold an open house and community meeting with the Planning Department to discuss the proposed changes to Santiago Road and the proposed median for the area. He wanted to thank the traffic fellows for putting that together. Their next action was a development of a conceptual plan for traffic in Orange Park Acres and surrounding areas and he wanted to invite the Commission's participation in any manner that they chose. He hoped to have a document out in the next few months that defined the uniqueness of Orange Park Acres and how traffic should be managed in that area. He felt Orange Park Acres was just as unique as Old Towne and had special considerations that needed to be addressed and he hoped to have the Commission's cooperation and involvement in their efforts. Chair Steiner stated the Chair was sensitive to input by the community for other affected areas and his inclination was to conclude the meeting and he was confident that those who retained concerns that they wanted to express would be present at the next Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Merino had asked a question that he would want to re-visit at the next meeting. Mr. Sheatz asked if the Chair was considering accepting public testimony at the next meeting. Chair Steiner stated he would keep the Public Comment portion of the hearing open and he was under the impression that there would be additional public comments during the next meeting. CONTINUED HEARINGS: This Item was heard out of order, prior to the General Plan Update Item. (1) ORDINANCE NO. 07-09 -AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SOBER LIVING FACILITIES 12-09 An ordinance to require sober living facilities to obtain a permit and comply with specified regulations. LOCATION: City-Wide NOTE: The proposed ordinance amendment is not subject to the Page 30 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 31 of 32 provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it does not meet the definition of a "project" pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065. The proposed ordinance merely establishes requirements for sober living facilities to obtain a permit, comply with specified regulations, and maintain the limit of six tenants and a house manager for a total of seven. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 29-09 recommending that the City Council approve Ordinance No. 07-09 amending Title 17 of the OMC. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated at the last meeting there had been a discrepancy question between what had been written in the Staff Report and the way the Draft Ordinance had read with regard to the combination of tenants that would be residing at a sober living facility and the number of parolees or sex offenders. Chair Steiner stated that Mr. Sheatz had indicated parolees or sex offenders and he believed the concern was pertaining to drug registrants under Section 11590, the Health & Safety Code. Mr. Sheatz stated he had mis-spoken and apologized for that, Chair Steiner was correct. He called their attention to page 10 of the Commissioner's packet where a red line version was included that should clarify any ambiguity that had occurred between the Staff Report and what was actually in the ordinance itself. Section J had been cleaned up and Section K was eliminated, which had stated the number of tenants who were a parolee or probationer as defined in the previous section shall not exceed two. Chair Steiner asked for direction on where he was referring to in the Staff Report? Mr. Sheatz stated it was on page 10 of the materials provided in the Commissioner's packets. Chair Steiner stated there were no cards received for Public Comment and opened the item for any questions to Staff. Chair Steiner stated the information had provided clarification with respect to the question. He and Commissioner Cunningham had concerns whether it had been two of each or a total of two and it appeared to be the latter. Commissioner Imboden asked if the changes to J and the elimination of K were the only two changes that had been made. Mr. Sheatz stated they were the only changes. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for any further discussion or ,,<. action. Page 31 of 32 Pages Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 32 of 32 Commissioner Merino stated based on his review of the DVD and the fact that City Staff was so efficient in clarifying the discrepancy he would support approval. Commissioner Merino made a recommendation to the City Council to adopt PC 29-09, Ordinance No. 07-09, Amending Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code relating to Sober Living Facilities. Noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. (5) ADJOURNMENT Chair Steiner made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled on Monday, September 21, 2009. The next hearing would resume with the discussion of Circulation & Mobility and Growth Management elements and the additional areas described on the Agenda for September 9, 2009 of Natural Resources and Cultural Resources elements and for the September 21, 2009 meeting Public Safety, Noise, Infrastructure, Urban Design and Economic Development elements. SECOND: Commissioner Imboden AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 9:58 P.M. Page 32 of 32 Pages