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