2009 - September 21Planning Commission Minutes AppRp~D September 21, 2009
1 of 29
Minutes
Planning Commission September 21, 2009
City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
STAFF
PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner
Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation
Amir Farahani, Traffic Engineer
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION:
Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:45 p.m. with a review of the
Agenda.
Items No. 2: General Plan Update -Commissioner Whitaker asked what item would they
begin with in continuation of the General Plan Update. Chair Steiner stated there were
some items that still needed to be addressed on the Old Towne Focus area.
~p
Commissioner Whitaker stated the Commission had not finished the Circulation Element.
Chair Steiner stated the Public Hearing had not closed, and there were members of the
public who wanted to speak. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated they could
open the meeting with the continuation of the Public Hearing on the Circulation Element.
Chair Steiner stated he would open the meeting with the Circulation Element, then move
onto the Old Towne Focus Area.
Commissioner Whitaker stated there had been a member of the public who had spoken
regarding the Katella Corridor and asked if there would need to be further discussion on
that issue? Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, stated there had been additional input
received during the Public Hearing segment of the last meeting and she would want to
take in those comments to discuss.
Chair Steiner stated the meeting would open with the Circulation Element, then
additional issues regarding the Katella Corridor and then they would hear a discussion on
Old Towne. Ms. Pehoushek asked if they would re-address all focus areas. Mr. Sheatz
stated there was the component on Transfer Development Rights.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if they would only discuss the TDR with relationship to
Old Towne? He stated with the Katella issue it would be presented again with the draft
resolution and that would be the time to discuss any further issues with that component.
He stated he had received a call from a property owner on Focus Area #1, and there
would be time to discuss each item again, as they would return with the draft resolution.
Page 1 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
2 of 29
Chair Steiner stated he agreed that any further comments received could be discussed
when the items returned. He stated the TDR's related to Old Towne would be discussed
....,
during the Old Towne presentation.
Commissioner Whitaker stated they could discuss Circulation, Non-conforming uses and
memo stuff, TDR's, and Old Towne. If the Commission got to all of those he asked what
would remain. Ms. Pehoushek stated there were Growth Management, Natural
Resources, and Cultural Resources.
Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated he would want to carry
over the discussion on Cultural Resources for the next Planning Commission Meeting.
There would be a consultant who would not be available until that meeting.
Item No. 2: Wahoo's Fish Taco Restaurant -Commissioner Imboden stated he would be
recused from the item presentation due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Whitaker
asked if the Commission was just approving the ABC License or would the approval
include the Design Review and everything else, he understood there was a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and a CUP attached to the item. Mr. Sheatz stated the Wahoo's
item had the DRC and Minor Site Review as part of the review. Chair Steiner checked
his GIS Map to verify the item had not presented a conflict for him. Mr. Sheatz
confirmed it would not be a conflict for Chair Steiner.
Mr. Sheatz stated there was a reference to a finding based on Public Convenience and
Necessity by the Police Department, but he had not found it in the Resolution. He was
not certain if that finding was necessary. He referenced a memo from the Police
Department dated 11/12/2008. Mr. Knight stated the finding was not needed for a
restaurant, it would be necessary for a store, liquor store or convenience store.
Chair Steiner asked if there was anything further to discuss. Mr. Knight stated the
Planning Forum would be held on October 22, 2009. There was a training budget for the
meeting, which would pay for the Commissioners attendance. He asked that those able to
attend respond by October 4, 2009.
There was no further discussion.
Administrative Session closed at 7:00 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Chair Steiner stated before Item No. 1 was heard, as they were still in the process of
moving through the General Plan Amendment, he wanted to bring to the attention of
those sitting in the audience how the Commission would proceed with the hearing.
Page 2 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
3 of 29
The first item to be addressed would be Wahoo's Fish Taco Restaurant, with the next
item being the General Plan Update. The Circulation and Mobility Element would be
presented, then they would address a number of minor issues left from previous meetings,
specifically Legal Non-Conforming Use Ordinance Amendments, The Bond Pits and
Transfer Development Rights. They would then resume the discussion of Old Towne,
which had been partially addressed. The meeting would continue with presentation of the
Growth Management Element and he would see how far they got on that element.
New Hearing:
(1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2735-08, DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE N0.4340-08, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 550-
08, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 18180-08 -
WAHOO'S FISH TACO RESTAURANT
A proposal to demolish anon-contributing one-story facade addition, restore the two-
story "Vineland Hotel" building for a new restaurant, and includes construction of a new
in-fill two-story office/retail building. The request includes a Conditional Use Permit for
selling alcohol with (On-Sale Beer and Wine) Type 41 ABC license for a new 2,650
square foot restaurant.
LOCATION: 234-238 W. Chapman Avenue
NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1810-08 was prepared to evaluate the
a.~,,
physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local
CEQA Guidelines. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) finds that
the project, with the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation
measures, will have less than significant impacts to the environment. The
original public review period began on July 17, 2009 and ended on
September 3, 2009. No public comments were received.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 37-09 approving an alcoholic
beverage Type 41 ABC license and demolition of anon-contributing one-
story addition, restoration of the "Vineland Hotel" building and the
construction of a new two-story retail/office building within the Old
Towne Orange Historic District.
Commissioner Imboden stated he would be recused from the presentation of the item.
Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff.
~~` Commissioner Whitaker stated his question was in reference to the email the Commission
had received, and the primary concern of that email was parking. The proposed project
Page 3 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
4 of 29
would be using the City's in-lieu parking and he asked if Mr. Ryan would recap what that
was. He asked if there was any parking agreement or use intended on the lot that was
behind the hotel.
Mr. Ryan stated the property behind the Vineland Hotel was church parking and none of
that parking would be accessed by the restaurant. Within the downtown four block area
the City had established an in-lieu parking fee program. An applicant that would be
having additional square footage added to their property would pay into a parking fund.
The fee would be based on any expansion of outdoor dining. The proposed project would
not be removing any parking or adding any additional square footage, the only impact
would be the outdoor dining area. The fund would eventually be used for additional
parking.
Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing.
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, he thanked the applicant for
including them in the preliminary process of the project. The OTPA felt the proposed
project was a win win situation that included the restoration of what could be the last
historic hotel in Orange County. Most were unaware that it even existed. The proposed
project was one of the best projects he had been involved in and he was looking forward
to the restoration of the site. After reviewing the Mitigated Negative Declaration he was
pleased to see that the project complied with the Secretary of Interior Standards and the
Old Towne Design Standards. The intent to preserve the exterior historic and defining
features and interior features based on use, which was not required under the standards.
~~.
He had not always supported additions to historic structures that could be viewed from
the street, however, with this project the addition used in kind of material that was
sensitive to the Plaza and the height was in sync with the historic hotel. The OTPA
appreciated the fact that the addition appeared as a separate building and there was no
doubt what was old and what was new. The applicant covered all the bases on the project
and brought forward a good project.
Applicant, Brad Rogers, address on file, stated it had been a little bit of over a year
process and he was looking forward to getting started on the construction. He wanted to
thank their architect, Susan Secoy, and he looked forward to working with Doug Ely, and
he thanked the Commission for their review of the project. He thanked Lisa Kim, Jim
and Robert as they had been a lot of help on the project.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt PC 37-09, approving CUP No. 2735-08,
DRC No. 4340-08, Minor Site Plan Review No. 550-08, Mitigated Negative Declaration
No. 1810-08, Wahoo's Fish Taco Restaurant, for an Alcoholic Beverage License Type
41, on sale beer and wine for a new restaurant, including demolition of anon-contributing
one story building and new construction of a new two story retail office building; noting
that CEQA would be addressed with the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
Page 4 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
RECUSED: Commissioner Imboden
September 21, 2009
5 of 29
MOTION CARRIED
Sergeant Lopez addressed the Commission and stated it was his last day as the Planning
Commission Representative and he wanted to take a minute to thank the Commissioners
for making him feel welcome during the last year. He introduced his replacement,
Sergeant Ross Peterson, he had been with the Police Department for 25 years and he was
a very intelligent and hard working individual and he would work well with the
Commission.
Chair Steiner stated on behalf of the Planning Commission, he thanked Sergeant Lopez
for his assistance, guidance, and expertise on the various issues he had helped them to
understand and to come to decisions on. He wished him the best of luck and thanked him
for his service. He welcomed Sergeant Peterson.
Continued Hearing:
(2) 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:
9/21/09 - Continued discussion of the Old Towne Land Use Focus Area to
complete consideration of the Land Use Element, as well as the
Natural Resources and Cultural Resources Elements
~~ 10/5/09 - Public Safety, Noise, Infrastructure, Urban Design, and Economic
Development Elements
Page 5 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
6 of 29
Based on the anticipated hearing schedule, this item focuses on completing the discussion
of the Old Towne Land Use Focus Area, as well as the Natural Resources and Cultural
Resources Elements of the proposed General Plan.
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 they had finished the previous meeting with Public Comment and
that hearing had remained open. They would continue the Circulation Element with
Public Comment. Chair Steiner reviewed the Public Speaker cards and clarified which
item the speakers would be addressing. The previous meeting had included a
presentation by Staff on the Circulation Element and he had one additional speaker card
on that item.
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the issues he wanted to bring
up were the same issues that had been brought up last time, they had been somewhat
addressed, but he wanted to ensure that the updated plan reflected the discussion. The
OTPA had concerns about the widening to 4 lanes on the spoke streets and east La Veta,
he wanted clarification on that issue to be included in the plan. The elimination of on
street parking was also another issue as well as the classification of Palmyra as a collector
street.
Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission,
taking into consideration the Public Speakers and Staff's presentation at the last Planning
Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he wanted to hear from Staff and from the Traffic
Engineer, he had been confused at the end of the last hearing where there was a statement
that the City had to remain in sync with the counties map of arterial highways and that
was some of the rationale for calling some of the collector roads augmented arterials.
The Traffic Engineer had several meetings with the OCTA where some of the roads
would be downgraded and he was not certain where the City was at in that process.
Page 6 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
7 of 29
Traffic Engineer, Amir Farahani, stated the process to amend or classify any roadway to
be consistent with the MPHA and OCTA was for City Staff to contact OCTA Staff and
discuss the purpose for reclassification of roadways. When OCTA agreed with the
proposal, City Staff would formally request a change and OCTA would take that request
to their board for approval. That approval would return to the City and that request
would be presented before the City Council for their approval. In the past, for
downgrading of 3 arterials and other upgrades, the City had approached OCTA and they
had agreed with the City. The downgrading included Walnut and La Veta and on the two
roadways, Chapman and Glassell, they had spoken with OCTA Staff and they were. in
consensus with the City, however, due to the timing constraints there would not be any
approval from them until after the General Plan Update reviews. Once the General Plan
Update presentation and approvals were complete City Staff would sit down with OCTA
to provide them with the information they required for downgrading of Chapman and
Glassell, from 4 lanes to 2 lanes.
Commissioner Whitaker asked how long would it take OCTA to process that request, and
was he hearing correctly that the proposal in the General Plan Update had to read as 4
lanes to remain in compliance and there would need to be amendments later?
Mr. Farahani stated the downgrade would not be a component of the General Plan
Update. The roadways would remain in their present classification. The OCTA agreed
to work with the City in the request for downgrading. Due to the time restraints it would
occur after the General Plan Update.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he was still attempting to get a handle on the timing. He
asked how long would it take the OCTA, once the Commission had gone through that
component.
Mr. Farahani stated it was difficult to say. He had a letter that the City had provided the
OCTA with the number of arterials that were being requested to be downgraded and his
thought would be that it would take approximately 3 months or a bit longer.
Commissioner Cunningham commented, if he was understanding the issue correctly,
Staff was recommending in the General Plan Update to have spoke streets be classified as
4 lanes with the hope that they would be downgraded to 2 lanes later on, and that request
was based on conversations that had occurred with OCTA.
Mr. Farahani stated as it stood currently, there was not a change. The City would be
requesting a downgrade after the General Plan Update was complete.
Commissioner Cunningham asked how strong of an indication had Staff received from
the OCTA that they were willing to work with the City on that request.
Mr. Farahani stated the OCTA had been very positive. During meetings with the OCTA
they had asked that letters be revised with the downgrade request and as soon as they had
submitted those, Staff was told that the OCTA needed more time. So far everything had
~~ been very positive in regard to the request for downgrading; it was hard to say if it would
be 100%.
Page 7 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
8 of 29
Commissioner Cunningham stated based on Staff's previously dealings with the OCTA,
he asked would there be any reason to doubt that they would agree to the downgrade? It
was clear that everyone wanted the streets to be 2 lanes, however, they were looking
toward an approval to 4 lanes, or to keep it the way it was. He wanted to get a sense of
the City's dealings with OCTA in the past and to gain a sense of confidence that they
would agree on how they wanted the streets classified in the future.
Mr. Farahani stated the OCTA would be presenting the request to their board and it was
difficult to state whether they would change their mind. The OCTA was aware of the
sensitivity of the City to keep the Plaza as it was and the nature of the historic arterials.
Chair Steiner stated he felt that they were not asking anyone to speculate whether the
OCTA would or would not change their mind, as that was an unknown. He asked if there
was anything that would lead Mr. Farahani to believe that, either based on his familiarity
with the issue or his dealings in the past with OCTA, that they could change their mind.
Was there anything that would lead him to think that the OCTA would change their
mind?
Mr. Farahani stated if there was a change in staff at the OCTA, they would take the issue
to their board and it was difficult to say. Through his experience and what had occurred
in the past they would be consistent in what they had initially stated.
Commissioner Imboden stated in light of the answers that were being provided, he asked,
in his review of the EIR he had not seen any discussion of the potential impacts of the
widening that they were being asked to approve, and without any recognition of those
impacts they had no indication of those. He questioned the proposal, although they were
all in agreement that the City would go in a different direction. He was not finding the
measuring of impacts, particularly for the widening of Glassell, from La Veta to Almond.
Traffic Representative, Tim Burns, stated he was with a firm that had completed the
traffic analysis for the General Plan Update. The issue was with Chapman through the
Plaza as well as Glassell through the Plaza going from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. The traffic
study identified specific impacts related to the maintenance of the existing condition as
well as the traffic conditions if those were expanded to 4 lanes. The traffic study
recommended not to increase the classification to a 4 lane divided for various specific
economic, social and historic reasons. Some of those reasons had been identified in the
traffic study, and those were in a specific section of the EIR. In keeping the streets as 2
lanes, the traffic forecast for those segments was greater than the capacity for those
facilities; however, for the other impacts it would not be a recommendation to change
those streets to 4 lanes, as it would destroy the historic circle. The traffic that used the
spoke components of the system, because it was a grid, would theoretically spread out to
neighboring facilities such as Lemon, Palmyra, Palm and some of the other facilities so
there would not be gridlock at that location.
Commissioner Imboden stated specifically what he had spoke to was the segment of
Glassell from La Veta to Almond; he understood that the EIR discussed many of the
~~ features in regard to the Plaza and the potential impacts of the widening of Glassell south
of La Veta which the majority was 4 lanes already. The report spoke of adverse impacts
Page 8 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
9 of 29
if that area was to be widened, which was ironic as that segment was already widened.
He had not found a specific area that spoke to the impacts that would occur in the
widening that existed in the plan that he was being asked to approve, which was
specifically the widening of Glassell from La Veta to Almond.
Mr. Burns stated the traffic study focused on Glassell, south of La Veta, from the 22 to
La Veta, and the issues there in the Hart Park preservation, the Morton Base Station, in
front of the Church and the segment north of La Veta through Almond. The issue
improving that to a 4 lane were also social and other issues, that included removal of on
street parking, which would directly impact disturbances to residences and so forth and
would not be recommended under the Plan.
Commissioner Imboden asked if he would point that out specifically. What he was
stating, was that he was not finding that in the report.
Mr. Burns stated he would look through the documentation and identify that specifically.
Chair Steiner stated to be clear, he asked was it Commissioner Imboden's understanding
that the proposal was for a widening north to Almond?
Commissioner Imboden stated it appeared they were in consensus, that there was a
general intent to downgrade the widening, but in the meantime due to inconsistencies, the
Commission was being asked to move the proposal forward with a 4 lane designation.
The EIR which was intended to and required to measure the negative impacts have not
been measured and there was no mitigation proposed. It was making him a bit nervous,
as tentative as the proposal was, that they had not looked at the potential adverse impacts.
There were specifics for the areas north of Almond and south of La Veta, however, there
was no information that addressed the impacts between those two streets and there was
no mitigation proposed.
Ms. Pehoushek stated she would point them in the direction of the traffic section of the
EIR, it had called out the fact that the proposed project, the widening, that the 4 lane
designation in the Old Towne area, would present an impact that had no feasible
mitigation due to the fact that they were dealing with a historic district. The ultimate
conclusion being that the impacts in that area would be significant and unavoidable. That
was something that was carried forward in all the conclusions contained in the EIR. She
referred the Commission to page 5.14-43 and 44 in the public review draft. It covered
other roadway segments beyond Old Towne and was captured under the significant and
unavoidable.
Commissioner Imboden stated he had not wanted to belabor the issue, however, what he
was reviewing on page 5.14-44 was that the mitigation was not reasonably feasible for
Chapman Ave, from Lemon to Glassell, and on Glassell, from Grand Street and on
Glassell from Chapman to Palm. He was looking specifically for Glassell, from Almond
to La Veta. Glassell was being noted otherwise, but not specifically to that segment. He
was being asked to approve something and he wanted to ensure that they had covered
their bases.
Page 9 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
10 of 29
Commissioner Whitaker stated with respect to the streets that would be eventually
downgraded, he was having a difficult time getting his arms around some issues. For the
Glassell segment, from Almond to La Veta, that segment on what existed was a collector
street, the current plan referred to it as an augmented secondary arterial and the proposed
plan called it a primary arterial. He asked what were they approving, was it what existed
in the current General Plan, or what was in the EIR? He asked for the definition of an
augmented secondary arterial and a secondary arterial, as the term augmented was used
for other streets?
Mr. Farahani stated the classification that was used in the past was augmented. Primary
was a four lane, 100' wide. OCTA suggested they go with the width for the classification
and not with the number of lanes. They wanted to be consistent. Augmented primary
was the same as major; secondary augmented was the same as primary with 2 lanes and
wider. There was a change in lanes with augmented secondary to primary. The
definitions were consistent with the OCTA and MPAH.
Commissioner Whitaker stated for instance on Santiago Canyon Road, between Hewes
and Jamboree, the existing condition was primary arterial/major arterial and he was
confused between the two - he believed it was somewhere between 2 and 4 lanes. With
the definition of primary arterial that would be the same as a major. They were being
asked to approve major which was 4 lanes divided.
Mr. Farahani stated major was 6 lanes divided. Primary was 4 lanes and wider.
~""~ Commissioner Whitaker stated in the testimony heard during the last meeting regarding
Santiago Canyon and Hewes, the questions was asked if there would be more division or
dividers provided for safety as there had been a large number of accidents in that area,
something that would slow traffic down along that stretch. Was there anything in the
designation change that would be put into place for those purposes?
Mr. Farahani stated he had not believed there was, the roadways would remain very much
the same. On Santiago Canyon Road there was an improvement project that provided a
raised medium and guard rails.
Commissioner Imboden stated one issue that had been raised was the street parking that
had been addressed and he asked for clarification for that. Many of the Old Towne
businesses were concerned with that.
Chair Steiner asked if the consultant had time to clarify the information for Glassell.
Consultant, John Bridges, stated on page 36, in the traffic section of the EIR 5.14, there
was a table. The table showed the segment of Glassell that Commissioner Imboden had
spoke to, as a 4 lane divided. The impacts of widening that road to 4 lanes had been
addressed in the traffic study and the EIR.
Commissioner Imboden stated he believed there was some confusion; he was speaking of
;,.~ the impacts to historic resources.
Page 10 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
11 of 29
Mr. Bridges stated that was what he was speaking of as well. The widening was assumed
and therefore the impacts to buildings along that roadway to historic structures had been
addressed. What he believed was missing on page 44 of the same section, was the direct
reference to segment 73. It mentioned the other sections, but had not mentioned that
segment. It was mentioned in the table. It had been analyzed in a widened condition and
the impacts to historic resources were part of that assessment.
Commissioner Imboden stated he had to disagree. The table that he was reviewing
assessed traffic. The text referenced described impacts to the Plaza, and impacts south of
La Veta between La Veta and the 22 and had not discussed any impacts between Almond
and La Veta. That was what he was seeking and he would give him another opportunity
to either state it was included or it was not.
Mr. Bridges stated that was what he was stating; there was a reference to segment 73,
which should be in the text. It was included in the table, but not in the text. It was
analyzed in the traffic analysis, and would need to be mentioned in the text as a segment
that would need to be reduced to 2 lanes through the OCTA process.
Chair Steiner asked Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, if he was following the
discussion?
Mr. Sheatz stated yes.
Chair Steiner stated segment 73 should have been specifically referenced and there was
an argument or at least a suggestion that it was incorporated in the study. He asked
whether or not the absence of segment 73 was problematic in the Commissions ability to
move forward.
Mr. Sheatz stated it was definitely problematic.
Mr. Bridges stated the EIR had not yet been certified. It was a document that was in front
of them to be recommended to the City Council. Any errata that they crossed during the
discussion could be included in the EIR that they recommended.
Mr. Sheatz stated if the consultant was certain that the information had been analyzed and
was out there, they could give him the opportunity to supplement the document and
provide it to the Planning Commission prior to their recommendation to City Council. It
would not make sense, given the fact that the issue had arisen, and that there was a
question it was difficult to make a recommendation to City Council on something that
they had not reviewed. The Commission might be able to continue the item to allow time
to gather that information and have it supplemented for the record prior to the
recommendation to City Council.
Mr. Knight stated what Mr. Bridges was stating was that if they had not discussed the
impacts to that segment, which he was stating they had and should have been information
included, and it created a concern. What was missing was a conclusion on page 44 to
that specific segment. Adding that one segment as part of the errata would not create a
concern from an EIR standpoint; the information was there, the consultant just failed to
Page 11 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
include that segment.
September 21, 2009
12 of 29
Chair Steiner stated he was clear as to the argument for clarification and the reason to
move forward. Because the information was impliedly considered they could move
forward noting the absence of such information would be permissible. He asked Mr.
Sheatz, because segment 73 was referenced elsewhere in the materials, that it would
permit the Commission to move forward, hypothetically, noting the absence of the
information.
Mr. Sheatz stated it would be permitted. If the Commission wished to see the
documentation, and it would give them a better comfort level, and there had been the
question as to whether it adequately answered a concern raised by one of the
Commissioners. If they needed to see that they could continue the discussion on the issue
after they had adequate time to review the additional information and make their
recommendation at that time.
Chair Steiner stated there appeared to be a desire to review that information and then
vote.
Commissioner Imboden stated he preferred not to push the issue out. The table that was
being referenced spoke to traffic impacts, and had not spoke of impacts to historic or
cultural resources.
Mr. Knight stated it was his understanding that the traffic impacts and the impacts to
"'"~"` historic resources went hand in hand.
Commissioner Imboden stated that was not the question he asked. He was not ready to
move forward as he was being asked to approve something that was tentative and it was
something that the City was not planning to put into place and he had not seen convincing
arguments that the environmental impacts had been measured. He would prefer further
clarification before they moved forward.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he agreed with Commissioner Itnboden. He asked if they
assumed that in the EIR that all of the detail was there that stated widening to 4 lanes
would have a negative impact and could not be mitigated on Chapman and Glassell
through the historic district, if they assumed the detail was there, was the Commission
being asked to approve a designation that had a significant impact that could not be
mitigated; and was that asking the Commission to make a recommendation on something
that was in contravention to what was in the EIR?
Ms. Pehoushek stated based on their work with the OCTA, the conclusion of the EIR was
that there would be significant and unavoidable impacts. If the Planning Commission
would not want to go with the recommendation in the proposed General Plan Update they
could recommend keeping what was currently on the ground.
Commissioner Whitaker stated the EIR noted there would be significant impacts that
could not be mitigated, and if the Commission had not wanted to go with the designation
in the proposed General Plan and to go with a designation of what existed on the ground,
Page 12 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
13 of 29
what would the potential consequence with OCTA in being out of compliance so to
speak, for 3 to 4 months?
Ms. Pehoushek stated there would be impacts to the City's funding eligibility.
Commissioner Cunningham asked if the funding eligibility would be postponed for 3
months, and how much of a danger would it present if they were out of sync for a few
months. Would OCTA walk away, what would the impacts be? He was attempting to
get an answer to how realistic the impacts would be if they left the designation as it
existed on the ground.
Mr. Farahani stated it was hard to respond to that question.
Commissioner Cunningham stated it was difficult to make a decision not knowing that
information.
Chair Steiner stated it was a legitimate question and the prospect of losing Measure M
funding for a period of time was something that he would want to know more about. He
would like an answer to that question.
Chair Steiner made a motion to continue the Circulation & Mobility Element, based on
the concerns and questions presented by the Commission, to a date certain of October 19,
2009.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Cunningham
Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of Legal Non-Conforming
Uses, Specific Land Use Designations and Transfer Development Rights not related to
Old Towne. Ms. Pehoushek stated she had received correspondence from several
community members, those names were on file, with concerns or objections to some of
the proposed changes.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions for Staff.
Commissioner Whitaker stated the current rule was that if there was a legal non-
conforming use in an area of the City in a Focus Area not contained in the proposal they
were reviewing, the rule was that the property owner had 6 months to comply. If Land
Use changes were made through the changes in the General Plan Update, those property
owners would have a year to make the change.
Ms. Pehoushek stated in two of the Focus Areas that would be changing from
Commercial to a Mixed Use designation, the difference in the land use designations was
greatly expanded. The majority of the areas involved Industrial properties.
Page 13 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
14 of 29
Commissioner Whitaker asked if there had been any consideration in applying the
extension of 12 months to any changes being made City wide, with the option of the
. " Planning Director granting those extensions. In a tight economy it would not be hitting
someone too hard that found themselves in anon-conforming use.
Ms. Pehoushek stated they had not considered that.
Chair Steiner asked if there were any further questions on the Non-Conforming Land Use
issue? There was none. He asked that they take an action on that component.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he was uncomfortable every time they took current uses
and due to a change uses became legal non-conforming, his concern was not only for the
two areas that would have significant changes, but there were many areas of the City that
would experience changes in their land use. His preference would be that if they were
allowing someone a bit of slack, that they would give everyone slack, there were not only
two Focus Areas, but eight. He felt the Legal Non-Conforming Use Ordinance should
include the extension for those properties with extenuating circumstances due to the
change in Land Use designation.
Commissioner Imboden stated he recommended they turn Commissioner Whitaker's
suggestion into a motion. He also supported the allowance fora 12 month extension.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he would also support that recommendation.
"` Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council, the
Legal Non-Conforming Use Ordinance with the change that the 12 month extension be
applied to all Focus Areas of the City.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner stated the next areas to be discussed were Land Use designations in the
Bond Pits Area, to designate that as open space, and the area east of the pits to resource
area, and the Cal Trans area to General Commercial. He asked Mr. Sheatz how they
should proceed on those issues.
Mr. Sheatz stated they would consider each individually.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council
to designate the Bond Pits Area as open space.
*~~ ~ SECOND: Commissioner Whitaker
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
Page 14 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
September 21, 2009
15 of 29
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner stated the next area was the area east of the pits and he asked Ms.
Pehoushek to delineate that area by street reference.
Ms. Pehoushek stated the area was east of the pits; it would include the intersection of
Hewes and Santiago Canyon and Villa Park Road. The area fell into that general area,
the counties current designation was open space.
Chair Steiner asked the area that she referred to that was proposed for Resource Area was
currently designated as open space?
Ms. Pehoushek stated the entire Bond Pit area was all open space.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council
to designate the area east of the pits, which included the intersection of Hughes, Santiago
Canyon and Villa Park Road as Resource Area.
SECOND: Commissioner Whitaker
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner stated the last component was the Cal Trans area parcel, in the area
described previously at the off ramp of Nohl Ranch to be designated as General
Commercial.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council for
the Cal Trans area parcel to be designated as General Commercial.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
4,
Chair Steiner was recused from the following presentation as it presented a conflict of
interest, due to his association with Chapman Law School.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of the Old Towne Focus Area
which was a continuation from a previous hearing.
Page 15 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
September 21, 2009
16 of 29
Vice Chair Whitaker opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. There were none.
Vice Chair Whitaker re-opened the hearing for Public Comment.
Sue Vaurs, address on file, stated she had received the Staff Report late this afternoon,
and after a quick review, her question was how had the original draft changed over the
past few months? After receiving over 7001etters that objected to some of the changes in
the initial draft, she hoped the voice of the people had been heard and considered. The
City was still at .5 FAR, vs. .3 or .35 and the 3 story overlay zone which would
encourage higher density was still in place.
Diana Zdenek, address on file, stated she was absolutely opposed to the change in FAR in
Old Towne, she felt it was dense enough as it was and all her other comments were
already on record.
Susanna Branch, address on file, stated she was concerned about the City taking action in
Old Towne that had an unavoidable and perhaps irreversible impact. A quarter of a
century ago the Commissioners who held the same positions as the Commissioners
before her, made a bold commitment to preserving the elements that comprised Old
Towne Orange. They were integral actors in a process that had a ground breaking
historic resources survey and the earliest in Orange County, as well as placing some of
the buildings on the national register of historic places. She was on Staff of the Historical
Commission in the 1980's and 90's and they used the City of Orange as a model
whenever individuals or communities asked about advise in preserving resources in their
~..:~„4
towns. It was a document that came out of their files again and again. The predecessors
of the Commission had seen a need to preserve Old Towne during a time of a surge in
development that permeated Southern California in the 1980's; they had the same types
of pressures that were currently being imposed on the Commission. They had a vision
for revitalization of the Plaza and surrounding neighborhoods that included original
buildings and streets, and features such as historic sidewalks and street trees. No one can
claim that Old Towne isn't unique, or characterless, or economically depressed. No one
can claim that people do not love to live and work in Old Towne. She felt the
Commissioners understood the uniqueness of Old Towne, or they might not be studying
the issues with such care as she had seen and she thanked the Commission for their
pickiness. She wanted to emphasize that their predecessors had obligations with
increased population and traffic, economic worries and the desire to make Orange a
prosperous and livable community. They were courageous and along with the City
Council took a long view, she was glad that they had as she loved working and living in
Orange. She was living in the future that they had prepared for her. She urged the
Commissioners to protect the special character of Old Towne for future citizens.
Kim Mann, address on file, stated the first thing she wanted to mention was the last time
they were present the owner of the Hospital had mentioned that he had never received
documents via mail notifying him of the changes in re-zoning, she had not been notified
and had first learned of it in February. When she had purchased her home, there were
certain expectations, as she had entered into a social contract of sorts regarding her R2
zoning. The property was viewed as offering income potential and an increase in
property value, and in addition value through maintaining the historical integrity of Old
Page 16 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
17 of 29
Towne with a mix of both R1 and R2 zoned properties. She wanted to thank the Planning
Commissioners, from the last meeting, specifically Commissioners Cunningham and
_.. Whitaker for the support of not changing properties that were initially designated R2. It
had added value, vs. downgrading and taking away value. She thanked Commissioners
Cunningham, Imboden and Whitaker for the idea of a potential solution for spot zoning
vs. a one size fits all. It was a huge financial issue for her, now and down the road. She
wanted to continue to live in Old Towne and she would appreciate their support and
concern regarding the matter.
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated he had reviewed the Staff
Report and there appeared to be an attempt to address some of the concerns regarding
density, but as far as the spoke street density lA, for a third Old Towne Mixed Use
designation, they supported that from a maximum FAR of 1.0 to .5 and in their opinion it
had not gone far enough. What was represented as average of what existed on the ground
was a .3 to .35; he was concerned with the density levels proposed in the west quadrants
of the Depot Specific Plan Area. They were not opposed to higher densities in re-
adaptive Industrial buildings, but a 1.0 to 1.5 FAR was too high for adjacent properties.
A development in the area was bound by the Old Towne development standards and there
was still a 3 story overlay proposed that would not meet the standards. The OTPA felt
the proposed densities were too high and would have an impact on the historic district
and the current infrastructure could not support those densities. As member of the GPAC
he had not believed that the members of that committee would have agreed with the
proposed densities, which were referenced throughout the Staff Report. Alternative 3
was just the alternative provided to them that included the lowest density. Traffic
congestion was already a major issue in Old Towne and was getting progressively worse.
They would like clarification in the proposed plan of building to property lines to
maintain street scapes, had that meant that component applied only to the Plaza district,
as that type of development already existed. It appeared that there was a disproportionate
amount of development proposed for Old Towne that would create adverse impacts. He
wanted to comment on the Cultural Resources element, which replaced the Historic
Preservation element, the OTPA was surprised that it was considered an optional
element. Old Towne Orange maintains the largest historic district in California, if not in
the western United States. It was crucial that the element be included in the General Plan
as it contained important preservation tools, goals and incentives. It was not only
important that the element be included, but that the goals, policies and incentives were
implemented.
Vice Chair Whitaker brought the item back to the Commission for discussion.
Commissioner Cunningham asked if Staff could address Mr. Frankel's question about
building to the property line.
Ms. Pehoushek stated it was an issue that she believed had been resolved in the initial
Staff Report on the Land Use element. Staff had acknowledged that there was
clarification needed to more clearly explain that building to the property line was
intended to occur in the downtown core area, where it was typical of those buildings in
that area. Once traveling outside of Almond and portions of the spoke streets those areas
had involved residential. It was a language clean up that needed to be made and they had
Page 17 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
~~:,~
acknowledged that.
September 21, 2009
18 of 29
Commissioner Imboden asked if the Commission had copies of the proposed language.
Ms. Pehoushek stated she was trying to recall the section where that was addressed.
Commissioner Imboden stated prior to finishing up with the item he would want to
review that language as there had been some concerns regarding that. He stated in terms
of Transfer Development Rights for Old Towne he had a specific question, it had been
indicated that both the donor and the recipient of the rights would need to be located
within Old Towne and he asked what was the rationale behind that?
Ms. Pehoushek stated she would defer those questions to their consultant.
Mr. Bridges stated on page 51 Land Use element Draft General Plan, page LU4, there
was a description on the last 2 rows with a donor and recipient side. The Transfer
Development Rights for Old Towne Mixed Use to the neighborhood, and there was the
column below that which was a transfer from neighborhood mixed use to Old Towne.
The transfers could be made both ways and not just within Old Towne.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated that looked to be in direct conflict with the Staff Report, page
11 which stated unused FAR could only be transferred to the resulting development if
compatible with the historic character. The sites would need to be within Old Towne.
~~ ,~>
Mr. Bridges stated the Staff Report was not correct.
Commissioner Imboden stated the Commission was in receipt of 700 letters concerning
the City's proposals and it was stated in the draft to support and preserve resources in Old
Towne, they would be looking to potentially move development rights outside of Old
Towne, into Old Towne and he asked how that encouraged preservation?
Mr. Bridges stated he had thought it would not. That component would not necessarily
preserve historical resources.
Commissioner Imboden stated it was reasonable to state that there appeared to be a
conflict within their own vision. He asked if the rationale for the density due to the
request for more specific studies in terms of existing on the ground densities in
relationship to the rational of the proposed densities and he asked if they could get further
clarification on that?
Ms. Pehoushek asked what he was specifically looking for.
Commissioner Imboden stated when the item had been before the Commission
previously, there were concerns about proposed densities for the spoke streets and what
was the rationale on the proposed density there. Ms. Pehoushek had mentioned earlier
that Staff would be interested in having a dialogue about having a different land
designation there, but what he questioned was a proposal for density in that area as well
as for the Depot. That was an area that they had discussed; understanding what existed
Page 18 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
19 of 29
on the ground. The document, Attachment No. 3, which was very beneficial spoke
specifically of the proposed density for the Mixed Use areas which included the Depot
:;,~~
and spoke streets, he asked how that related to the document?
Ms. Pehoushek stated he was asking specifically about the alternative 3 and what had
been presented?
Commissioner Imboden stated no, he was asking for the rationale.
Ms. Pehoushek stated in regard to the residential density component on the spoke streets
there were a number of properties on the spoke street that had various packaging of
multiple units, such as senior housing, apartments, and houses that had been converted to
multiple units. The limit was 15 units per acre and that was shown in what would
conceivably be a third Old Towne Mixed Use designation. Actually that was a lower
density of what existed currently. The current density allowed 24 units per acre. The 15
was a reduction of what existed. Staff felt it would continue to accommodate the multi-
unit properties that existed on the spoke streets. The upper end of the FAR range for that
area would be .5, 15 units per acre. In terms of the Depot area, the over arching
comment was that in Old Towne currently, all of the Mixed Use areas of Old Towne had
a density of 24 units per acre and a maximum FAR of 1.0. In reviewing the Depot area,
one of the big shifts in the area was the shift of Industrial areas to Mixed Use,
recognizing that Industrial activity along the rail corridor was phasing out and what
would be the next life for buildings in that area. Taking into consideration that the
change would be from Industrial to Mixed Use, which would introduce more density
~.;a
potentially around the Depot area? One of the comments made referenced a 3 story
overlay that was not part of the General Plan Update; it was something that was being
completed through the Depot Specific Plan. In terms of the blocks with higher density
that were being proposed as part of the plan were very limited. One of those blocks was
the 100 block of S. Pixley, south of the railroad tracks, there were two parcels on Pixley,
one was a gas company transfer facility and the other was a City water well, and another
parcel was one of the City's senior housing project. The remaining two parcels, one was
a historic building and the other fronted Chapman. Essentially what they spoke of was '/z
of a block developed with the one story Industrial properties and it had the most potential
for future development. The other location, the Depot Walk project, was another area of
higher density, and it was consistent with what was occurring on the ground. Another
location for higher density was the block from Chapman, to Almond, Olive and Lemon,
there was the senior center, a large surface parking lot and the Wahoo's project was also
involved in that block. There were constraints on that block and it amounted to '/z of the
block. There had been community concern regarding the implications of those areas of
proposed higher density and they were very isolated and in the context of the larger
adjustment for the intensity and density of Old Towne. Overall the residential density
potential would be reduced. In the case of the proposed plan vs. the existing General
Plan, there would be a situation that under the expected building that there would be 420
fewer housing units. The non-residential development potential was basically similar
between the existing and proposed General Plan, the difference being approximately
67,000 square feet. Again they were looking at adaptive reuse and way to repackage the
use of a building and locations for in fill projects.
Page 19 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
September 21, 2009
20 of 29
Commissioner Imboden asked for the reduction in residential units in Old Towne?
Ms. Pehoushek stated 420.
Commissioner Imboden stated and with that was the re-designation of R2, R3 and R4
properties to R1.
Ms. Pehoushek stated there would also be the reduction from 24 units to 15 units per
acre.
Commissioner Imboden stated he assumed that would not include adding back in the
potential for accessory structures for R1 properties.
Ms. Pehoushek stated accessory structures were all factored into the respective average
density of single family areas.
Commissioner Imboden stated he spoke of the future potential.
Ms. Pehoushek stated people could continue to build accessory units.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated in dealing with the historic multi-family properties, where
there were approximately 32 blocks that had historic multi-family properties, but had not
consumed the whole block. He understood the City had not wanted spot zoning. He
asked Mr. Sheatz if an overlay of just those historic properties that contained multi-
~~,.:,..
family uses?
Mr. Sheatz stated that could be done. It would not affect the spot zoning issue. As long
as there were clumps of those areas that had contiguous boundaries, rather than creating
islands.
Commissioner Imboden stated another issue he wanted to address was he felt there were
many properties that had not been captured in those blocks.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated he felt that it would be one place where an overlay would
work, if all the properties had not been captured in the inventory, it would get caught up
in the broader zoning, however, the overlay could in affect protect those properties.
Mr. Sheatz asked if they were referring to applying that to the properties that had been
blocked or shaded in on the map.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated the map was slightly confusing as the lime green color
appeared to be used as a highlight box around areas, and there appeared to be several
other multi-family units that were not captured. He had not wanted to create a spot
zoning issue.
Commissioner Imboden stated he would be in support of an overlay, but were they
extending the exception to historic resources, and he would be in support of that, vs.
extending the same situation to those properties that might not be historic.
Page 20 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
21 of 29
Vice Chair Whitaker stated that was part of the reason he would want the legal non-
conforming ordinance to apply to the entire City.
Commissioner Imboden stated he was coming back to the relevance of the issue.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated his own distinction was that a historic resource was
something that he would not want to get caught in the 1 year potential.
Commissioner Imboden stated he completely agreed with where the discussion was
headed, however, he was not certain that they would capture all the areas with the map
before them. He was not certain that Staff had identified 100% of the historic resources,
and what would happen if there were 6 properties that were not identified. Would they
not be afforded the same privilege?
Vice Chair Whitaker asked Ms. Pehoushek if she had any suggestion for how they would
handle those properties that had not been identified.
Ms. Pehoushek stated she needed to understand what the fundamental concern was with
the existing legal non-conforming guideline, which stated if any type of residential
structure would be totally mis-stated it could be re-established by virtue of the fact that it
was a residential structure. She asked what problem were they attempting to solve.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated, being involved in the real estate industry, he could not quite
buy that financing would never be an issue, and he wanted to insure that financing and
;; ,.
sale ability would remain for those folks that had a 1922 duplex. One of the things he
wanted to prevent, was that if there was a historic duplex on N. Pine and at some point in
time that was changed into a single family residence, that someone later could not turn
that back into amulti-family residence that would historically bring it back to what it was
in the 1920's. He would not want that to happen.
Commissioner Imboden stated he was not certain how that could be done, and he was not
entirely convinced that what they were attempting to do was spot zoning. On Cully
Drive, they had pulled out three properties that were Industrial and they could be left
alone, and it would be in the interest of preserving a designated cultural resource to find
some way of separating those properties. He had not heard a convincing argument yet.
Mr. Sheatz stated on Cully Drive, that wasn't spot zoning, there were like parcels that
were adjacent/touching and when he reviewed the cases of spot zoning those properties
had not fallen into that category. In Old Towne they were looking at a much larger area
and in turn creating a significant number of islands, just picking and choosing which
properties had it and which ones would not. That was discouraged and the
unconstitutional part of spot zoning, picking that one property on the block where all
other properties would be disadvantaged.
Commissioner Imboden stated he was not an attorney, but if a property was located in a
contiguous historic district that would be the glue. Just as much as four single family
residences in a row. He was at a bit of a loss and supported the direction given, an
important point was brought up and he would not want to create a situation where a
Page 21 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
22 of 29
property owner wished to restore a property and could not because their neighbors were
R1.
~:,...
Mr. Bridges stated he wanted to throw another option out there, they were dealing at the
General Plan level and it was not zoning. They were dealing with low density residential
in the General Plan. There were several areas designated as Old Towne Mixed Use, one
possibility would be to have low density residential that allowed multi-family under the
circumstances spoken about earlier.
Commissioner Imboden stated spot zoning.
Mr. Bridges stated with his work at the General Plan level they could designate it that
way and then review it when it came to zoning.
Mr. Sheatz stated it deferred the inevitable, when zoning came up they would be in the
same situation.
Ms. Pehoushek stated in the zoning table, the table could have single family residential
and historic multi-family as permitted by right uses.
Commissioner Imboden asked if that would be something that could be included in a
recommendation so it would not fall off of the radar?
Vice Chair Whitaker stated with all the issues that had been addressed at the last meeting
he would want some resolution to those in a recommendation. On the reduced FAR, he
had a bit of a problem with understanding the math in getting to a point where he could
understand what the difference in a 3ra Old Towne Mixed Use category and what had
been proposed in the GPAC alternative 3, where there were split Old Towne Mixed Uses.
There was a .5 to 1.0 and a 1.0 to 1.5.
Ms. Pehoushek stated under the alternative 3, the GPAC recommendation, at that stage
were calling it a Mixed Use designation and a neighborhood Mixed Use, at 15 units per
acre and a .5 FAR. It was an adjustment to the FAR component.
Vice Chair Whitaker brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or a
motion.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated they could begin by discussing the floor area ratio on the
spoke streets.
Commissioner Imboden stated when he reviewed his map he was seeing densities which
confirmed his concerns. It appeared that they were more in the blue than the green with
maxing out at .5 or .6; he wanted to ensure that they would be keeping those areas under
control. Specifically he spoke about the spoke streets outside of the Plaza. The other
area where he had concern was the Depot area and noted on the map was primarily blue
and green again with only two or three properties maxing out between .7 and .8. It would
- seem that going to a 1.5, would be doubling the density in that area. He had serious
concerns in a historic district that once there was an equal or higher concentration of non-
Page 22 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
23 of 29
contributing fabric vs. non-contributing, the City would be in trouble with the national
register listing. He would want to see that come down and he could entertain a number in
the area of 1.0 for the Depot area. He felt there was room for expansion there. On spoke
streets he would hear what the consensus was. Certainly at 1.0 it would be far too high.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he tended to follow along with what the
Commissioners were driving at with the FAR. He would be the advocate of flexibility in
away that would accommodate the various interests at play. The more he listened to
what Commissioners Imboden and Whitaker had to say, he was leaning in their direction.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated the higher intensity in Old Towne for Mixed Use, which was
on page 10 of the Staff Report, which referred to the Depot Walk and had already been
developed by the City Council. He had no problems with that. On page 10 of the Staff
Report, the Old Towne Mixed Use had a 6-24 dwelling unit status and a 1 to 1 FAR;
Staff specifically stated it only applied to the particular bulleted point areas. He would
not have a problem with the higher FAR being applied to those projects or sections of
those areas. He agreed on spoke streets that a .6 FAR would be a maximum and the
Depot area could handle a larger intensity, but not a 1.5.
Commissioner Imboden stated he had not received clarification on the language for the
zero property line and where that was included in the documentation.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated they could recommend that the zero lot line only apply in the
Plaza and one block off of the spoke streets and it would come back in the resolution.
,;
Commissioner Imboden asked Mr. Knight with the zero property line it was more than a
block off of the Plaza and particularly on Chapman, was that correct?
Mr. Knight stated on the east side it stopped on Grand, from the Civic Center east he
could not think of a single property with a zero lot line. On the west side it went all the
way to the tracks but westerly of the tracks there was a low single story office feel and
retail.
Ms. Pehoushek stated she had found the language change in Comment No. 24, A-4, there
was a document called the final program. The actual text change appeared on page 5-1,
toward the back of the document and clarified support of developments to the property
line in the downtown core and Depot Specific Plan area.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated it was on page 5-1.
Commissioner Imboden stated the zero lot line also existed on a number of properties
near the tracks. Some of the issues would have to be dealt with on a project by project
basis. He felt comfortable with that component.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated they could now address the floor area ratio on spoke streets.
Commissioner Imboden stated he wanted to review the proposed FAR on the quadrants.
"~' He asked for the proposed FAR on quadrants in Old Towne?
Page 23 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
24 of 29
Ms. Pehoushek stated the FAR would be presented in the zoning ordinance for the
residential areas and she would need to defer to the zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Imboden stated his only concern was the .6 number that had been thrown
out and he wanted to ensure that they would not be getting too high.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated that the spoke streets tended to have a fair number of the light
green of .5 to .6 properties touching Chapman and even some .7 on Glassell. He was
attempting to address what was there.
Commissioner Imboden stated he could only identify one, which was the Palmyra senior
housing project.
Vice Chair Whitaker asked in speaking to the spoke streets were they only referencing
properties beyond Almond to the south and Maple to the north and beyond and Orange to
the east and Olive to the west?
Commissioner Imboden deferred to Staff for additional input, and he asked if the
boundary would be Olive or Lemon?
Ms. Pehoushek stated from west of the Plaza there was not the same residential building
stock that appeared in the other direction. That area carried over to the tracks and
possibly Pixley. There was not a good concentration of remaining historic buildings in
that particular direction on Chapman.
,;~.~_
Commissioner Imboden stated he would even be comfortable pulling that over to the
tracks.
Ms. Pehoushek stated in answer to the question about FAR in the residential quadrants it
was on a sliding scale based on lot sizes, assuming a 10,000 square foot lot the FAR was
.6.
Commissioner Imboden stated his understanding when the Grand Street Study took place
was that the FAR that had come about was .4 to .7 FAR in Old Towne; he felt they were
not considering a huge difference in recommending a .6 for the spoke streets in looking at
a Mixed Use designation. He would be comfortable with the .6 on spoke streets, from
Almond south, Maple north, from the tracks west and Orange east.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated he would attempt to craft some language.
Commissioner Imboden stated the points they spoke about were spoke streets and their
proposed density, Depot Specific area and that designation and the FAR designation.
The zero property line issue had been taken care of.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated they could take what Staff had proposed; such as the item on
page 10 of the Staff Report would not need to be addressed. They could be handled as
~~ four separate recommendations.
Page 24 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
25 of 29
Commissioner Imboden made a motion for the Old Towne/Sante Fe Depot Focus Area to
recommend approval to the City Council with the exception of the Old Towne Mixed Use
<~.y.~
designation for spoke streets, Chapman Street east of Orange, Glassell Street north of
Maple, Chapman Avenue between the Plaza and after the railroad tracks, and S. Glassell
south of Almond Avenue, to have an FAR of .6 rather than the proposed FAR. In regard
to the designation provided for the Depot area he recommended a reduction in the FAR to
1.0, with the exception of those areas included in the 5 bullet points provided on page 10
of the Staff Report which would be a higher Mixed Use designation of a 1.0 to 1.5 FAR.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated and noting the correction or amendment to the zero lot line on
5.1.
Commissioner Imboden stated the motion to include the lot line language found on page
5.1 of the Final Program document of the impact report, referring to those areas inside the
Plaza areas.
SECOND: Commissioner Whitaker
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
RECUSED: Commissioner Steiner
MOTION CARRIED
Vice Chair Whitaker stated they now had the next issue with respect to Old Towne,
which was the legal non-conforming historic contributing multi-family properties. He
made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council, based on the consultant's
recommendation that there be a special designation referred to as Old Towne Low
Density Residential that would allow permitted by rights single family use and historic
multi-family as those properties existed.
Commissioner Imboden stated he would like to amend the last language to be designated
cultural resources.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated he would accept that.
SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
RECUSED: Commissioner Steiner
MOTION CARRIED
Vice Chair Whitaker stated the next item with respect to Old Towne was the alternative 3
scenario from the GPAC was something that they wanted to address, he was not hearing
~~~~ any big cheers from the rest of the Commission to address that considering they had
already made changes to the floor area ratio.
Page 25 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
September 21, 2009
26 of 29
Commissioner Imboden stated he felt they had not needed to address that separately.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated the next item with respect to Old Towne was Transfer
Development Rights, he would want to deal with just the two items on the chart LU4, on
page LU51 of the final public review draft of the General Plan issued in January 2009.
After they dealt with the Old Towne component he would want to bring Chair Steiner
back to discuss Transfer Development Rights that pertained to the rest of the General
Plan Update. He stated that he would recommend having Old Towne sites receive rights
from other Old Towne sites or other neighborhood Mixed Use properties, and that the
neighborhood Mixed Use in the third column be deleted.
Commissioner Imboden asked if they should be interested in moving it over as a receiver.
He asked if there was any reason that they would not want TDR's to occur between Old
Towne properties to properties outside of Old Towne.
Mr. Bridges stated there was not a reason he could think o£ He stated they could delete
neighbor Mixed Use from the last lines in the third column.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated their concern was that they would not want someone to
transfer development rights from the Block of Orange to Old Towne.
Mr. Bridges stated another suggestion he had, was in the next to the last line, he referred
to the purpose, which was to expand and preserve open space in a Mixed Use
environment, to add Old Towne Mixed Use areas to that list. Old Towne Mixed Use
would be a donor site and that could transfer some intensity out of Old Towne to preserve
open space and historic character.
Commissioner Cunningham asked if he could explain that further.
Mr. Bridges stated in the purpose column, the first column, he was referencing the last
line that spoke of neighborhood Mixed Use with the purpose being to expand open space
in neighborhood Mixed Use environments. He suggested adding, since extra intensities
could be transferred out of Old Towne and into neighborhood Mixed Use elsewhere, that
part of the purpose could be to preserve open space in Old Towne.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated he understood and that was applicable.
Commissioner Imboden asked if neighborhood Mixed Use could just jump over to a
receiver site.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated it could be as simple as that and they would not need to add
any additional language.
Commissioner Cunningham stated in speaking of TDR's there were two types of
neighborhood Mixed Use and Mixed Use in Old Towne and he assumed they would
transfer like to like.
•~,
Page 26 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
27 of 29
Mr. Bridges stated to keep in mind they were just at the General Plan level and to
implement it, they would need an ordinance that spoke about specifics. In his mind they
would not need to go like to like in Old Towne Mixed Use, the primary area would be to
maintain the historic character of Old Towne and to be able to demonstrate that,
regardless of the transfer.
Vice Chair Whitaker made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of the
bottom two lines of table LU4 in the General Plan of page LU51, and the text of the
General Plan that went with it, and the amendment of neighborhood Mixed Use be
deleted from column 3 on the bottom line and moved to column 2, having the
neighborhood Mixed Use be a receiver and not a donor.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
RECUSED: Commissioner Steiner
MOTION CARRIED
Vice Chair Whitaker asked if there was anything else to discuss in reference to Old
Towne. There was no further discussion. He felt they needed to have a vote for the Land
Use element of Old Towne.
~'~ Commissioner Imboden stated the reason he was being so particular was that over the
years there had been many projects before them with people who had purchased
properties and had come before the Commission wanting to develop their properties with
what was allowed and not totally understanding all the complexities. He wanted their
decisions to be clear to everyone and not to be misleading to anyone, in order to allow
everyone to understand what was realistic regarding the development of their properties.
Vice Chair Whitaker made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council the Old
Towne Land Use Focus Area as presented with the exception of the 3 previous votes on
changes to that Focus Area.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
RECUSED: Commissioner Steiner
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner returned to the discussion. He stated they would resume with the
remaining TDR's, which were the top two parts of LU4.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of the remaining Transfer
Development Rights issue.
Page 27 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2009
28 of 29
Chair Steiner opened the discussion for any questions to Staff. There were none. He
brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of
the remaining Transfer Development Rights table as presented.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED.
Chair Steiner stated they would move forward with the presentation of Growth
Management.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of the Growth Management
Element.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing with. any questions to Staff. There were none. He
brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Whitaker stated the component was to keep the City in line with Measure
M and categories that they had discussed earlier. He had no problem with the element.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of
the Growth Management Element as presented.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner stated the next element that they would hear would be the Natural
Resources Element.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of the Natural Resources
Element.
Commissioner Whitaker stated in the summary it spoke about joint use arrangements, and
the only reference he could find on page 44 that stated joint use arrangements had been
implemented although sometimes difficult to access. In a built out City, those areas such
as schools were the best hope for recreational or park like use. He was questioning if
they were committed to implementing joint use or was it just too difficult.
Page 28 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
September 21, 2009
29 of 29
Ms. Pehoushek deferred that discussion to Community Services Director, Marie Knight.
Ms. Knight stated the City had several joint use agreements in place with the school
district, they had a master use agreement that covered all middle and elementary school
properties and covered all of those with the exception of facilities that they carried a
separate agreement with. There was a separate agreement with McPherson, Killifer,
Santiago Middle School and there was one other. In reviewing the park acreage in the
General Plan, what were included in the 50% for overall park usage were the special use
agreements. Although, when reviewing opportunities for sports organization at all of the
City's schools, and looking at park facilities from a sports field perspective, the City had
1/3 of the facilities and the School District had the other 2/3. All of which were used by
the youth sport associations. The City was also looking at more creative joint use
agreements that had not only included park space. They were looking at the local
churches that had field space and facilities that were not being used on a regular basis and
could provide opportunities for the public to use. They were also investigating
opportunities with other Cities. The City was built out and the only park on the horizon
was on the east end of the City, with the exception of Steve Ambriz, Del Rio site, which
they hoped to have built someday. They would need to get creative as the needs of the
community grew.
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council the
Natural Resources Element as presented.
~,~
SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
(5) ADJOURNMENT
Chair Steiner made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission scheduled on Monday, October 5, 2009.
SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 10:09 P.M.
Page 29 of 29 Pages