2009 - October 5Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2009
1 of 13
Minutes
Planning Commission O~~ October 5, 2009
City of Orange APPR 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
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION:
Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:50 p.m. with a review of the
Agenda. .
Item No. 1, Minutes from the regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 9,
2009. Commissioner Steiner asked if all Commissioners would be voting on the item.
All Commissioners present stated they would be voting and there were no changes or
corrections noted.
Item No. 2 General Plan Update. Chair Steiner asked for an update on where Staff was in
presenting the remainder of the General Plan Update? Assistant Community
Development Director, Ed Knight, stated Staff would continue the presentation with the
Cultural Resources element, which was a carryover from the previous meeting. The
discussion would continue with that component and all the things that went with it.
Chair Steiner asked if the Commission would be voting on the various elements that
would be presented separately or collectively. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz,
stated the Commissioners would be voting on them separately. The remaining parts of
the General Plan Update were Cultural Resources, Public Safety, Noise, Infrastructure,
Urban Design and Economic Development.
Chair Steiner asked if there would need to be any recusals from Commissioners with
regard to Old Towne. Mr. Sheatz stated there were no conflicts presented with the
remaining information to be heard. Chair Steiner stated the Circulation Element would
be heard at the October 19, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, stated there would also be required action on the
Historic Resources Survey which would be a separate component outside of the General
Plan Update. Mr. Knight stated the other components included the EIR, Ordinance
Amendments and Historic Resources Survey. Chair Steiner asked if there were any other
items on the Agenda for the October 19, 2009 meeting. Mr. Knight stated there would
be nothing additional and there were no further updates from the City Council.
Page 1 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
There was no further discussion.
Administrative Session closed at 7:00 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
October 5, 2009
2of13
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular
meeting of the Planning Commission on September 9, 2009 as written.
SECOND: Commissioner Whitaker
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
(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.
The Planning Commission commenced the public hearing process on the project on
August 3, 2009, holding subsequent hearings on September 9t and September 21S`. The
Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, and Natural Resources Elements were
discussed on these dates. The Cultural Resources Element was continued to the October
St'' meeting and is discussed in Attachment 1 to the staff report. The Public Safety,
Page 2 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2009
3of13
Noise, Infrastructure, Urban Design, and Economic Development Elements are the final
Elements in need of Planning Commission review and are the focus of this staff report.
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.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-34-09 recommending
that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2009-0001
and Environmental Impact Report No. 1815-09 for the City of Orange
Comprehensive General Plan Update.
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-35-09 recommending
that the City Council approve of an ordinance adding Sections 17.38.030
and 17.38.040 of the Orange Municipal Code relating to uses made
nonconforming due to General Plan Update and termination of
nonconforming uses. .
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-36-09 recommending
City Council adoption of the City of Orange Historic Resources Inventory
Update.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of the Cultural Resources
Element.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff.
Commissioner Imboden stated it was mentioned in the Historic Design Review Section 3-
15, Implementation 34, that the Community Development Director shall appoint a City of
Orange Preservation Officer. He asked if the City had an idea of what the responsibility
of a Preservation Officer would be.
Ms. Pehoushek stated she failed to introduce, Robert Chattel, who was the Historic
Preservation sub-consultant involved with the overall project team. He was most expert
at all things related to local programs and processes and she deferred the question to Mr.
Chattel.
Mr. Chattel stated typically a City the size of Orange with the number of Historic
Resources would identify a Staff person to represent the expertise in Historic
Preservation. There was such a person in the Planning Department and it made logical
sense that individual be appointed as the City's Preservation Officer and become the
point person when an Historic Resource question came up, prior to the project going
before the Design Review Committee or Planning Commission, with an attempt to
resolve whatever the issues might be at a Staff level.
Page 3 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2009
4of13
Commissioner Imboden stated he had a suggestion and he wanted Staff's input. It
appeared in the text twice, when speaking to alternatives to demolition, which included
building relocation and sale or transfer of ownership prior to demolition of privately or
publicly owned Historic Resources. They would see how the item moved forward, but
assuming the Planning Commission would be able to move the item forward, he wanted
to suggest that the word relocation be repositioned to the end of the options; simply
because relocated buildings would not be eligible for National Registry listing. He would
want that status to be maintained as it was a part of the Cultural Resources Element. If
Staff objected to that suggestion he would hear their argument, as it was something he
would propose. It was in the text under CR30, second to the last paragraph alternatives to
demolition and it also appeared under Policy 1.4, CR21.
Chair Steiner stated he wanted to clarify and asked Commissioner Imboden how would
he propose repositioning the word relocation?
Commissioner Imboden stated he would suggest that the text read: including the sales or
transfer of ownership, then building relocation. He preferred the option, building
relocation, the first option listed, be looked at as a last option.
Chair Steiner stated he was not certain that, from a grammatical standpoint, the
placement of the word relocation prior to the word sale or transfer of ownership would be
a tacit suggestion. He asked Staff if they had an opinion on which option should be
looked at first.
Ms. Pehoushek stated relocation would be further down the list in terms of preference.
What was important to Staff was that it was referenced at all and whatever the pleasure of
the Commission in terms of order would be up to them.
Chair Steiner asked for the additional page that the text appeared on?
Commissioner Imboden stated there were two locations, first under Policy 1.4, on page
CR21 and then under the Alternatives to Demolition paragraph, under Cultural Resources
page 30.
Chair Steiner stated, under the unlikely event that any other reference was made
regarding relocation, he would assume Commissioner Imboden's proposal would suggest
that it not appear first in any of the text?
Commissioner Imboden stated that was correct.
Ms. Pehoushek stated the City would want to see rehabilitation as the first option.
Commissioner Whitaker stated there had been several comments from Orange Park Acres
Association that throughout the General Plan they had been ignored or not heard. Most
of their comments would probably come up in the Circulation Element, but in reviewing
the Cultural Resources Element on Page CR31, the definition of a Neighborhood
Character area as a conservation district easily designated as an overlay on basic Land
Use category or geographically over neighborhoods with less stringent design standards
Page 4 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2009
Sof13
than that of an Historic District and focus on maintaining the basic character of the area
but not historic details or details of building. The conservation district might ask that
buildings maintain a front yard, garages be set back behind the main building - he was
quoting from the text on CR31 in the box, and his question being, was there a reason
Staff had not thought of a Neighborhood Character area for Orange Park Acres? They
had zone consistencies, with respect to acre lots, trails and equestrian usage, and other
things going on too.. He asked if it would be appropriate to study Orange Park Acres and
to assign a Cultural Resource or Neighborhood Character Area for that site.
Ms. Pehoushek stated Staff had discussed Orange Park Acres and some of the other
outlying areas of the larger planning area as to the appropriateness of surveying those
areas. One of the things that led to not surveying Orange Park Acres was the overall
predominant age of the building stock in that particular area; which is to state it would
not generally meet the 50 year or older threshold for falling into historic in nature, based
on California Registry Standards and California Historic Places Standards. The Eichler
tracts were looked at because they were very architecturally distinctive, and a recognized
cultural, architectural icon in the country and those areas held together with a more
cohesive uniform area. Orange Park Acres had the equestrian and large lot character of
development, and whether or not Staff would look at the area in the historic context or as
just a unique area on its own, that deserved some other attention.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he had thought that was the intent of a Cultural Resources
Element, to broaden it from just Historic Resources.
Ms. Pehoushek turned over the discussion to Mr. Chattel.
Mr. Chattel stated he was not familiar with the Orange Park Acres area, but the notion of
having a Neighborhood Character area was just that, it could be the property type, the set
backs or just a sense of a place that was created by building standards and use, or
supporting functions such as equestrian use.
Chair Steiner asked if he agreed that an historic component would not necessarily need to
be a part of that component.
Mr. Chattel stated it would not need to have an historic component; typically they would.
His firm had prepared a Conservation District for Cannery Row in Monterey which was
comprised of 4 small concentrated historic districts. What the Conservation District had
done was to link them all and addressed design guidelines for the intervening space
which had a lot of development potential. Typically such an area would have anchors
that were historic. It would be possible if there was a unique configuration to address
that area as a form of a Neighborhood Character area, if the character was definable as
something that would be worth preserving.
Commissioner Cunningham asked for more clarification on NCA's (Neighborhood
Character Areas). There was a statement that read "provides less stringent design
restrictions" and he wanted a clearer explanation of what restrictions would be in place
and would it be dependent on the character of the neighborhood?
Page 5 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2009
6of13
Mr. Chattel stated with the Old Towne Design Standards which incorporated the
Secretary of the Interior Standards; there were very specific directives in terms of
material use, preservation of building fabric and the opportunity in a Neighborhood
Character Area to deal with both scale and mass setback and it could stop there and not
include use of materials. In terms of being less stringent, it would not be the materiality
of something that would be preserved; but an overall sense of a particular place and
would be identified by a building type that existed.
Commissioner Cunningham stated in an area such as El Modena or Cypress Street
designated as an NCA, if a resident wanted to build a bigger house, would they be able to
do that or would they be limited to what they could build?
Mr. Chattel stated they might be discouraged from building something that was out of
scale with the character of the neighborhood. It would not be an Historic Resource issue.
Commissioner Cunningham stated sitting on the Planning Commission and reviewing
Design Review Committee Minutes; he noticed discouragement going on regarding
applicants and their projects and it was a concern of his and he asked where would
discouragement end and requirements start? He had a concern with the Neighborhood
Character Areas, not that he wanted to see them change, but was wondering if it would
invite restrictions on areas that had not had those restrictions in place, and that there
would not be any danger in having a significant change in character. It appeared vague
and that bothered him.
Mr. Chattel stated it was intended to be flexible. First of all, especially in a General Plan,
it was appropriate to allow for a provision to recognize a neighborhood, the Cypress
Street Barrio or El Modena areas were prime examples of areas that failed to qualify as
Historic Districts on their own. The Eichler tracts, in Staff's opinion, would become
Historic Districts. The other neighborhoods that were culturally significant and retained
their character from an earlier period, nonetheless, needed to be preserved. A step in that
effort would be to identify those areas as Neighborhood Character Areas. The word El
Modena appeared in the documents more that most people had seen previously.
Developing a Neighborhood Character was just one step in the process, with identifying
the area, being the first step. In terms of design guidelines, Staff was suggesting more
flexibility that the Secretary of Interior Standards would not apply to those
neighborhoods, but the recommendations would generally be to study the scale and
character of the neighborhood and to develop design policies that would preserve their
character.
Chair Steiner asked if there was anything about an NCA that would prohibit or mandate a
type of change to a homeowner, and was it dealt with at a different level. His question
was, by itself, could an NCA prohibit a person from building something that would be
out of character within their neighborhood?
Mr. Chattel stated until they developed their first one, they would not have that
information available. It could be like a specific plan, which would be very clear in what
would be allowed or where a variance could occur. The railroad area was being studied
for a specific plan. It could take the form of a specific plan, which he suspected would
Page 6 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2009
7of13
include very detailed requirements or it could be less so, or take the form of a
preservation plan that would identify the key character or defining features of a
neighborhood to be addressed as a design guideline. Whether the decision makers were
the DRC or PC, they could set forth what would come to them or what would not come to
them, it could be greater flexibility in Staff review and would depend on what the City
wanted to preserve in terms of the character. For El Modena, it had a very low scale,
low density character and was very much like Old Towne.
Chair Steiner stated the mere act of stating one was supportive of a Neighborhood
Character Area in and of itself would not express an opinion either way of how
significant a role the City would have in subsequent determinations.
Mr. Chattel stated that was correct. The flexibility could be built in and that it would be a
Community Outreach based decision, to work with community members to prepare
whatever design guidelines were appropriate.
Commissioner Cunningham stated would it be fair to state that property owners in a
neighborhood character area would be operating under a more stringent set of rules than
residents in the City at large.
Mr. Chattel stated that would be correct. It would be an overlay of sorts, whether it
would be a zoning overlay or a plan that would be implemented.
Chair Steiner stated how much more stringent those rules were would be determined at a
later date.
Mr. Chattel stated it would be defined in the plan.
Commissioner Cunningham stated in terms of residents who lived there, and Mr. Chattel
had mentioned Cannery Row, which had not existed in Orange, would they pole the
residents, with 100 residents would it be majority rule or if there was substantial
opposition to it would it not move forward? He was attempting to get his head around
how it would work.
Mr. Chattel stated hopefully the plan itself would be beneficial to the property owners
and residents. There would be a community character that was recognized and identified
and that the residents would want that character to be preserved long term. That was
certainly the case on Cannery Row. He assured them that there were places such as the
Monterey Aquarium that had large development projects occurring and it was a delicate
balancing act. In the Cannery Row situation, it was the property owners that sponsored
the initial studies. They wanted to achieve some type of delicate balance between the
development pressures and preservation. Ultimately it was the City Council and
Commissions that gave direction as to how firm or how flexible the policy should be.
The General Plan would establish that Neighborhood Character Areas could be
established and it had been recommended that some of the specific areas in the proposed
plan go forward and there could be others. There needed to be a policy development
process that went along with defining a Neighborhood Character Area.
Page 7 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2009
8of13
Commissioner Whitaker stated on Implementation 15, in regard to Eichler districts, he
asked what was the difference between pursue historic landmark status of the Eichler
tract as opposed to what currently existed for Old Towne?
Ms. Pehoushek stated the process for establishing a localized district would be more
streamlined than the full blown National Register Designation Process.
Mr. Chattel stated there were a number of Eichler tracts that were listed in the National
Registry; there were two in Palo Alto. The National Registry required a very high level
of integrity. What he had seen in the surveys conducted in the 3 tracts in Orange, was a
range of integrity. The Fair Haven tract had the highest level of integrity and it dropped
down from there. They may not all be eligible for National Registry listing. With local
designation, there was greater flexibility to allow intrusions in the District and alterations
that might not meet the National Registry standards. The Old Towne district had initially
been designated locally and later in the National Registry. A policy for local listing could
be established. The most effective government in an historic district was at a local level.
Local level designation gave the City the authority for Design Review.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if the General Plan was approved as drafted which stated
pursue historical landmark districts, the City Council could approve that recommendation
and would that allow Staff the authority to pursue an historic landmark district or would
it return for another City Council vote.
Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated it would return for
another vote. The implementation plan laid out a blueprint for Staff to follow, but it
would require further City Council approval to actually move ahead to a future date after
the plan would be drawn up. The implementation plan would give Staff the authority to
go out and conduct the research, complete certain actions and to request funds for
surveys. City Council action would be required.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if it would be the same chain of events for the
Neighborhood Conservation areas as well.
Mr. Knight stated that was correct.
Mr. Chattel stated with respect to the Eichler Tract, those surveys were completed and
well defined geographic housing tracts with each built during a certain time. The
surveys, should the zoning ordinance be amended, allow for an Historic District other
than Old Towne. They could fairly readily take the survey information that had been
prepared to accompany the General Plan Update and move forward expeditiously and
designate those areas as Historic Districts.
Mr. Knight stated those comments reinforced what he was stating. He had reviewed an
ordinance from another City on Eichler homes, and that City had created some type of
overlay for Eichler homes. If the information was taken from the survey and moved
ahead, there would be, initially, a City Council request for the ordinance. Once the
ordinance came through, they would go through the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Page 8 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2009
9of13
Commissioner Cunningham stated on page 13 of the Staff Report under Urban Design,
there was reference to Gateway enhancements and recognized community landmarks; he
asked what recognized community landmarks referred to?
Chair Steiner stated that -was a separate element for consideration and he would revisit
that question when that element was being presented. He brought the item back to the
Commission for any further discussion or action.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of
the Cultural Resources Section of the General Plan, with the amendments indicated by
Commissioner Imboden with respect to the text of relocation as a last option of Historic
Resources. On Implementation 17, program I-23, to add: investigate adding Orange
Park Acres as a Neighborhood Character Area.
Commissioner Whitaker stated there had been comments received for the record from
Orange Park Acres residents, stating that the OPA deserved unique treatment just like
Old Towne, it was not an historic area, but there were unique character elements within
that area and there could certainly be a Neighborhood Character designation for OPA.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: Commissioner Cunningham
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of the Public Safety Element.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. There was none.
Commissioner Imboden made a motion to recommend approval to City Council the
Public Safety Element as written and presented.
SECOND: Commissioner Whitaker
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of the Noise Element.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. There were none.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of
the Noise Element as written and presented.
Page 9 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
October 5, 2009
10 of 13
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of the Infrastructure
Element.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. There were none.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council
of the Infrastructure Element.
SECOND: Commissioner Whitaker
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of the Urban Design Element.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he wanted more clarification on what recognition
meant, if it was just landmarks that the City found interesting or was there anything more
to it?
Ms. Pehoushek stated typically with the establishment of landmark lists, there was some
type of provision for consideration of development that might impact specific landmarks.
An example that she had been exposed to recently was Anaheim and the big A at Angel's
Stadium. There would be special consideration of development for that area related to
whether a new development would block the view of the sign from different and distinct
locations. It was the type of thing that would be looked at. There were no specifics •on
what the landmark program might include, but landmarks such as the Plaza or the Selman
Chevrolet sign, things that over the years had become icons in the community; there
could be protection standards developed for visual landmarks.
Commissioner Cunningham asked what if Selman Chevrolet wanted to get rid of the
neon sign and it was recognized as a landmark, would the business owner be allowed to
do that?
Ms. Pehoushek stated it most likely would end up in a situation where the business owner
would be discouraged to change the sign. The public process would be followed; and
would it have such a big impact on the community at large? There were things such as
the Selman Chevrolet that in driving along the 55 when it was seen it was recognized as
Page 10 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2009
11 of 13
being in Orange, or the flagpole on Town and Country and that was a landmark. Staff
would need to decide, through a public process, whether it was an owner supported
recognition of features on their property and a decision would need to be made to the
level of consideration that they would afford the property owner.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if the Urban Design Element was necessary for the City
Council to be able to do things such as creating architectural guidelines for the corridor,
or was it something that was just an overview or a building block. He was attempting to
figure out if it was needed to have a General Plan for what Urban Design should look like
or was it something that they would not need to address currently?
Ms. Pehoushek stated the value of having an Urban Design Element in the General Plan
was that it provided some guidelines to the public at large that the City cared about what
the Commercial corridor looked like and having that language would provide a platform
to march down the path of developing design standards related to certain corridors. If a
project came to Staff for an area that had no design standards, there were no policies in
place to assist with leveraging an approved design for a project. It would allow Staff to
reduce the level of subjectivity that might occur between the Planning Department and an
applicant, or between the DRC and an applicant, it set forth some level of expectation
that they were working towards a better visual quality and environment in specific
locations of the City.
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Whitaker stated it was an optional element, and although he would
appreciate all the corridors to look spiffy; he was concerned that in the current economic
climate placing an Urban Design Element at a time that City Council would not want
more restrictions placed on business owners, he was not certain they were at a place
where the proposal was appropriate. There were certain parts of the element that he liked
and others that were overdone in terms of planning; it was not law and just a guideline.
Commissioner Cunningham stated there were things that he liked about the proposal and
things he had not liked. Given that it was an optional element; he would suggest that the
Urban Design Element not be adopted. There was reticence on his part.
Commissioner Imboden stated he understood there were two Commissioners that were
not interested in moving the item forward. He had no strong argument either for or
against the element. He asked for additional commentary on why Commissioner
Cunningham and Whitaker were not in support of the Urban Design Element? He asked
if it was just an endorsement Staff was looking for in order to move the item to the City
Council. He was not necessarily viewing any restrictions and he felt it would be more of
a tool that would provide further opportunities for enhancements. He was not as
concerned in regard to the economic climate and he felt it would not be something that
would have any affect in the near future. He had not felt they would be entering any
dangerous territory and was not necessarily opposed to the proposal.
Commissioner Cunningham stated part of his opposition was that when there was
updating of existing development standards, overtime those would turn into more
Page 11 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2009
12 of 13
restrictive guidelines and had a bearing on what property owners could and could not do.
If the intent was to establish more deliberate thinking on how people used corridors, as
pedestrians or transit riders, to guide people in a certain manner, he felt it required a
heavier hand from the City and he was not convinced that it was necessary. He had an
aversion to some of the vagueness. Gateway enhancements and what had that meant, and
he was not comfortable with designating a car dealer sign as a community landmark and
what restrictions that would have down the road. His experience in working in different
cities was the tendency to become more restrictive. He was shy about adopting the Urban
Design Element.
Commissioner Whitaker stated with respect to residential there were in fill guidelines and
there were particular signage ordinances that City Council wanted to pass or specific
design guidelines that they wanted, he thought and his view of Orange was that the City
was not as uniform as Irvine, and it was more of an ad hoc process in Orange of when
they wanted to change a particular corridor as opposed to having a master plan.
Essentially it authorized Staff to create guidelines. The focus was primarily on the
business corridors and he was reticent to put the proposed Urban Design Element
forward. '
Chair Steiner stated he had to depart from Commissioners Whitaker and Cunningham's
viewpoint, and he felt it made sense for the City the size of Orange to adopt an Urban
Design Element. He shared Commissioner Cunningham's concern about designating a
neon sign as a community landmark; however, that was not what the proposal would do.
Any subsequent action the City would take in the name of Urban Design that acted to
restrict the rights of private property owners would be dealt with in a manner in which the
City dealt with any heavy handed City activity and generally would not be well taken.
His colleagues acknowledgement that there were elements that they liked in addition to
elements that they had not liked justified its inclusion in the General Plan.
To the extent that they were confronted with the heavy handed manifestations that
Commissioner Cunningham was worried about and that he was too, it would be and
could be dealt with. He had not felt that the potential for over regulation was not enough
of a justification to not include the element in the General Plan. The City of Orange was
not the small rural community it once was and he felt there were components that could
be put to use in apro-business use by virtue of including it in the General Plan. It could
have problematic ramifications, but he had every confidence in the City's general sense
of the importance of businesses and the tax base they provided to safeguard that
eventuality. Chair Steiner asked, speaking to Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, that
there could be tentatively a split vote and would the motion die?
Mr. Sheatz stated the Urban Design Element would move onto the City Council with the
information that the Planning Commission deadlocked in the inclusion of the element and
that would be what the record would reflect. It would not preclude consideration by City
Council.
Chair Steiner made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of the Urban
Design Element as written and presented.
Page 12 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Imboden, and Steiner
NOES: Commissioners Cunningham and Whitaker
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
October 5, 2009
13 of 13
MOTION DENIED
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of the Economic
Development Element.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff.
Commissioner Whitaker asked in the focus area objectives on pages 10 and 11, where the
Commission had made recommended changes on those, and assuming the consensus
resolutions passed at the next meeting, would the resolution bullet points get changed as
it moved to City Council?
Ms. Pehoushek stated in the packet that would go to City Council with the recommended
changes in the Land Use Focus area, it would trigger changes in the Economic
Development content and it would be outlined where that had occurred.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to recommend approval to City Council of the
Economic Development Element as written and presented.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
(3) ADJOURNMENT
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission scheduled on Monday, October 19, 2009.
SECOND: Commissioner Whitaker
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:10 P.M.
Page 13 of 13 Pages