2009 - October 19Planning Commission Minutes
October 19, 2009
1 of 31
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
October 19, 2009
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
Amir Farahani, Traffic Engineer
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION:
Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:52 p.m. with a review of the
Agenda.
Item No. 1, Minutes from the regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 21,
2009. There were no changes or corrections noted.
Item No. 2 General Plan Update. Chair Steiner stated the agenda contained all the
resolutions and a continuation of the Circulation Element. Commissioner Whitaker asked
if they were reviewing the Old Towne component of the Circulation Element. Assistant
Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated the entire Circulation Element
would be open for discussion. Chair Steiner stated they would address any additional
concerns during the Public Hearing.
Chair Steiner stated there had been additional contacts from concerned parties that
involved their properties, one being the Chapman Hospital and there had also been
correspondence regarding the Val Verde Estates mobile home park. Commissioner
Whitaker asked if there would be a Public Hearing opened on each resolution and would
each area require a separate vote? Chair Steiner stated he was open for suggestion; they
could set aside areas that would not be questionable or require discussion. Commissioner
Whitaker stated they could go forward to see how far they got with the 8 planning areas
and Circulation, and asked if there would need to be a re-vote regarding the Growth
Management, Natural Resources, Public Safety, Noise and Infrastructure? Assistant City
Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated the Commission would need to adopt the resolution and
recommend approval of those elements to the City Council.
Commissioner Whitaker stated regarding the Circulation and Mobility Element, would
the Commission be making a consensus vote? Mr. Knight stated it would depend on how
clear everything was, as the element could be adopted in their motion. Chair Steiner
stated he would want to note for the record that the Commission had deadlocked on their
decision on the Urban Design Element.
Page 1 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
2 of 31
Chair Steiner stated there would be some discussion regarding Palmyra and the
reclassification to Light Industrial with the Lemon Street Focus Area, and asked if
changes could be made to the resolution? Mr. Knight stated the draft resolution was not
final until adopted and any changes the Commission made could be noted in their
recommendation.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, stated there was a reference in the Staff Report to
text changes that included a revision to a table; she handed out a copy of the table.
Mr. Sheatz stated for Focus Area No. 1, the South Tustin area that had no recommended
designation change, there would be some public comment. They could allow Staff to do
an analysis and have the area noticed. Those noticed would be property owners within
500' of the area or they could go through the process of a recommendation with no
changes to the Commission's initial consensus. Chair Steiner asked if re-noticing was
required. Mr. Sheatz stated yes, there would be re-noticing to those property owners
within 500' of the Land Use designation change. Commissioner Whitaker asked an
Focus Area No. 1, would all of Area No. 1 not be required to get re-noticing? Mr. Sheatz
was not certain if the entire area, Yorba & the hospital had been originally noticed. Ms.
Pehoushek stated the entire area had been noticed. She referred to comment letter No.
17, which stated the property owner was requesting a change that they had initially not
wanted. The property was in an area of a potential Land Use change from X to Y that
had not been changed in the original discussion. Essentially,. the property was currently
designated as Low/Medium with no change being recommended.
Commissioner Cunningham asked at what point in the discussion would he need to be
recused from the discussion on Focus Area No. 1 as he had a conflict of interest. Mr.
Sheatz stated he would declare that conflict initially and be recused from the discussion.
Commissioner Whitaker stated Commissioner Cunningham would need to abstain from
Focus Area No. 1, but should not be recused from further discussions; he would not want
to create a situation when it came to the Old Towne component discussion that they
would only have 2 voting members. Chair Steiner stated they would vote by each
individual area, on Focus Area No. 1, Commissioner Cunningham would be recused and
Chair Steiner stated on Focus Area No. 5 he would be recused. Chair Steiner stated they
would hear each area separately and he would note them as resolutions 34-09.1, 34-09.2,
etc.
There was no further discussion.
Administrative Session closed at 7:10 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
Page 2 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
CONSENT CALENDAR:
October 19, 2009
3 of 31
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 21, 2009.
Chair Steiner made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of the
Planning Commission on September 21, 2009 as written.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
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 9th, September 21St, and
October 5th. The Land Use, Circulation and Mobility, Growth Management, Natural
Resources, Cultural Resources, Public Safety, Noise Infrastructure, Urban Design and
Economic Development Elements were discussed on these dates. The discussion of the
Old Towne roadway network as a component of the Circulation and Mobility Element
was continued to the October 19th meeting and is the subject of a portion of this report.
The remainder of this report addresses the findings of the Environmental Impact Report
prepared for the General Plan Update.
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
Page 3 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
4 of 31
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.
Staff received 783 written comment letter(s) during the public review period, of which
656 were form letters, and an additional 52 were the same form letter with additional
comments added. The City prepared a Response to Comments/FEIR document to
address environmental comments received during the public review period. Both the
comment letters and responses are provided as Exhibit C to this 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 the
City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2009-0001.
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-35-09 recommending the
City Council approve Program Environmental Impact Report No. 1815-09
for the City of Orange Comprehensive General Plan Update.
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-36-09 recommending 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 non-
conforming due to General Plan Update and termination of non
conforming uses.
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-38-09 recommending
City Council adoption of the City of Orange Historic Resources Inventory
Update.
Chair Steiner stated the item was agendized rather broadly and there were a number of
items contained within Agenda Item No. 2. There would be a re-visit of almost all the
items that consensus votes had already been made upon. There would be public input
taken.
Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated the first issue was
Circulation, which had been listed as Old Towne Roadway Classification, but as Vice
Chair Whitaker had pointed out during the Administrative Session, the Circulation
Element had not been recommended by the Commission and he asked Principal Planner,
Anna Pehoushek, to provide a summary of the additional research and analysis on that
component.
Page 4 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
5 of 31
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, introduced the members of the City's consulting
team and presented an overview of the Circulation Element.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff.
Commissioner Whitaker stated on the bottom of page 6 there was a wording change
which was confusing to him. He read from the report. He felt the whole idea of
reclassification would be inconsistent with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. There
was an attempt to downgrade instead of what was called for in the Master Plan. He was
concerned that Staff was using the word consistency, but on one hand it was consistent,
but then it was noted that Staff would be working to downgrade but that created an
inconsistency. He asked if it would be more clear to state that the general purposes was
to maintain consistency, however, City staff would be working to reclassify roadways
and downgrading to some areas? He looked at the information as downgrading being an
attempt to be consistent with the County Plan. The City wanted to be consistent and the
language needed to be clear.
Mr. Knight stated he understood what Commissioner Whitaker was stating, but in reality
in following the process that had been shown to the Commission, they would maintain
consistency with the MPAH. What was currently happening was that consistency was
being maintained with the existing MPAH, and then stating that apart of the
implementation process would be to seek a reclassification in order to reclassify the
Orange County Plan of Arterial Highways with the reclassification of the City's local
Master Plan of Streets and Highways to reflect the changes shown in the General Plan.
That change was the downgrade from 4 lanes to 2 lanes for Glassell and Chapman.
Consistency would be maintained with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, following
their established program to seek reclassification ofsome streets.
Commissioner Whitaker stated the other question he had was in reference to the top of
page 7, which noted; would begin in 3 months. During the last meeting and the
discussion with the City's Traffic Engineer, he had understood that the City was already
working with the OCTA on the downgrade with the idea that it was going to take more
time than initially anticipated. A question that had been asked was how long that process
would take; it had appeared that the process had already started. He wanted to get
clarification on the timeline.
Ms. Pehoushek stated there had been a sense of lacking a timeframe, as to when the
process would be pursued from a Staff perspective. At the initial level of the
implementation program, rather than indicating the timeframe as ongoing or open-ended,
Staff felt that within 3 months of the General Plan adoption was a reasonable timeframe.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he was agreeable with the timeframe, however, he had
thought that the process had already begun.
Ms. Pehoushek stated Staff had already completed one phase of discussions with OCTA,
and they were attempting to get through the hearing and adoption process in order to
initiate the next phase.
Page 5 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
6 of 31
Traffic Engineer, Amir Farahani, stated as he had mentioned previously, Staff had
already approached OCTA. They had a few meetings with members from the OCTA
regarding downgrading and they had already approved the components that were in the
General Plan Update. Regarding Glassell and Chapman, there had been some
negotiations, but due to the timeframe and the complexity of the project, they would
proceed with those areas after the General Plan Update approvals were complete. The
OCTA already had given him some consensus that they would be in agreement of
acceptance of the request for downgrading. The OCTA required some additional data.
Staff had already included some of the surrounding streets in their study which would be
submitted along with additional information that OCTA would be requesting. Staff
would not necessarily wait 3 months, but as soon as the General Plan Update was
approved and the OCTA was available, they would call for meetings.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he was still confused as he had thought that Staff was
aware that OCTA was not able to get their process complete prior to the General Plan
adoption; however, he had understood that the Commission would be receiving a time
frame, based on the previous meeting minutes. He asked what the OCTA's timeframe
would be.
Mr. Farahani stated the process had not been started. The OCTA had requested that the
City include the downgrade information in the second meeting he had with them, and the
OCTA had stated that there was not enough time and they would wait until the General
Plan Update was approved. Timing was an issue and there had not been time to review
the two arterials of Chapman and Glassell. The OCTA knew what the City wanted; the
process had not begun in regard to setting up of meetings and personnel to start the
process.
Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing.
Michelle Carter, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated there were two primary
concerns, first with the consistency issue. The OTPA understood the need to maintain
consistency with the MPAH and the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The
issue was that the EIR had not addressed the potential of downgrading in the manner it
was presented in the General Plan, in terms of the widening of Glassell and Chapman and
also the issue of not widening those streets. How would the roadway infrastructure that
currently existed be able to handle the additional traffic? At the previous meeting there
had been several approvals in density. There were increases in density to what currently
existed on the ground. Obviously if there was an increase in density there would be the
need for an increase in roadway infrastructure, it begged the question of how the EIR
would deal with those issues. Presumably, that would occur with the assumption that
there would be an amendment of the General Plan that would be adopted and amended to
maintain consistency with the, hopefully revised, County's Master Plan of Arterial
Highways. At what point would the EIR analyze those issues? The OTPA's second
concern was with the Historical Inventory.
Chair Steiner stated there would be additional discussion related to the Historical
Inventory and she would be able to speak again during that discussion. He closed the
Public Hearing.
Page 6 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
7 of 31
Commissioner Whitaker stated the OTPA representative mentioned the EIR and that it
had not addressed some concerns. On the bottom of page 7 he noticed that there was a
draft revision of the EIR that stated that downgrading was necessary due to the fact that
widening would be detrimental to a historic area, but he felt there was another
component. In downgrading, if traffic was pushed to the side streets, the EIR had not
addressed that potential problem.
Traffic Consultant, Tim Burne, stated the traffic study had evaluated all of the facilities
throughout Old Towne and the City, and looked at, not only the potential downgrading,
but also what would occur in the adjacent system if facilities were downgraded. Land
Use inputs were _ placed into the traffic model and the increase in intensity and density
that had been suggested would be inherent in the traffic analysis. Theoretically, with the
streets that would be widened, Chapman and Glassell through the Plaza, the existence of
an improvement to 4 lanes would not necessarily create a detrimental impact to the
surrounding streets, such as Palmyra, Lemon, Grand, etc. because those facilities had the
capacity to address traffic needs in the Old Towne area. What was not inherently noted
in the traffic study was that the increase in traffic on those facilities would be due to, not
only development in the area, but also regional development with through traffic. With
regional traffic, and the Old Towne areas not being increased to 4 lanes, through traffic
would find other routes and that traffic would not be drawn into the Old Towne area. The
Traffic Study had evaluated what would occur and how traffic would divert through
surrounding streets.
Commissioner Imboden stated on the reclassification of Palmyra, there had been letters
of concern received and he wanted some clarification on those concerns.
Mr. Burne stated the issue with Palmyra Street and he understood the Traffic Study had
not recommended any changes for the classification of that street. It was primarily a two
lane undivided facility and would remain as such in the General Plan. The volumes
forecast for Palmyra were not significantly increased. There was not a lot of diversion of
traffic to Palmyra as it was not a desirable through route with stops signs, crosswalks, on
street parking and other factors. There was not a need to increase capacity due to traffic
and there had not been a recommendation to do so. He felt the issues were related to
Policy issues, in regard to neighborhood calming strategies, which were still available
and would need to be pursued through the appropriate channels. In regard to
reclassification, there was no reclassification in the General Plan requested for Palmyra.
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or a
motion.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he was hearing what Commissioner Whitaker was
referring to regarding maintaining consistency and not maintaining consistency. Words
only had meaning if they were accurate, and ultimately the goal was to achieve
consistency within the City and the County's Master Plan. He felt the language should
reflect what would be occurring. He suggested the language could read: in order to
achieve consistency with the County's Master Plan.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he agreed that something to that effect would work, with
Page 7 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
8 of 31
the additional language of: by petitioning for reclassification.
Chair Steiner stated the suggestions would be to change the language to: in order to
achieve consistency with the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways, by petitioning
for the reclassification, and striking the word including, and with respect . to
Commissioner Cunningham's suggestions, striking the word maintain. Those
suggestions are well taken.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he was not comfortable with the process for
reclassification within 3 months, as he thought the process had already begun. He had
not gotten a very clear answer as to what the timeframe would be and what things the
OCTA had needed from Staff to start the ball rolling. To have another 3 months go by
after the City Council's adoption of the General Plan, he would be much more inclined to
have language added that stated roadway reclassification that was currently underway
and with submissions required by OCTA with a date added, he was not certain if Staff
knew what submissions were required by OCTA. To start the process in 3 months after
another month to month and a half went by was not good.
Mr. Knight stated Staff would need to enter a cooperative study with OCTA, and that was
the reason Mr. Farahani was unsure of an exact date and nature of the requirements for
that cooperative study and he deferred the discussion to Mr. Farahani.
Mr. Farahani stated as had been mentioned previously, when Staff had approached the
OCTA regarding downgrading, they were told that when the General Plan was adopted
the OCTA could sit down with them for discussion. Staff had begun the process, but had
been stopped due to the timeframe of the OCTA. As part of the guidelines, it was a part
of the procedures that needed to be followed and depending on which side they went
with, they were very hopeful that they would go with the left side which would be much
quicker. It was going to take several months, as Staff needed to provide the necessary
information to OCTA and they in turn would need to analyze that information. If there
was any clarification needed, Staff would need to go back and make modifications on the
data. The approval of the downgrade would need to go before the OCTA board as well
as the City Council adoption of the change.
Chair Steiner stated he felt they were hearing an answer that it would be unwise to place
a number on the amount of time needed as it was not definitive.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he just wanted the process to start and his biggest
objection was in the language that the process would begin in 3 months.
Chair Steiner stated would it be more agreeable if the language read shall continue upon
the adoption of the General Plan Update, or commence with. Placing in a number such as
30 or 90 days was not realistic.
Commissioner Imboden stated he assumed that the necessary studies had already been
completed.
Page 8 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
9 of 31
Mr. Farahani stated Staff had already provided most of the information needed, but the
OCTA might require further studies, it was part of the process.
Chair Steiner asked if the OCTA had shared what additional information might be
required.
Mr. Farahani stated they had not been advised.
Chair Steiner stated he felt that Mr. Farahani lacked foundation to tell them, he agreed
that hopefully starting someday was not desirable language. What information they were
attempting to gain was not to be had.
Commissioner Whitaker stated possibly deleting the word "shall" throughout the
proposal and inserting the language "which was underway" and "shall continue upon
General Plan adoption".
Mr. Farahani stated that should be fine as Staff was already aware of what was being
requested, it had been a matter of a timeframe that the process had not begun.
Chair Steiner stated most importantly it encapsulates the desire of the Commission and
possibly the Council to get the process underway.
Mr. Knight stated he had not wanted to belabor the discussion, but what Mr. Farahani's
challenge was that he had data, and it could be shared with OCTA, but the delta factor
that always comes into play was that the OCTA could state they liked the data but then
could ask for a model of, as an example, 17th Street at Tustin. Staff would need to then
go back and produce that information.
Chair Steiner stated having to model that situation would be compliant with the proposed
language.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if the language change was to the draft EIR.
Chair Steiner asked if he was referring to what appeared at the bottom of page 6.
Commissioner Whitaker stated page 7.
Commissioner Imboden stated he was satisfied with it.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve the Circulation Element of the
General Plan Update with the language changes as set forth for pages 6 & 7 of the Staff
Report, concerning the discussion brought forth by Commissioners Cunningham and
Whitaker, with respect to the consistency language and the change as discussed in the
timeline of the efforts being made for the reclassification process with OCTA,
recommending adoption to the City Council.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
Page 9 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
October 19, 2009
10 of 31
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner stated due to conflicts of interest he suggested having Ms. Pehoushek share
additional information on each of the components as they covered them separately.
Mr. Knight stated he would have Ms. Pehoushek conclude her presentation on the Staff
Report which was information on the EIR and Historic Inventory and any closing
comments she might have.
Mr. Pehoushek presented an overview of the program EIR and Historic Inventory.
Chair Steiner stated the Commission was attempting to iron out the order in which they
would hear the resolutions. He asked Mr. Knight what was marked as attachment B, of
the Draft Resolution No. 34-09, there also appeared General Element Content, and on
page 3 after Eckoff Street there appeared General Element Content. Everything that
appeared under General Element Content, the Circulation & Mobility Element had
already been addressed, Growth Management, Natural Resources, Public Safety, Noise
Element, Cultural Resources, Infrastructure, Urban Design (which there is no
recommendation for), Economic Development and the Implementation Plan, and he
asked if the Commission was free to consider those under what was tentatively known as
34-09.9?
Mr. Knight stated he understood that would be acceptable, and he was not aware of any
conflicts those elements had raised.
Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated that was correct.
Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing.
Michelle Carter, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated she wanted to point out
that there are inaccuracies in the Historical Inventory that was posted on the website and
she was not certain if the Historical Inventory the Commission was voting on was another
version that had not been available on the internet. The OTPA had noted, randomly, that
there were problems with the inventory. For example, 221 E. Palmyra, which was a
small bungalow showed as 215 E. Palmyra which was the Culver house garage. For
another example, 384 S. Orange, the year the home was built is inaccurate. There were a
number of discrepancies in structural integrity. They had randomly selected a few
properties to review and the OTPA felt that if there were discrepancies with just a
random selection that there were probably errors with the inventory in other areas of the
Historic District. If the Commission was voting on the inventory that was available on
the internet there are a number of inaccuracies.
Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing. He stated that he had initially indicated that the
Commission was addressing 34-09.9; actually the Resolution that was being addressed
was 38-09 in his zeal to receive Ms. Carter's comments before the Commission. He
Page 10 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
11 of 31
asked for any questions or additional comments and asked Mr. Knight if he wanted to
respond?
Mr. Knight stated some quality checking had been completed on the inventory prior to
presentation before the Planning Commission, and Senior Planner for Historic
Preservation, Dan Ryan, had worked with Robert Chattel some months ago in reviewing
several properties. The way Staff sees the inventory was that it is built upon the 1992
inventory and Staff was more than hopeful that it was as accurate as it could be. Would
there be a possibility that there would be an error in the date of a structure or a possibility
that there was a different coptext analysis -there might be. There were 6 volumes of
information and 3000 forms, which was a great deal of information, as individual
properties were considered for additions. There would be checks of those properties as
they came forward for the accuracy of the records. The inventory had been built upon
with the addition of the barrio areas and Eichler homes, it was living, breathing document
and changes would be made as needed.
Ms. Pehoushek stated what was available on the Preservation on-line website are the very
early versions of the survey forms that had been produced in 2005. Those had been
posted in an effort to get information out to the community. Staff had been doing a
quality control review over the last 4 years and a number of revisions had been made in
the data base. Anew set of forms would be transferred to the website and to the State
Historic Preservation Office to formerly accept as the City's formal updated survey.
Commissioner Whitaker suggested adding to the resolution that Staff be instructed to
update and maintain the Historic Inventory.
Chair Steiner asked Mr. Knight if that language was agreeable. It had appeared that it
would address the concerns that changes to the document would be a continuous process.
Commissioner Imboden stated if the OTPA or individuals in the community come
forward to share information that needed to be changed, he asked what would be the
process to make the change.
Mr. Knight stated the City would need to come up with a specific procedure for the
general public to be able to do that. It would be very valuable input.
Chair Steiner stated to the extent or the desire to accommodate the change that
Commissioner Whitaker suggested to include, they were in agreement that to the extent it
would be correcting minor errors, such as errors in dates as noted during Public
Comment, those type of changes would not require a Public Hearing.
Mr. Knight stated he was correct.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt Resolution 38-09, City of Orange
Historic Resources Inventory Update recommending adoption to the City Council with
the noted comments in language.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
Page 11 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
October 19, 2009
12 of 31
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner stated they would now take into consideration Resolution 34-09, and for the
record they had added subparts to the various Land Use Focus Areas contained within the
draft resolution for purposes of assuring no one with a conflict would vote on a matter
they would not be permitted to consider.
Chair Steiner stated they would move to 34-09.9 Cultural Resources. Staff input was not
needed and he opened the Public Hearing.
Sue Vours, address on file, representing OTPA, stated at the last meeting the Staff Report
listed Cultural Resources Element as an optional element and she felt it was very
important that it be included in the General Plan as it replaced the Historic Preservation
Element. It needed to be kept in the plan.
Chair Steiner stated he had understood that the consensus vote was to include the
component in the General Plan Update.
Mr. Knight stated when the word optional was used, there were State mandated
requirements and then all other elements became an optional element. Once that element
was adopted by the City as a component of the General Plan, it carries the same weight
and consistency requirements that all other mandatory elements required.
Chair Steiner stated that the language "optional only" pertained to the undertaking of the
component.
Mr. Knight stated it was plannerease just attempting to delineate optional vs. mandatory.
Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for
further discussion or action.
Commissioner Whitaker stated the components had been discussed very well over several
meetings and he made a motion to adopt Resolution 34-09.9 Cultural Resources
recommending adoption to the City Council, noting that the Urban Design Element had
no recommendation as the Commission had deadlocked on their decision of that
component.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he had a question for Staff. In the draft EIR, under
Section 5.5-2, which applies to the implementation by the Office of Historic Preservation,
he had noticed a line item that stated qualified by Historic Preservation review and he
asked if that was review by the Planning Commission or another body?
Mr. Knight stated he could answer that. DRC could suffice for the Historic Preservation
Page 12 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
13 of 31
review; it could require additional qualifications of members appointed to the board. It
could be a new Commission or the DRC with a slightly different make up of the group.
Commissioner Cunningham stated if there was a requirement to establish another
Commission, would that affect property owners, such as an owner of an Eichler home in
either an Historic District or a designated Neighborhood Character Area, to require
review by the new Commission, DRC and the Planning Commission?
Mr. Knight stated what existed currently was the Old Towne Design Standards which
created a certain layer of approvals from Staff, DRC, Planning Commission and City
Council. There would be similar types of design standards for the Eichler homes. It was
difficult to say what final form that would take, as the process would need Planning
Commission and City Council approval, prior to implementation of a new local program.
More than likely additional entitlement steps would be necessary in an Historic District,
similar to those that exist in Old Towne.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he had spoken about the issue previously and he
would want to reiterate his standpoint again. He appreciated the concern for the
neighborhoods of Orange and he shared those concerns and love for the Eichler homes.
His best friend had an Eichler home and his wife grew up in El Modena, areas that would
be designated Neighborhood Character Areas, however, designating the Eichler Tract as
Historic and other areas as Neighborhood Character Areas would infringe on the rights of
property owners. He had not seen any evidence that the Eichler Tracts are in any danger.
There was a great demand for Eichler homes and the market place more than takes care
of the Eichler homes.
In regards to El Modena, he was opposed to imposing additional restrictions in that area
and he questioned what character of El Modena was the City attempting to preserve?
There was a tendency that over time with the regulations, there would be restrictions, and
minus a compelling reason to designate areas as Neighborhood Character Areas, other
than the reason that the City was able to do that, he was opposed to imposing additional
restrictions on property owners. He was one of a three to one vote when the issue was
presented previously and he hoped to gain support for his concerns due to the absence of
a compelling reason to implement such a component in the General Plan Update.
Chair Steiner stated there had been a motion that had been made and there was not a
second to that motion.
Commissioner Imboden stated that the Commission taking action on the issue in, and of
itself, would not impose any additional regulations.
Mr. Knight stated that was correct.
Commission Cunningham stated at some point it would. If the guideline was created, it
would necessitate additional regulations in the process.
Mr. Knight stated the issue could not be sugar coated. If the Eichlers' were to become an
Historic District, unless there were very definitive, well done standards, that would keep
Page 13 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
14 of 31
the Staff level, it would more than likely move toward additional reviews. It was difficult
to state what would occur. An Eichler home was pretty straight forward as there were not
a multitude of architectural styles contained in those homes; there was one style. They
had a specific type of roof and a definitive type of fenestration, window and door design
and it might be easier to make additions without the need for DRC review. He could not
state that all could be done at a local level and he anticipated their inclusion would create
additional guidelines for the public to follow as a result.
Commissioner Whitaker commented in regard to the identification of a Neighborhood
Character Area, he asked if Staff would need to present proposals under the Conservation
District Standards, such as Orange Park and the need to maintain the equestrian areas, or
El Modena to preserve the low lying building character, as each one would come up,
would that be the approval process?
Mr. Knight stated that was correct and Commissioner Imboden's comment and his
answer stating would the action impose greater restrictions or further analysis by property
owners, the answer was unequivocally no, it does not. The adoption of the Resolution
would not create a new Design Standard for Eichler homes or a new Design Standard to
OPA. It makes it possible, but all those possibilities and decisions would be subject to
further deliberation with Commissioners and Council Members, in order for those parties
to ask the same questions that Commissioner Cunningham brought forth. It was difficult
for a Staff member to state that in the future it would be difficult to obtain a building
permit for an Eichler home. He had to state that there would be that possibility, it could
come about that way. He had reviewed other overlay districts in various areas of
California for Eichler homes and those district's standards were quite detailed in what
property owners could or could not do, and the review standards were fairly minimal, due
to the amount of overlay detail in those districts. Would the change cause a property
owner a great deal of grief, not really, as there were material, fenestration and height
requirements all defined for them and there was not a need to go to another layer of
approvals.
Chair Steiner stated that is all speculative and the bottom line was that they were
speaking of a General Plan Update, and he was generally fine with Commissioner
Cunningham's assessment regarding the need for another Commission, he was skeptical
and questioned the need for that. He thought to oppose the issue out of hand would be to
state that in no instance it would not be a valid idea. He felt it was to be determined on a
case by case situation and absent the Commission taking action with respect to the area
they were discussing he felt they could not do that. He felt it was properly undertaken at
the current stage as it would allow consideration in those instances where it would be
useful and it would not always be a bad idea. If I thought it would always be a bad idea I
would vote no, with respect to the particular area of discussion. At the stage they were in
it allowed further study.
Commissioner Imboden stated part of what they spoke of in the creation of Certified
Local Government would open up a broader availability of grants. With the current
designation and review process, some of those options were not available. With the
changes, there was the potential for greater resources. He had not felt the proposal
would present huge changes regarding the specific neighborhood designations, but rather
Page 14 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
15 of 31
it was an acknowledgement of their existence which he felt being aware was not a bad
thing. To move toward more restrictions would require further approvals and reviews
down the road. What was currently on the table was an awareness of specific
neighborhoods and that would open up a lot of opportunities.
Commissioner Cunningham asked if the Certified Local Government was dependent
upon the General Plan Update designating those areas as being Historic, as it had been
specified that the implementation would require further guidelines and it was not
speculation as it was a definitive part of the process.
Mr. Knight stated a CLG was not required to provide an historic overlay for Eichlers.
Commissioner Cunningham stated there could be a CLG and it would be separable.
Mr. Knight stated it could be separable.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he was skeptical to move forward with an approval, as
the General Plan Update had called for placing the Eichler Tract in an Historical District,
and at some point there would be more restrictions imposed on those homeowners. He
was reluctant to take action, they had argued over a lot of things and many of lesser
importance and it went without saying that there would be more restrictions imposed on
those homeowners.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he had made the initial motion and generally he agreed
with Commissioner Cunningham on property rights. With respect to being able to
identify areas that have a certain character or the potential to be historic, if it was not
added to the General Plan Update, 20 years would go by without the chance to add that
information. The General Plan would grant authority to Staff to survey those areas and
designate what was appropriate for those areas and then for the Commission and Council
to review and a time for Public Hearings. Community members at that time could voice
whether they wanted it for their area, but if specific areas were not identified in the
specific plan, then it would be another 20 years before the issue could be addressed. If
something was worth preserving, he had not wanted time to pass before they could look
into it. He was more concerned with the Neighborhood Character Areas. There were
certain areas, such as the OPA and the equestrian areas, and Yorba Linda being one,
where there was an equestrian area and property owners could come in and buy up those
areas and change the landscape where the rights of property owners who had bought into
equestrian properties could be challenged. He wanted to maintain and preserve the
property rights of neighborhoods that people had bought into because of a specific
character and to be able to identify those areas. He felt it was important to identify those
areas and his initial motion still stood.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: Commissioner Cunningham
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
Page 15 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
16 of 31
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner stated the hearing would proceed with a discussion on Resolution 34-09.2,
Katella Land Use Focus area.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented some additional information on the
resolution. She stated the Planning Commission had recommended that the existing
Land Use designation of General Commercial and Medium Density Residential remain
intact between Glassell and California Streets and to designate the segment of the
corridor between Batavia and Glassell as Urban Mixed Use rather than the General
Commercial that had been proposed in the General Plan Update. It was Staff's
understanding that the requested change was based on the desire to preserve the legal
status of the existing Industrial Uses. Public Comment was subsequently heard at the
September 9, 2009 meeting in regard to certain Industrial properties, specifically on the
Carleton and Manzanita cul du sacs, and it was requested that those streets retain their
current designation. Their had also been discussion regarding expanding the scope of
the Legal Non-Conforming Use Ordinance Amendment, to apply the one year time
frame of continuance of non-conforming legal use to all areas affected by the proposed
General Plan Land Use changes. Staff would like to offer another option for the
Commission's consideration for the area of the corridor of Batavia and Glassell,
specifically to maintain the proposed General Commercial designation between Batavia
and Glassell for the parcels on the north and south sides of Katella, with the exception of
the Industrial parcels on the Carleton and Manzanita cul du sacs that do not have
frontage on Katella. The change along with the adoption proposed would continue to
accommodate the activities in those less visible locations for General Commercial Uses.
Chair Steiner stated addressing first the alternate option that had been proposed for the
designations on the south and north side of Katella with the exception of the parcels on
the Manzanita and Carleton cul du sacs, he asked if there was any desire to discuss the
proposal? There was none.
Chair Steiner opened the item for Public Comment.
Rick Hamm, address on file, stated he owned a construction company, Rick Hamm
Construction and he owned the property at 201 W. Carleton. It was Industrial and he ran
his construction company out of it. It was difficult to understand the layout of the street,
unless they walked the street. It was his understanding that the Commission or some
members of the Commission were going to walk the street to get a feel for it, and he was
not certain that had happened. He would paint a picture of what the property layout was.
There were no parking lots, such as the retail properties that ran up and down Katella,
even though they were only one block north of Katella. None of the buildings on
Carleton had parking lots that would accommodate retail. His building had 2 loading
docks on the front of the building, he does not know of any retail buildings that have
loading docks in the front of their buildings. The building across the street also had a
loading dock in front of their building. None of the buildings on the street had store
fronts designated for retail and to change that would require a reverse design, his
building contained offices in the front with warehouse space in the back which worked
well for the purpose of his company. To accommodate retail, the offices in the front
Page 16 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
17 of 31
would need to be demolished and do a construct retail open space infrastructure that
would be required to accommodate retail and the offices would need to be reconstructed
in the warehouse. That would be a major renovation. If the Commission had any
experience placing a store front on a tilt building, that was not there, it required
engineering, the panel would need to be cut and the store front installed. The tilt panels
would then need to be renovated to accommodate UBC Building Code. It would be
major dollars. His particular building was wired for manufacturing and had been a
cabinet company. There is heavy, heavy electrical throughout and it would be
impossible to develop foot traffic to support retail on this street. Retail businesses on
this street would fail. One of the thoughts was that the Commission would grandfather
existing businesses. He understood that to mean that the existing businesses could lease
to like businesses for revenue purposes, that situation would become a hardship if a
property owner needed to sell their property. He requested that the zoning be left as it
existed.
Erik Ostergaard, address on file, stated he owned the building across the street from Mr.
Hamm and he agreed to everything he stated. They were both perplexed as to the reason
why the changes needed to be made to their buildings. They had tilt up buildings with
no parking for retail. He had not understood the reason why they would need to change.
Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission
for further discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he was a little perplexed as during the previous
discussion of August 3, 2009 he felt that they had not had a real issue in the area with the
flexibility of the Urban Mixed Use Designation. They had looked at the proposal of
General Commercial which would allow Industrial and it was much more in line with
those uses which would be permitted by right. If a property owner wanted to redevelop
their property someday, they could sell it to someone who wanted to remain Industrial
and it would give them the wide flexibility. He was comfortable with where they had
left the issue on August 3, 2009 to go with the Urban Mixed Use designation which
would allow the Industrial uses to remain.
Chair Steiner stated he shared Commissioner Whitaker's view and with the input from
the speakers, it had been the whole point of their previous discussion, to not
accommodate any individual property owner, but to find the best solution for everyone.
They had agreed on the designation of Urban Mixed Use and that the alternative option
that had been presented was something the Commission had not needed to address.
Chair Steiner made a motion to adopt Resolution 34-09.2, Katella Corridor,
recommending adoption to the City Council.
SECOND: Commissioner Whitaker
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Page 17 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
18 of 31
Chair Steiner stated they would now review 34-09.1, Land Use Focus Area No. 1
Chapman Avenue/Tustin. There was a conflict of interest for Commissioner
Cunningham and he was recused from the discussion.
Mr. Knight stated correspondence had been received regarding one of the parcels for the
particular area, the Chapman Hospital complex and he asked Ms. Pehoushek to give an
overview of that information.
Ms. Pehoushek stated since the Commission's straw vote on the ls~ Focus Area, the
representative of the Chapman Hospital properties had some conversations with various
Staff Members in Community Development and had indicated in a letter that was
distributed earlier, that the property owner was now interested in the Public Facilities and
Institutions designation for the property rather than General Commercial which had been
determined by the Commission. With respect to the holding zone, she would ask Mr.
Knight to speak to that.
Mr. Knight stated in the Templeton Street letter there is an indication of City Council
Resolution No. 95-70 which had requested a finding from the Planning Commission, and
the information provided was accurate. The action left the northerly area of the Chapman
complex as open space and had shown it as a holding zone where consideration would be
given of a change, if and when a project is brought forward. The property owner was
requesting that a holding designation be put into place. Staff was not agreeable to that as
it would create a new Land Use designation. That resolution stated what the City Council
had recommended and it was a record the City and Staff was somewhat reluctant to
create a new Land Use designation showing that. The exhibit provided by Templeton is
not entirely accurate to the open space delineation, between the Public Facility and
Institutions and open space, there is an additional square of area that is open space and is
noted as such in the maps that were contained in the Commissioner's packets.
Ms. Pehoushek stated the other aspect to the correspondence had to do with the manner in
which the Public Facilities & Institutions Land Use category was defined and described
in the General Plan. Generally what is presented on page 2 of the letter in the first
paragraph, Staff is comfortable with a revision to the requested language change to read
"limited accessory retail uses" as there needs to be some relationship of the retail of the
institutional activity. She referred to the second paragraph to the language in italics, and
stated the information was more specific than what Staff would want in the context of the
General Plan and Staff was not as supportive of the language in the second paragraph.
Chair Steiner asked for clarification of the more specific comment?
Ms. Pehoushek stated the paragraph spoke about specific plans and it gets more detailed
than what was typically found in a General Plan.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff.
Mr. Sheatz stated that he had been given a heads up ahead of time by Council and the
owner of several properties and he had been directed to the resolution which was mis-
identified in the letter. It was actually Resolution 9570, the numbers would not have a
Page 18 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
19 of 31
dash in them and he wanted that brought to the attention of the Planning Commission.
The paragraph that was pointed out and his attention had been pointed to and the issue
was, and he read; "although under current designation, a number of uses are permitted
absent a specific project, the City Council was uncertain of the best use of the property
and viewed the OS designation and Recreational Open Space as a holding designation,
until at such time a particular project was brought forward". The way it had been
explained to him was that the property owner was much closer to an idea or a concept,
although the area identified in the resolution was not in front of the Commission and had
not been part of the presentation, it was an adjacent property and the information
provided would be to direct attention to the property and the resolution for the Open
Space.
Commissioner Whitaker stated with the additional designation for Open Space, he was
reviewing page LU34 in the General Plan Update and it appeared that part of the Open
Space comes down behind the hospital and an abandoned or vacant lot, and he asked if
that was the area that was being discussed.
Mr. Knight stated he believed that was correct.
Commissioner Whitaker stated the Open Space area was in Focus Area No. 1, and one of
the property owner's representatives wanted to reference City Council's resolution and
that would seem appropriate, as they would not be voting on any particular property, but
on a Focus Area and what to do inside the Focus Area. In reviewing the map, it appeared
that the Open Space was inside the Focus Area.
Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct. He had reviewed the same information and he hoped
that he had not mis-spoken, it was contained in the Focus Area, but it was not one of the
areas that is proposed to be changed. He believed it was left in its current state due to
Resolution 9570. He believed it was appropriate to draw their attention to that, as it
could be part of a larger project that could come forth.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for Public Comment.
Tim Paone, address on file, stated he is the council for the group of owners of what is
now being called the Chapman Campus Plan, which had nothing to do with Chapman
University, but referred to the area where Chapman Hospital was located. He was
speaking on their behalf. He apologized that much of the information had been
forwarded to the Commissioners very late and that they might not have had adequate time
to review the information. He might need more time than 3 minutes.
Chair Steiner stated he was considering him as the affected party's representative and he
could fill them in on anything they needed to know.
Mr. Paone stated he wanted to clarify that they were not asking for a holding designation
on the property, what they were requesting was that the Planning Commission
acknowledge, possibly through a finding, that the property was subject to Resolution
9570 and the City Council had stated a very clear intent in 9570, it was a holding
designation until a project was brought forward. They had not wanted the General Plan
Page 19 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
20 of 31
Update to move forward and then have members of the community question where they
were when the process was moving along. There was a plan in the works and hopefully it
would be in front of the Commission in the near future. Were it not for the General Plan
Update, the project would have come through as a course of the normal process. Due to
the General Plan Update, it was important to address it currently. What was in the
Templeton letter was a request that a few steps be taken on the property. There was some
disagreement that the property had been surveyed and the description contained in the
letter was accurate and that the information had been provided to Staff over the last few
weeks. That would be an issue that would need to be clarified. He wanted to address
Staff's response to their request, basically they were looking at the 16 acre parcel and the
7 '/z acre parcel which was currently designated as Open Space/ Recreational Open
Space. The 16 acre parcel was proposed to be designated as General Commercial. The
Rubik's Cube aspect of dealing with the issue was at a prior meeting John Saunders, one
of the principal property owners, had come forward with his concerns in changing the
Land Use designation to PFI, which was needed for the medical wellness activity center
that would be the upcoming project. He had a very valid concern, if the plan was not
approved or would not go forward for any reason he would not want to be left with a
different type of designation that currently existed. They had been working on how to
resolve that issue. He was proposing that the 7 '/z acre parcel remain in its current Open
Space designation, with the recognition that it would be subject to Resolution 9570, and
that the 16 acres be designated as PFI, and that the definition of PFI in the General Plan
Update be expanded to include the language that was discussed by Staff earlier. That
language would allow for greater flexibility and frankly, much of the language in the
second paragraph was adapted from other Mixed Use areas. A specific plan had been
noted in the letter as he felt it was a very useful tool. Mr. Paone stated what was before
the Commission were two paragraphs that stated without a specific plan that could be
done and it paralleled basically what Staff's description was. They added the limited
retail uses and Staff was suggesting to add language accessory uses, and he felt there
would be greater flexibility without the language accessory and the retail use description
would give the Planning Commission greater flexibility in designating those uses. The
second paragraph where Staff felt it was too specific; much of that language came from
the City's Mixed Use description and he felt it was very similar to what was occurring
elsewhere. That was intended to create an opportunity for another party to come in and
develop an activity center focused around medical and wellness facilities and to .do
something very creative. Without being specific, and without the types of Mixed Uses
being mentioned, it could create a problem in bringing a project forward and the reason
for the requested language change. Lastly, the acknowledgement of Resolution 9570; he
had discussions with Mr. Saunders and he is agreeable to this approach, he is fine with
the requests. What would resolve everything for Mr. Saunders would be a Commercial
overlay over the PFI, which would be the same that existed on Yorba. The changes
would allow the project that was in the works to be brought forward.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he was reading Mr. Saunders' letter and the tone of his
letter gave the impression that he was not 100% in agreement. He appeared to be fine
with the requests in the Templeton letter as long as he was granted the General
Commercial overlay. There had been much discussion regarding why they had not
wanted to recommend the PFI designation. They had thought that with the uncertain
marketplace, the property could have several tentative projects brought forth later and
Page 20 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
21 of 31
with the General Commercial designation it would allow for greater flexibility. He asked
instead of making the recommendation more complex, wouldn't a General Commercial
designation grant them the same flexibility for their proposed project?
Mr. Paone stated it would not, and they had concerns that it would not. He had a very
long conversation with Mr. Saunders and Mr. Searles, and Mr. Saunders was quite
comfortable with his request as long as there was the General Commercial overlay. He
authorized Mr. Paone to come before the Commission to present his request. The
designation for Mixed Use designation would allow their project to come forward for an
activity center. With the overlay it would work for everyone.
Chair Steiner stated he was not certain that the PFI designation with the General
Commercial overlay would address the concern that had been expressed at the previous
meeting. He clarified that the changes Mr. Paone was requesting was a change to the PFI
description, a General Commercial overlay and acknowledgement of Resolution 9570.
Mr. Paone stated that was correct.
Chair Steiner asked if he could rationalize or explain the reference to a specific plan
being used.
Mr. Paone stated he thought it was similar to a Mixed Use designation, and he borrowed
a fair amount of language from that, the requirement for a specific plan was because it
was expanded uses and from a planning perspective, it would be the way to go. With the
type of activity center that would be proposed with many types of uses, he felt the City
would want to review that in a specific plan.
Chair Steiner asked for an explanation for the word between "accessory" "limited retail"
as it seemed to suggest, in theory, that the Commission is the body that is most equipped
to determine the appropriateness of the proposed retail use.
Mr. Paone stated the word "limited" would limit the use and give discretion. Limited
accessory or accessory in place of limited was perhaps more restrictive.
Steve Sheldon, address on file, stated he was present to discuss 446 S. Tustin and a
request was for a designation change from Low/Medium Density to Medium Density.
There was currently a General Plan Amendment that they had been processing with a re-
zone of a tract map for the property. The property owners were present and had owned
the site for nearly 40 years and they had been members of the community for their entire
life. The property owners wanted to redevelop the mobile home park, which was old and
needed to be re-done. Their plan was for 93 town homes, with a community pool and fire
pits, that would be compatible with the neighborhood. As to the Medium Density
designation request, Senate Bill 375, which required integration in the planning process
with transportation and planning to reduce green house gasses and reduce vehicle miles
traveled, which would be one of the reasons the density designation should be added to
the area. The property was on a major arterial and near two freeways, it would be good
planning. SB375 that the County and City would be using, required that a sustainable
community strategy be created and communities would be looking to reduce green house
Page 21 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
October 19, 2009
22 of 31
gasses that would be tied to land use. The project he spoke to would be one of those land.
uses, with the additional density being near public transportation. Essentially the land
planners at SCAG would be looking for in-fill projects and less suburban sprawl and their
project would help to achieve that. He had not seen other additions that created
opportunities for new housing and, in fact, he had seen a reduction in housing, Oak Street
was reduced in density and Spring and Wheeler were changed due to the existing uses not
being compatible with the Land Use designation. Some of the Focus Areas had a
reduction in density and he felt that some of those reductions could be transferred to their
property. Finally, the actual plan was for 20 units per acre, and the designation would
allow 24 units per acre.
In the Commission Study Session, there had been additional environmental work needed
and they would be working toward that. Mr. Sheldon stated that there had also been
reference to some form of noticing and he had not understood that. They were noticed of
what the action was proposed for his client's property, but not noticed about changes to
adjacent properties. He felt that noticing other property owners regarding the action
would be to single them out and that a noticing requirement was not necessary. Those
were his comments, his rationale and he requested that the change be made to Medium
Density.
Chair Steiner stated in regard to the noticing comments; was he aware to the extent that
the tenants had received notice?
Mr. Sheldon stated the tenants had received notice and he had met with them numerous
times and the property owner had met with them 3 years ago with the proposed project.
The tenants had been present at Commission meetings to speak about the potential
change and were very aware that there was a request to change the General Plan.
Chair Steiner stated that was his one issue and were the tenants aware that it was being
considered currently?
Mr. Sheldon stated the tenants were not aware of that.
Tom Searles, address on file, stated he wanted to discuss where they were with the
property, and property improvements regarding the Commercial Zoning and what the
intentions were with a potential project. Regarding the Commercial overlay that had
been suggested, he believed that it met the standards and flexibility of what they were
looking for until such a time when a future project would be presented to the
Commission. It was consistent with what Mr. Saunders and he himself had wanted. He
had been involved in the proposed project for over 6 years and they had been working
very closely to address the concerns. Secondly, as discussed previously, he had
researched the document that had created the Commercial overlay to begin with and the
delineation of Open Space and that survey had been provided to Staff and had been
surveyed by his Civil Engineer. Additional documentation could be provided. The third
item, the PFI designation in conjunction with a specific plan, had been discussed with
Staff, including the Director, and the Director had concurred with him on how they
wanted to proceed. They had a relatively complex Mixed Use potential project for the
property.
Page 22 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
23 of 31
Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for
further discussion.
Commissioner Whitaker stated there were two issues that he wanted to discuss, the
accessory vs. limited and also with respect to the overlay and the Staff's position on that
request?
Ms. Pehoushek stated in terms of the wording related to limited Commercial Use, by
more clearly defining accessory or incidental Commercial Use would avoid having an
applicant needing to come to the Planning Commission for an interpretation of what a
limited Commercial Use might be. It would be more clearly defined in the definition of
the Land Use designation and provided more direction to Staff and allowed decisions to
be made at a Staff level. In terms of the Commercial Overlay, quite honestly what it
brought her mind back to was the beginning when they were discussing Land Use
alternatives for the property. One of the first things they contemplated was a Mixed Use
designation that would have provided a lot of flexibility. In her opinion, if they were
going in the route of establishing an overlay, they might want to take a step back. If the
speaker was most interested in flexibility for their property, that could be a scenario that
could be contemplated that would provide for a variety of uses. An overlay was a more
complicated tool for Staff to administer. Overlays existed and they could deal with them.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if an Urban Mixed Use designation could be considered.
Ms. Pehoushek stated Staff had been working on the Urban Mixed Use and they had been
making changes and it was not all in focus in her mind. The senior living continuum of
care concept accommodated medical offices and what they had done specifically with
hospitals. She could not definitively answer Commissioner Whitaker's question.
Mr. Knight stated it would be a permitted by right use. They were currently going
through the process of creating a draft Mixed Use district.
Chair Steiner stated what they were discussing was the possibility of an Urban Mixed
Use designation and they were not certain if it was actually feasible.
Ms. Pehoushek stated there were different categories of Urban Mixed Use. The Urban
Mixed Use had the highest housing density potential; which would not be compatible
with the adjacent property.
Mr. Knight stated to follow up on the proposed language, it would affect all the PFI uses
throughout the entire city and using language such as limited retail facility; the word
limited meant nothing to a planner - it could mean a lot or a little, the word accessory
means something to a planner. It told them automatically what it meant and took away
any lack of clarity at the counter. Staff's concern would be that these changes would
apply to all the Public Facility & Institutional uses in the entire City and they wanted the
type of language that was appropriate and easily interpreted at the counter without
misleading an applicant.
Page 23 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
24 of 31
Mr. Paone stated as long as there would be a General Commercial overlay, the language
accessory with the PFI designation would be acceptable. They had attempted to review
what would fit and he agreed the suggestion was a cleaner way to do it and the only other
solution would be to create another type of Mixed Use category.
Chair Steiner stated the recommendation by Mr. Knight for the use of the word
"accessory" in place of the word "limited" is a point well taken; particularly with respect
that it would apply Citywide.
Commissioner Whitaker commented the applicant's representative stated with regard to
Tustin Street there was a General Plan Amendment and if that was the case, was that the
reason behind having the designation remaining the same?
Mr. Knight stated from a perspective of whether Staff thought the application that was
currently in process would beano go, absolutely not and there had not been a
recommendation formulated.
Ms. Pehoushek stated as a follow up to Mr. Knight's comments; there were a few
applications in the Planning Department currently that involved General Plan
Amendments and as Staff dealt with the General Plan Update, they had not wanted to
presuppose without complete information that they should proactively make Land Use
designations until after they had gone through the process. As the General Plan moved
forward and the project moved through the process, if the decision making body felt it
was warranted to change the Land Use designations to accommodate the applicants so be
it, Staff had not wanted to bog down the process with current applications. In terms of
the property on South Tustin; one of the early Land Use designations that was being
considered and that had come from the GPAC, was to designate a portion of South
Tustin, including the applicant's particular parcel, with a Mixed Use designation. As
they went through the process, information was provided and the Land Use change was
dropped for South Tustin.
Commissioner Whitaker asked for the mobile home park residents and the proposed
Mixed Use designation, why had that not been considered for a change of use?
Ms. Pehoushek stated what was before the Commission reflected the direction provided
during the study sessions.
Commissioner Whitaker stated that during the Administrative Session the applicant had
submitted a letter, letter No. 17 in March, and the response from Staff was that the
information would be brought to the Commission for their consideration. Because
comment had not raised any issues regarding the EIR, there was no response necessary.
He had not recalled that it had come up before the Commission previously.
Ms. Pehoushek stated there had been a number of comment letters referencing objections
to Land Use changes and they had not gone through all of those specifically in their
presentations or had those been listed in the Staff Report and they were all contained in
the body of the comment letters and response to comments.
Page 24 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
25 of 31
Commissioner Whitaker stated during the administrative session Ms. Pehoushek had
raised concerns regarding the noticing issues and if on August 3, 2009 they had pulled
letter No. 17 out. Would there have been required noticing for a future hearing that
would be addressing that property?
Mr. Sheatz stated it would have been strongly recommended, given the site and the
previous input that had been received. It would have been recommended that noticing be
given to the residents of that site and the surrounding areas and the item could have been
continued for further discussion and an allowance for residents to debate the issue.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if the discussion had come up on August 3, 2009, would
noticing and a continuance have occurred?
Mr. Sheatz stated he would have suggested that.
Chair Steiner stated dealing with Focus Area No. 1 Chapman and Tustin, he asked Mr.
Sheatz if he had a suggestion on how they should proceed on the issue; procedurally
would two separate votes be required?
Mr. Sheatz stated it could be taken care of all in one vote with specifics. There were two
different areas that the Commission had been asked to consider/reconsider and he stated
they should be very specific in their motion. If the Commission was looking at or
considering the area south of Tustin, he would recommend continuance of that area to
allow noticing.
Mr. Sheldon asked if there was a legal requirement to notice the request. He was hearing
a policy procedure but not a legal requirement.
Chair Steiner stated Mr. Sheatz had presented his legal advice regarding the noticing. He
clarified that the Commission was free to continue a portion of Focus Area No. 1 and to
move forward with a recommendation on another portion of Focus Area No. 1?
Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt Resolution 34-09.1, Land Use Focus
Area No. 1, Chapman Avenue/Tustin recommending adoption to the City Council that
the initial consensus not be adopted and in its place the Land Use Designation of Public
Facility & Institutions for the Chapman Hospital Campus be adopted, and the Open
Space holding zone, Resolution 9570 which was referenced in the Templeton
correspondence be noted with the language change striking the word "limited" and
adding the word "accessory" and with a General Commercial overlay.
Commissioner Imboden asked if there were other issues in the language with regard to
the use of specific plan.
Ms. Pehoushek stated they had gone through the Land Use designation, and she may have
possibly missed it, but she had not noticed the use of specific plan in any of the other
Mixed Use designations. It was not something that appeared to be carried over from the
Page 25 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
26 of.31
other Land Use designations.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker.
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
RECUSED: Commissioner Cunningham
MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Whitaker stated in regard to the development opportunity area which had
been initially noticed, there was no change recommended for that area, and even if they
had taken the March 23 letter and discussed that and based on the decision from no
change to a change, he asked if Mr. Sheatz would have recommended a continuance to
allow noticing?
Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he was attempting to understand the process. On the
Katella Corridor, noticing had gone out to everyone that Katella was going to have a
Land Use designation change, during the public hearing the decision was made to do
something entirely different than what was noticed and the area was never re-noticed. He
was wanting clarification why these areas were treated differently.
Mr. Sheatz stated the affected persons were able to be present and offer comments, and as
part of the process, the Commission took that input and decisions were made. The
decision was a recommendation to the City Council and affected persons could be heard
again.
Commissioner Whitaker stated, on the continued item, he was attempting to understand
what the reason for noticing was; as there was never a guarantee that there would not be a
change to an item presented. All the persons in the development opportunity area were
noticed.
Mr. Sheatz stated notices were sent that stated their property was in a Focus Area, and
they also received noticing that stated there would not be a change for their property and
would not have had a reason to be present at the hearing.
Chair Steiner stated many times upon hearing an item, they started with A, there was
someone who wanted B and the Commission ended up with C. In those instances, there
was an initial recommendation for some type of change.
Mr. Sheatz stated someone that would perceive that there could be an effect on their
property would have an interest in attending a meeting or not if they were agreeable to
the change.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to continue to a date certain of November 16,
2009, on the second part of Land Use Focus Area No.l, Resolution 34.09-1, which
Page 26 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
27 of 31
covered the area on the west side of the 55 Freeway in the portion noted as a
development opportunity area.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
RECUSED: Commissioner Cunningham
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner stated they would now hear information regarding Land Use Focus Area
No. 7, Lemon Street.
Commissioner Cunningham rejoined the discussion.
Ms. Pehoushek stated Staff was seeking confirmation on the Commission's action
regarding the Lemon Street Focus Area. At the time of the straw vote, the parcel
including and south of Brenna Lane, was designated as Industrial with a FAR of .75.
Currently those properties had a FAR of .4, which was consistent with Light Industrial
M 1 Zoning. The action that was taken reflected the heavier and traditional zoning and a
.75 FAR was being proposed. To summarize, the recommendation that came out of the
discussion established an island of Heavy Industrial Land Use properties in an area
surrounded by Light Industrial designations. She wanted to confirm if that was the intent
of the Commission's action or was it intended that the property be left as Light
Industrial?
Commissioner Whitaker stated he had reviewed the minutes and there had not been a
FAR discussion for the parcel north of Brenna Lane and the recommendation had been to
keep the designation as it had existed and that had been their intent, regardless of what
the FAR was.
Ms. Pehoushek stated it currently existed as Light Industrial .4, and under the General
Plan Update, the Light Industrial was adjusted upward to a 1.0 FAR. The labeling of the
designation was more clearly identified as Light Industrial rather than Industrial as it
currently existed.
Chair Steiner stated in requesting that the designation remain as it currently existed, they
could not maintain the same designation if they were to focus on the FAR.
Ms. Pehoushek stated it would be kept as the Light Industrial equivalent of a 1.0 FAR,
which gave the properties development potential.
Mr. Knight stated the existing Industrial designation had a .4 FAR. All the areas around
the site had already been voted on, a change to those areas to Light Industrial under the
new General Plan, would be a FAR of 1.0 with a 3 story height limit. Under the
proposed General Plan, there were two designations, Light Industrial and Industrial,
which had a maximum FAR of .75, and essentially that would.leave a small island of .75
Page 27 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
October 19, 2009
28 of 31
FAR properties surrounded by Light Industrial with a 1.0 FAR. They were asking the
Planning Commission for clarification. Light Industrial would be uses such as
Electronics and Industrial would be uses such as foundries or automobile recycling
centers.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for Public Comment.
Peter Whittingham, address on file, stated he was representing the property at 341 W.
Collins which was better known as a Commercial forming site and qualified as Non-
Light Industrial, he was troubled by semantics. Currently there was no Light Industrial
designation and the difference in the Light vs. Industrial was the FAR. There was a
bodge podge of uses in the Brenna Lane area. There were Industrial uses in the area that
would not be consistent with a Light Industrial Zoning, a .75 FAR and 3 story maximum
and those businesses would be non-conforming.
When he left on September 9, 2009 he had felt there was a very clear direction to leave
several of the properties in that area as they existed and to allow the current uses at those
sites. The change to Light Industrial would change those properties to non-conforming
uses. The properties directly across the railroad tracks which would remain as they
currently existed and he thought that proximity would be the guidepost for a continuance
of the current uses. He encouraged the Commission to reinforce the direction of the
September 9, 2009 meeting and to allow for flexibility that currently existed to continue.
FAR was irrelevant to the current property owners and the range of uses for their
properties was most important.
Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for
discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 34-09.7, Focus Area No.
7, Lemon Street, recommending adoption to the City Council with the change to keep the
designation as Industrial as noted in the initial consensus vote of September 9, 2009.
Chair Steiner stated in order to keep the recommendation from their initial consensus
vote they would be to recommending a change.
SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner opened the discussion for Land Use Focus Area No. 3, South Main Street.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 34-09.3, Focus Area No.
3, South Main Street, recommending adoption to the City Council.
SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham
Page 28 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
October 19, 2009
29 of 31
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner opened the discussion for Land Use Focus Area No.4, W. Chapman
Avenue/Uptown Orange.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 34-09.4, Focus Area No.
4, W. Chapman Avenue/LTptown Orange recommending adoption to the City Council.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner opened the discussion for Land Use Focus Area No. 6, Cully Drive.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 34-09.6, Focus Area No.
6, Cully Drive, recommending adoption to the City Council.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner opened the discussion for Draft Resolution 35-09, including draft finding
facts, overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring programs and EIR.
Mr. Knight stated as Focus Area No. 1 had been continued to November 16, 2009, they
would need to continue the draft Resolution 35-09, until a recommendation had been
made on that.
Chair Steiner made a motion to continue Draft Resolution No. 35-09, to a date certain of
November 16, 2009.
SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Page 29 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
30 of 31
Chair Steiner opened the discussion for Ordinance Amendment No. 36-09. He stated it
had been addressed by staff and Commissioner Whitaker had made a change to the
Ordinance Amendment that had garnered support.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt Ordinance Amendment No. 36-09,
recommending adoption to the City Council.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner stated there was one area remaining. He noted for the record that Focus
Area No. 1 which was considered as 34-09.1, Katella Avenue was .2, South Main was .3,
West Chapman was .4, Old Towne would be .5, Industrial Areas .6, Lemon Street .7 and
Eckhoff .8, and he asked for a motion on Resolution 34-09.8.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 34-09.8, Focus Area No.
8, Eckhoff, recommending adoption to the City Council.
SECOND: Commissioner Whitaker
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner stated Resolution No. 34-09.9 was the General Element Content that
included Circulation & Mobility, Growth Management, Natural Resources, Public Safety,
Noise, Cultural Resources, Infrastructure, Urban Design, Economic Development and
Implementation. The final focus area to be discussed was Land Use Focus Area No. 5,
Old Towne and as previously discussed he would be recused from presentation as it
presented a conflict of interest for him.
Mr. Knight stated, in going through the information, there was draft Resolution 34-09.A.
The draft General Plan which included everything with the exception of any changes
made would need a vote on attachment A as well. It could be completed currently or on
November 16, 2009.
Chair Steiner stated he could not consider anything on 34-09.5 and asked if that vote
could be held until November 16, 2009?
Mr. Sheatz stated the entire document was the attachment A and could be considered at
the next meeting.
Chair Steiner was recused from the presentation.
Page 30 of 31 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2009
31 of 31
Vice Chair Whitaker opened the discussion for Land Use Focus Area No. 5, Old Towne.
He stated in reviewing the draft changes, he had gone back and reviewed the minutes and
following the debate, he had thought that there had been a recommendation for an
additional Land Use designation to include the historic multi-family properties and it had
not shown up in the resolution.
Ms. Pehoushek stated Commissioner Whitaker was correct. It was part of the discussion
and part of the action and it was an oversight which should be corrected.
Vice Chair Whitaker stated the recommended changes were referenced on page 25 of 29
of the September 21, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting minutes and referred to a
specific designation of Low Density Residential that would allow permitted by right uses
of historic multi-family properties.
Vice Chair Whitaker made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 34-09.5, Focus Area No. 5,
Old Towne recommending adoption to the City Council, amending the resolution to
include the designation of Low Density Residential as noted in the initial consensus vote.
SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
RECUSED: Commissioner Steiner '
MOTION CARRIED
(3) ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the
Planning Commission scheduled on Monday November 2, 2009.
SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Merino and Steiner
MOTION CARRIED
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 10:00 P.M.
Page 31 of 31 Pages