2009 - March 2
~aeCD.Ci,.0L.3
Planning Commission Minutes
March 2, 2009
1 of 12
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
March 2, 2009
Monday-7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Cunningham, Steiner and Whitaker
Commissioners Imboden and Merino
STAFF
PRESENT:
Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION:
Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:45 p.m. with a review of the
Agenda.
Consent Calendar: Item # 1, Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of
February 2,2009. Commissioner Cunningham stated he would abstain from the vote on
the minutes as he had not been present. Chair Steiner asked Assistant City Attorney,
Gary Sheatz, if the minutes could be approved with only the two remaining
Commissioners present? Mr. Sheatz stated the minutes could be adopted with the two
voting members present.
New Hearings: Item #2 PRP International, Inc. Commissioner Cunningham asked if
PRP Wine and the other beverage business located in the same area were associated?
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, stated the two businesses were not associated, they just
happened to be located in the same area. Commissioner Whitaker stated he believed
there was a typo on Condition No. 21 of the PRP proposed application. On Condition
No. 21 the condition read "shall not be prohibited", he felt the intent of the Condition
should read "shall not be permitted". He asked for clarification. Chair Steiner asked if
the Condition, in fact, should be changed? Mr. Garcia stated yes, the condition should
read "shall not be permitted", and he would clarify that during the public session.
Commissioner Cunningham asked what was meant from the Police Call Log by the
statement: violations of free goods and the sale of alcohol? Mr. Garcia stated the
licensing that PRP had, prohibited certain types of activities in regards to promotions, the
applicant had gotten things squared away and the activities which they would be involved
in would be covered with the current license application. Commissioner Whitaker stated
he would have additional questions.
Item #3 CHOC - Chair Steiner stated they had received quite a bit of information on the
proposed project. He noted that there had been a number of minor corrections regarding
the Conditions of Approval, and most of the changes were to the terminology or language
of the conditions. Mr. Sheatz stated that most of the changes that were made were not
substantial changes and they were made for clarification purposes. Commissioner
Page 1 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2009
2of12
Whitaker asked if the changes to the application presented a noticing issue? Mr. Sheatz
stated no, it had not.
Contract Staff Planner Anne Fox stated the changes resulted from the applicant's request,
through the applicant's legal counsel. One of the changes had eliminated a condition
which was a hold over condition from a previous submittal. The Condition was no longer
necessary and it was removed. Commissioner Whitaker stated one of the conditions
appeared to provide flexibility to the terrace areas of the project. Ms. Fox stated the
change to the condition regarding the terrace areas resulted from the need for a grading
permit. The applicant needed a bit more time to work through that process. Chair Steiner
stated there were a number of deletions to conditions which were immediately followed
by a substitution. Ms. Fox stated the 2nd page of the memo, which would be read for the
public record, contained the condition number of the original draft and then clarified the
corrected or new condition. There were some changes to the numbering of conditions,
for example, Condition No.57 was a new Condition No. 57, due to the removal and
renumbering of the conditions and it was a format that had been requested by the
applicant.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if the model would be available? Ms. Fox stated the
applicant had brought the model and it was on display in the chambers for the
Commissioners to review and for the public as well. She had received an inquiry
regarding the project and she felt there could be public comment. Most of the responses
she had previously received were agency responses to the project and had not been from
the general public. There was no further discussion.
Administrative Session closed at 6:55 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) APPROVAL QF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 2, 2009
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting
of the Planning Commission on February 2,2009 as written.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Steiner and Whitaker
None
Commissioner Cunningham
Commissioners Imboden and Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Page 2 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
March 2, 2009
3 of 12
NEW HEARINGS:
(2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2653-07-PRP INTERNATIONAL,
INC.
LOCATION:
2326 N. Batavia Street, Suite 110
NOTE:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1-
Existing Facilities) because the project consists of the operation
and licensing of an existing private structure.
RECOMMENDATION ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-09 approving an
upgrade from a Type 20 to a Type 21 ABC License.
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report. Mr. Garcia stated on Condition No. 21, the last sentence of the condition
referring to the interior amplification, the Condition should have read that the interior
amplification would be permitted on the licensed premises.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing with any questions for Staff.
Commissioner Whitaker stated there had been discussion regarding Condition No. 21
during the administrative session. He asked on the interior amplification devices for the
purpose of background music or the paging of employees shall be permitted or shall not
be permitted?
Mr. Garcia stated it should read shall be permitted. He had verified that with the Police
Department representative and clarified that it would be permitted.
Chair Steiner stated in that case the language; shall not be prohibited would be accurate.
Commissioner Whitaker asked Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz, with respect to
Condition No.3, which stated: the use of the facility was limited to a distribution center
with no monetary transactions to occur on the premises. He asked if ABC Licensing was
issuing an off-sale permit and the land use was being conditioned, and would that be a
condition that could get the City into trouble later, with the possibility of having the other
conditions wiped out if someone challenged it?
Mr. Sheatz stated for what it was and the way the applicant was before them presenting
the manner in which the business intended to operate, they could regulate the manner of
the operation. They could not interfere with the sales and consumption, and things of that
nature. He felt they were close enough, based on the manner, that the applicant was
coming before the Commission stating that the manner that they operated would be via
internet sales and shipping, with the monetary restrictions on-site, and he felt the manner
in which the application was conditioned was okay. It was a close call and he was not
Page 3 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2009
4 of 12
certain if the Police Department representative had the opportunity to speak with ABC
Licensing. Many times ABC Licensing would incorporate many of the conditions that
were required by the City. He was not aware if there had been any conversations to that
extent or not.
Chair Steiner stated, for the record, Sergeant Lopez was nodding his head no.
Commissioner Cunningham asked on Condition No. 15 where it referred to business
hours not commencing prior to 8:00 a.m. and ceasing by 6:00 p.m., was that customer
hours or hours of operation?
Mr. Garcia stated that referred to hours of operation.
Commissioner Cunningham asked if the applicant was aware that they would be unable
to do business prior to 8:00 a.m. They had run into a problem with the same type of
language on a previous application, which he believed was Sprouts Market. The
condition had been clarified, and he wanted to ensure that the condition would not
prohibit the applicant from coming in earlier to get things prepared for the customer
hours and to have the ability to remain on site after 6:00 p.m. to close up.
Mr. Garcia stated the condition was for the hours of operation for the business and the
condition could be modified.
Commissioner Cunningham was curious whether the applicant had any thoughts on that
condition.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing and asked the applicant to come forward.
Applicant, John Sollitto, address on file, stated, pertaining to the hours of operation, he
had no problem with establishing business hours from 9:00 to 5:00, however, to have a
condition which only allowed them to be on site from 8:00 to 6:00 would present a
problem. Many times he would be at the business early to prepare paperwork and then at
the end of the day when the phones stopped ringing to remain on site to finish up. The
business was almost entirely shipping and establishing hours of business would be fine.
Chair Steiner asked the applicant if he had any objection to the hours of operation, the
time the business would be open to the public, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The
applicant would not want that condition to prohibit the applicant from conducting
business on the premises outside the hours of 8:00 to 6:00.
Mr. Sollitto stated that was correct.
Commissioner Cunningham asked the applicant what hours would be amenable to him to
allow him to operate the business? He wanted to clear up the condition to allow both the
applicant and the City to interpret the condition in the same manner. He felt that the
condition was acceptable in terms of customer hours; however, the hours for employees
to be on site and do business should be modified.
Page 4 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2009
5 of 12
Commissioner Whitaker stated part of the reason there was a restriction on hours of
operation was not just for customer flow but also the impact on the neighborhood. For
instance if in their shipping operation in using UPS or California Overnight, or
whomever, he asked what were the normal hours the applicant had trucks coming in? He
understood that was one of the things Staff looked at, with respect to controlling hours of
operation. They would not want 3 UPS trucks backed up to load at 9:00 p.m. with lots of
ambient noise happening.
Mr. Sollitto stated the business was located in a business park and not near residential
properties. They had one UPS pick up each day, which was at approximately 3:00 p.m.
They had one driver and one delivery truck. The truck was generally on the road
between 7:30 and 9:30 a.m. and the truck returned between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m. There
would not be any other work going on other than paperwork outside of the customer
hours of operation. He would be willing to add a condition that stated doors must be
locked before 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m.
Chair Steiner stated the applicant appeared to be making a reasonable request as it related
to his operation on the premises and he had not appeared to object to a reasonable time of
operation limitations and he asked Staff for their input?
Mr. Garcia stated he had spoken with the Police Department representative, and they
agreed that they would be open to changing the condition. The condition could limit
customer hours only from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Chair Steiner asked the applicant if he would be agreeable to that condition, with the
hours that the business would be open to the public being from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.?
Mr. Sollitto stated he was agreeable to that and had no further comments.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for Public Comment, there was none. He returned the
item to the Commission for further discussion.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt PC 10-09, approving Conditional Use
Permit 2653-07, PRP International Inc., with the conditions contained in the Staff Report
and with the modification to Condition No. 15 deleting the word business and inserting
the word customer. Noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA and with the
typographical change to Item No. 21.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Cunningham
Commissioners Cunningham, Whitaker and Steiner
None
None
Commissioners Imboden and Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Page 5 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
March 2, 2009
6 of 12
(3) ZONE CHANGE 1252-08; MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 0504-07;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2726-08; DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE NO. 4209-07; TENTATIVE MAP NO. 0024-08;
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 5390; & ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
NO. 1805-08-CHOC MASTER PLAN.
A proposal to expand the existing hospital facilities and associated medical offices within
the entire CHOC campus. The project will increase the number of hospital beds and
provide pediatric specific hospital facilities through the addition of 424,524 square feet
and remodel 54,250 square feet ofthe hospital tower buildings.
LOCATION:
455,505,541,557 S. Main & 1201 W. La Veta Avenue
NOTE:
The environmental impacts ofthe project and its project
alternatives were evaluated through Environmental Review
No.1805-08 (DEIR State Clearinghouse No. 2008081118) which
was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15070 et seq and in conformance with the Local CEQA
Guidelines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 06-09, 07-09, 08-09
09-09 recommending to the City Council certification of the
adequacy of FEIR 1805-08 and approval of ZC 1252-08, MJSP
0504-07, CUP 2726-08, DRC 4209-07 & Tentative Map 0024-08
and Development Agreement 5390.
Contract Staff Planner Anne Fox presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff.
Commissioner Whitaker stated with respect to the commercial office building, where he
believed 40% would be medical office building, he asked if that was temporary medical
office capacity or would it be permanent?
Ms. Fox stated that would be a permanent change to the campus and that would be to the
CHOC Commerce Tower. The tower was located at the south east corner of Main and La
Veta.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if the parking on the south side of La Veta would be
independently parked with the new restrictions under the medical office building
guidelines?
Ms. Fox stated there was an interim condition with the medical office use going in, and
due to the fact that CHOC was the property owner of a nine level structure that was just
Page 6 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2009
7 of 12
built in the last 2 years that contained over 1600 parking spaces and was adjacent to the
CHOC Commerce tower, they were operating with an interim allowance for medical.
There would be an increase to a much greater level and that had been evaluated with the
project. There would be a shared parking arrangement between all the different uses
within the CHOC campus.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if the south side of La Veta parked itself, or was the
parking on the north side still required?
Ms. Fox stated parking for the entire project site was completely common and shared.
Most of the parking was located on the south part of the campus with the use of the
pedestrian bridge for direct access. The proposed project would provide that link.
Chair Steiner stated with respect to the errata, those were corrections noted by the
applicant.
Ms. Fox stated that was correct.
Chair Steiner stated the vast majority of the corrections were to correct statutory
references or correctly describe the project or changes to terminology. There were a few
changes that appeared to be deletions and he wanted to ensure, establish and defend the
intent, that the errata were merely errata. Where there were deletions, the meaning and
the content of those deletions were addressed elsewhere in the body of those conditions
and he wanted to clarify his understanding with Staff.
Ms. Fox stated that was correct. Two of the deletions were conditions that were replaced
elsewhere and had come under a different heading. One of the conditions that had been
deleted was a condition that was no longer required for the project.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing and invited the applicant to step forward.
Applicant, Debra Mathias, 455 S. Main Street, Orange, presented a PowerPoint
presentation and stated what CHOC generally found when they spoke to audiences was
that most people had some experience with CHOC. In most cases someone had a child
who had been in CHOC hospital or had a friend or family member who had a child in one
of their outpatient centers or the CHOC emergency room. One of the reasons for that
was that CHOC was one of the busiest hospitals in Orange County. They would have
over 60,000 inpatient days during the year and over 180,000 outpatient visits. CHOC
was well known in the community. Children's hospitals were not always differentiated
from adult hospitals. They were not different because they had cute graphics on their
walls or because they had little basinets, they were different because they provided
unique services to the community. Every person who worked at CHOC as a caregiver
had special training that was specific to children; they came from a pediatric background.
Every person who worked at CHOC had a passion for working with kids. It was a unique
facility and different from an adult facility. It was important to note that children's
hospitals were a very rare commodity in the country. She referred to a map of the U.S.
and stated that CHOC was one of only 45 free standing children's hospitals in the United
States. It made a statement about Orange County; 45 years ago the leaders of the
Page 7 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2009
8 of 12
community decided to establish a freestanding children's hospital, not all states in the
country had that privilege.
Ms. Mathias stated that Orange County had more pediatric patients or more children in
the community than the 21 states she pointed to on a map. CHOC served patients from
the Inland Empire, North San Diego County and Los Angeles County, as well as patients
from Orange County. The pediatric populations of those communities were greater than
the 39 states that she referred to on the slide. CHOC was a 238 bed hospital, with over
50 % of those beds dedicated to critical care. Most adult hospitals had less than 15% of
their beds designated as critical care. Many ofthe children cared for at CHOC were quite
ill. CHOC was ranked as one of the busiest children's hospitals in the United States.
CHOC was one of the busiest hospitals in the nation. In addition, they had the busiest
transport team in the country; 4,000 helicopters and ambulances arrived at CHOC every
year with the sickest children. They received referrals from hundreds of doctors each
year and from 90 facilities. In the last 10 years they had truly grown. Their inpatient
admissions in Orange had nearly doubled. In the year 2000 they had added 30 critical
beds to CHOC, and the neonatal intensive care unit had doubled; 12 neonatal intensive
care beds were just added last year. The specialty care visits had increased to over 145%
in the past 10 years and 60 exam rooms were added last year. A new infusion care center
for chemotherapy treatment was added as well. The increased demand for children's
services was not surprising. They found that families wanted to stay in their communities
and sought care there. The expansion of CHOC was created by other issues. They had
an expanded geographic reach. Orange County's population had grown in the past 10
years with an increase in the children that lived in Orange County. They needed to
continually improve their infrastructure. Those factors combined had caused CHOC to
reach its capacity. They wanted to provide services that historically, had been provided
by St. Joseph's Hospital through a shared service agreement. St. Joseph's Hospital had,
in the past, provided operating and emergency rooms, laboratory and radiology services,
those services would be available in the new CHOC facility for pediatric specific care.
The new facility would allow CHOC to build a world class children's hospital, which
would help them to achieve their vision in Orange County. The strategic plan addressed
the needs in their master campus plan, which included the new patient care tower. It
would allow them to become one of the most advanced children's hospital in the world
and it would be designed, built, furnished and staffed to create a child focused
environment where children were comforted, healed and their families supported. She
hoped that she had presented an understanding ofCHOC and their role in the community.
Applicant, Fred Talarico, address on file, stated he wanted to mention a few of the things
that Ms. Mathias had gone over. One, they were requesting a total of 7 actions. It was
the total number that they needed to build the hospital. It was an amazing number to him.
It was everything from a fully certified EIR, down to a Zone Change and a CUP. In
terms of where the hospital was located, to familiarize them, they were located on both
sides of La Veta, just to the east of Main Street. To construct the hospital they would
take 3 primary options. First they were going to tear down a medical office building,
which he pointed to on a slide, once the medical office came down they would grade the
site and build a hospital that would provide many of the services that were currently
provided by St. Joseph's Hospital and those services would be child specific.
Page 8 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2009
9 of 12
There was a question regarding the CHOC Commerce Center, he pointed out that
building on the slide, and stated they would be transferring doctors into that building to
enable them to be adjacent to the hospital. There was a lot of parking to both the north
and south sides of the street and many times he and staff disagreed on how many spaces
they had, however, they agreed that there were a lot of spaces and extra spaces. They
would be building a new medical office building at a location he pointed to on the slide.
He stated they had been before the Planning Commission approximately 2 years ago, to
build a new 9 story building that was all parking. CHOC employees parked in that
structure and walked to the hospital campus. That location became even more valuable
with the bridge and the hospital location that would allow access directly into the second
floor of the hospital.
The Zone Change that was mentioned by Staff, dealt with an existing inconsistency with
zoning on the property from the general plan. One of the options was to submit a cleaned
up Zone Change to ensure consistency with the plan and with the new general plan.
One of the other actions was a parcel map, the parcel map created 11 parcels on the north
and south sides of La Veta. The object would be to create building sites for each of the
buildings on the campus and to allow for future growth. They were building a hospital,
with several floors containing rooms only, and with other floors speaking to everything
else they were doing. The basement would house a lab, specific to children; the first
floor would contain emergency care, radiology and pharmacy services. The third floor
would be for surgery, cardiology and urology. All of those changes would occur by the
year 2020 in a series of phases. Initially there would be the demolition of the building he
spoke about and then there would be the remodeling of the north and south towers,
CHOC Commerce Center and the addition of the new medical office building.
When the project was completed in 2020, they would have approximately 404 medical
beds, today they had approximately 238. They were attempting to coordinate a campus.
New landscape elements would be introduced along La Veta and Main Streets. They tied
those in as a gateway statement, upon entering a very strong medical area one would
know that St. Joseph's and CHOC existed there. On the south side of La Veta the
courtyard area would be enhanced with landscaping to Main Street. There would be
signage that would incorporate an identity for the area. The one area of new landscape
that would be added would be the terrace area between the north and south towers, it
provided an open space area on the campus and allowed the two buildings to come
together. It was difficult to describe, however, if they looked at the model they would get
a visual of how those landscape terraces worked together.
Mr. Talarico stated the bridge was a symbolic focal point. One of the things he wanted to
do was to take an opportunity to thank the City Staff, and specifically the members of the
Staff Review Committee for their endless patience with CHOC and their associates. A
question was asked whether the conditions were those that the applicant had requested,
the Staff had worked with them to go over all details and they had been most helpful and
gracious in going back and forth with those details and how the project would be
constructed. The Design Review Committee also gave them some excellent suggestions
on blending the buildings together and he wanted to thank the Planning Commission for
allowing them to present their project. They reviewed the Staff Report and they had a
Page 9 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2009
10 of 12
somewhat different view on the extra parking spaces, and it had been the first time that he
had spoken of having extra spaces and it was a nice place to be. They had reviewed the
revised Conditions of Approval that Staff had provided to CHOC. There were concerns
earlier with Condition No. 55, but they had worked with Staff over the last several days
and they were certain they could work together to ensure the hospital could be built in a
timely manner. He had with him CHOC Staff and project team members that would be
available to answer any questions the Planning Commission had, related to the project.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for Public Comment.
Nick Ana, M.D., 455 S. Main Street, Orange, stated he worked at CHOC and was
Director of the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at CHOC and Chairman of the Specialty
Faculty. He had recently accepted a position as Pediatrician in Chief to support the
formal affiliation of CHOC and UC Irvine. He had worked at CHOC for over 20 years
and appreciated the opportunity to speak regarding the new tower. In his opinion the
number one challenge for the provision of excellent care to the children in Orange
County was the recruitment and retention of the best people in their field, pediatric
specialists, surgeons, anesthesiologists, pharmacists, ER physicians, pediatric nurses,
respiratory and physical therapists, nutritionists, administrators and management all
experienced in the care of children. To accomplish the formidable task of assembling
such a large group of experts CHOC must have a self contained modern facility to attract
the best health care specialists. Many of those services were already provided for the
children of Orange County through a shared arrangement with St. Joseph's Hospital for
many years, it was time for CHOC to develop and excel in all aspects of care, teaching
and research in a facility dedicated to children. It was important to be able to compete in
an environment to recruit the best and offer a facility that was competitive, self contained,
modern ahd state of the art. Lastly, a second challenge to the provision of medical care to
children and their families was the expense of care in the face of man power shortages; to
that end it was important to regionalize care to children. Regionalization provided for
optimal strategy for the care of children in the most fiscally responsible fashion, and to do
that CHOC must have a greater bed capacity, improved out patient facilities, including an
emergency room, operation rooms that were state of the art and the inclusion of safety
within the design. In summary, there were many challenges in maintaining excellence in
care for children, the new tower would be a modern facility designed and dedicated to
children in maintaining the CHOC vision of care for children.
Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for
further discussion.
Chair Steiner stated he felt the proposal was an excellent project and it was an honor to
have an operation such as CHOC in the City and the project appeared to be extremely
well thought out at every level, from landscaping to architecture to traffic flow and he
was satisfied with the contents of the materials that had been provided and would be in
support of the project.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he concurred with the remarks of Chair Steiner. He asked
Mr. Sheatz, there were 7 items requested and there were 4 resolutions with multiple items
requested by the applicant that were combined in at least one of those resolutions, and
Page 10 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2009
11 of 12
was it the opinion of Staff that the 4 resolutions would have a separate motion or would
there be one motion?
Mr. Sheatz stated the resolutions should be moved in the manner that they were drafted
in, with a separate motion for each.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt Resolution PC 06-09, recommending to
City Council certifying accuracy of the FEIR, Environmental Review No. 1805-08, State
Clearing House No. 2008081118, including adoption of the findings and facts and
statements of overriding consideration and mitigation monitoring for the CHOC Master
Plan Project, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Cunningham
Commissioners Cunningham, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
Commissioners Imboden and Merino
Ms. Fox stated the word accept was added, and she wanted to verify the motion included
that?
Commissioner Whitaker stated the motion included the items from the errata report.
MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adopt Resolution PC 07-09,
recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change No. 1252-08, a request to
change the zoning from C3 Commercial and OP, office professional to PI, public
institution for properties within the CHOC Master Plan Project, with the conditions
contained in the Staff Report and the errata report.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Whitaker
Commissioners Cunningham, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
Commissioners Imboden and Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt Resolution PC 08-09, recommending to
the City Council approval of Major Site Plan Review No. 0504-07, Conditional Use
Permit No. 2726-08, Design Review Committee No. 4209-07 and Tentative Map 0024-
08, (TPM2008-162) implementing the development plan proposed in the CHOC Master
Plan Project, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and the errata report.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioner Cunningham
Commissioners Cunningham, Steiner, Whitaker
None
Page 11 of 12 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
March 2, 2009
12 of 12
None
Commissioners Imboden and Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adopt Resolution PC 09-09,
recommending to the City Council approval of Development Agreement No. 5390 for the
CHOC Master Plan Project, by and between the City of Orange and CHOC Realty
Corporation, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and the errata report.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Whitaker
Commissioners Cunningham, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
Commissioners Imboden and Merino
MOTION CARRIED
(3) ADJOURNMENT
Chair Steiner made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of
the Planning Commission on Monday, March 16,2009.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Cunningham
Commissioners Cunningham, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
Commissioners Imboden and Merino
MOTION CARRIED
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 7:52 P.M.
Page 12 of 12 Pages