Loading...
2009 - August 3Planning Commission Minutes APPItOVEI) August 3, 2009 '- ' ~ 1 of 41 Minutes Planning Commission August 3, 2009 City of Orange Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:35 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Item No. 1, Approval of the minutes from the regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 6, 2009. No changes or corrections were noted. Commissioner Cunningham would abstain from the vote as he had been absent. Item No. 2, Comprehensive General Plan Update. Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek `~~"~ would be presenting the item. Chair Steiner stated the format for the General Plan Update item would be unlike any meeting that they had held and he would ask for direction from Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight and Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz. Chair Steiner stated that each element or focus area would be presented separately and then opened to the Commissioners for any questions. He would take public comment on each separate focus area. He asked if there was a list that related to the different elements that would be presented. Commissioner Merino stated it would be helpful to have something along the lines of a recommended action for each portion of the Plan. Commissioner Whitaker stated, along the same lines, there had been a tremendous amount of comments received and there were a number of things to consider. He thought it would be helpful to go by the separate land use planning areas to make the item more manageable to review. Mr. Sheatz suggested they begin with the land use items first which was the element with 8 separate focus areas and that each focus area within the Land Use Element would be handled as a separate item. There were some areas that presented conflicts of interest and they could review those. Commissioner Merino stated there would be property owners within a specific land use area that would have issues and would want to be heard. Chair Steiner asked if the intent was that the Commission would get through all 8 of the land use focus areas tonight? Commissioner Whitaker stated it appeared that way. „., Page 1 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 2 of 41 Mr. Knight stated agenda included the land use element included circulation, mobility and growth management and there were the separate focus areas and the thought was that ,: , they could handle those focus areas. Chair Steiner stated the plan was that they wou get through the Land Use Element. Mr. Knight stated there was a lot of public comment and if they were not able to get through the 8 focus areas, there would be a continuation to the Planning Commission Meeting on 09/09/09. Commissioner Merino stated he had a 1 '/2 to 2 hour drive and he asked the Chair to take that into consideration. Chair Steiner stated he would not want the meeting to go past 11:00 p.m. and he anticipated there would be a number of people present who would want to speak during public comment. Mr. Sheatz stated there was a map included as attachment #2, which had all 8 focus areas identified for the land use element. Ms. Pehoushek stated page 11 also included all 8 focus areas. Mr. Sheatz stated they could go through each focus area in order 1 through 8; however, the fly in the ointment was that they would need to deal with any conflict of interests and areas that would require a Commissioner to be recused from the presentation. Those focus areas were #1 and #5. Chair Steiner stated he would be recused from focus area #5 and Commissioner Cunningham would be recused from focus area #1. Mr. Sheatz suggested that the focus areas be heard in the following order: 1,5,2,3,4,6,7 and 8. Commissioner Merino asked if that order could be added to page #11. Ms. Pehoushek stated the focus areas were in order from 1 to 8. Chair Steiner stated he would announce the focus area to be presented and the ~~~ Commissioner with a conflict would recuse himself from the presentation. Mr. S eatz stated it made sense to state the conflict after the introduction of the item and also why the focus areas would be heard out of order. Chair Steiner stated he would follow the format of announcing each item or focus area, Staff would present the item, there was not an applicant involved and public comment would be heard next. He would open the public hearing and anticipate the affected property owner or residents to speak and they would not be allowed more time than the designated 3 minutes afforded to speakers during public comment. He would then return the item back to the Commission for a consensus. Commissioner Whitaker stated after public comment, the Commissioners would need to arrive at a consensus and motion for a straw vote. Chair Steiner stated there would be 8 votes for the various focus areas. Commissioner Cunningham asked for clarification on a straw vote. Mr. Sheatz stated it was part of the motion and the motion based on the consensus arrived by the Commissioners. There could be issues that the Commissioners would want to recommend for or against on any particular area in that motion. Commissioner Merino stated, based on a property owners comments/concerns, it could appear that there was cherry picking on specific land use designations, that a land owner was getting a favorable response if they sided with the land owner. Mr. Sheatz stated Staff would present their analysis and rationale for the land use designation. The ~~~~ Commissioners could concur with Staff's recommendation and leave the focus area as presented. Each focus area would require 3 votes in favor of, if there would be a 2/2 Page 2 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 3 of 41 vote, the item would move forward as no consensus reached. Commissioner Merino stated a 2/2 vote would mean there had been a lack of a consensus and there would not be ~, a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Mr. Sheatz stated, for the record, rt would be a deadlock with 2 of the votes having come to a different consensus on the issue. Commissioner Whitaker stated how would that vote be crafted; would it be a vote of yes with no exception for that focus area? Mr. Sheatz stated yes, with exception noted for the record. Chair Steiner stated on a focus area with parcels A & B, if the land or property owner for parcel B was not present why would they include parcel B in their consensus? Mr. Sheatz stated they could leave that alone. He could not necessarily answer that question. The Commission would need to come to a consensus with a recommendation based on the Staff Report and public comment. Commissioner Whitaker stated the individual focus areas would be presented via a map and the audience would hear a synopsis of the issues, and he would not expect that Staff would be responding to 80 individual letters that had been received on a particular focus area. Ms. Pehoushek stated she had not planned on rehashing the rationale for each focus item. She would present the changes in land use designation and comment on any public input during the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Merino stated the public should be allowed to address Staff and present their perspective or recommendation. Chair Steiner asked Ms. Pehoushek how public comment responses had been handled. Ms. Pehoushek stated responses to those who had commented would have their responses available at the Public Library or on line. Chair Steiner asked if there had been any personal responses? Ms. Pehoushek stated some phone calls had been made. Chair Steiner stated he would want to allow public comment after each focus area was presented. Ms. Pehoushek asked if he wanted her to present the rationale behind the land use designations. Chair Steiner stated a general summary should be provided, a rationale for each focus area was not necessary and Staff could respond to those concerns presented during public comment. Commissioner Imboden stated he would anticipate that a member of the public might have a comment that covered more that one focus area. Page 3 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 4 of 41 Chair Steiner stated he would review that at the start of the meeting and remind the audience of how the different areas would be presented. Commissioner Imboden stated the anticipation was to take each area as an isolated segment; they were not as some were related to other General Plan changes that would present an opportunity to shelve the item and not vote. He felt residents would come up to speak about an issue that was not related to a specific focus area and he wanted to ensure the public understood that. Chair Steiner stated he would remind the public about the process. Ms. Pehoushek provided additional handouts to the Commissioners regarding an email she had received from a law firm and another piece of information that included various points and comments made during a previous study session. She also passed out information on the focus areas of what existed and what was proposed. Mr. Knight stated that was not a component of their decisionmaking, but additional information that had been asked for. There was no further discussion. Administrative Session closed at 6:57 p.m. REGULAR SESSION: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF July 6, 2009. Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 6, 2009 as written. SECOND: Commissioner Whitaker AYES: Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cunningham ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS: (2) COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE -GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2009-0001 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 1815-09; LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES ORDINANCE ,,,, AMENDMENT -ORDINANCE N0.12-09 Page 4 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 5 of 41 The Comprehensive General Plan Update represents a complete updating of the City's 1989 General Plan (amended in 2005), including Land Use, Circulation and Mobility, Growth Management, Natural Resources, Public Safety, Noise, Cultural Resources (Historic Preservation), Infrastructure, Urban Design, and Economic Development Elements. The General Plan establishes a Community Vision supported by goals, policies, and implementation programs. Ordinance No. 12-09 adds Section 17.38.030 and 17.38.040 to the Orange Municipal Code relating to uses made non-conforming due to the General Plan Update and termination ofnon-conforming uses. Action on this item includes adoption of the City's updated Historic Resources Inventory. Due to the complexity of the program, multiple Planning Commission hearings have been scheduled for consideration of the General Plan Update. Tentative dates and organization of the meeting dates are as follows: 8/03/09 - Land Use, Circulation & Mobility, and Growth Management Elements 9/09/09 - Natural Resources and Cultural Resources Elements 9/21/09 - Public Safety, Noise, Infrastructure, Urban Design, and Economic Development Elements Based on this anticipated hearing schedule, this staff report focuses on the Land Use, Circulation and Mobility, and Growth Management Elements of the proposed General Plan. Staff reports will be prepared for future meeting dates that focus on the remaining elements as noted above. NOTE: The environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan update and its project alternatives were evaluated by Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIIZ) No. 1815-09, which was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. The 45-day public review period was initiated on February 13, 2009 ending on March 30, 2009. Copies of the document were available for public review at the Orange Public Library & Local History Center (Main), Taft Branch, and El Modena Branch Libraries and at City Hall. The draft Ordinance Amendment is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because it involves a modification to standards affecting Focus Area-wide standards rather than a specific development project. There is no public review required. ~, Page 5 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 6 of 41 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 34-09 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2009-0001 and Environmental Impact Report No. 1815-09 for the City of Orange Comprehensive General Plan Update. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 35-09 recommending City Council approval 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. 36-09 recommending City Council adoption of the City of Orange Historic Resources Inventory update. Chair Steiner stated Staff would present each focus area of the Land Use Element, then he would open that for public comment. The first area to be discussed would be the Chapman Avenue/Tustin Street area and Commissioner Cunningham would recuse himself from the presentation. Commissioner Cunningham stated one of his wife's clients was a property owner in that area and he would recuse himself from the presentation of focus area #1. Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of focus area #1, Chapman Ave/Tustin St. consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the hearing with any questions for Staff. Commissioner Imboden stated the Commission had received maps from the Staff Report, which were existing General Plan maps juxtaposed with study session recommendation maps. In comparing those with what was in the public redraft of the General Plan there were differences and in reviewing the power point presentation map there were more differences. Ms. Pehoushek stated there should not be any differences. Chair Steiner asked Commissioner Imboden if he could point out the differences he was referring to. Commissioner Imboden stated for example in the draft that they had received, the zone stopped on the Tustin side of town, it stopped at Chapman, on the study session recommendation map there were changes that took place outside of that zone; on Tustin north of Palm. The graphics presented were also different in reviewing the park, which Ms. Pehoushek had spent sometime speaking about, he had some overlays which were various colors, but the large map presented had one large designation. Page 6 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 7 of 41 Ms. Pehoushek stated in the handouts there was a blue line which marked the boundary of the area and that blue line was consistent in what was presented in the graphic. She stated she was not clear on the reference to Palm and Tustin. Commissioner Imboden asked if that would get picked up in another area. Ms. Pehoushek stated that area was not included in any of the focus areas. It was just a reference point for the context of what was being proposed. Commissioner Imboden stated in looking at the east side of Oak Street, at the corner of Palm and Oak, there was a difference from the existing General Plan study session recommendation, and also a difference in the larger map presented. He stated that was what he was noticing and to let him know if that was incorrect. Ms. Pehoushek stated the map she held was the same as what was presented; it came from the same file source. The two should be the same. She understood what he was referring to. Commissioner Imboden stated then it could be a print issue, but clearly in reviewing the park, it had not looked like the map that had been presented as a power point. He also read that it was a post workshop recommendation and the map he had in front of him had noted study session recommendation .and he wanted to ensure they were all reviewing the same data. Ms. Pehoushek stated it was simply labeling of the proposed alternative. She understood what Commissioner Imboden was looking at and that area was not meant to change. Chair Steiner stated if there was a difference in the area that Commissioner Imboden spoke of, was that area outside of the particular focus area that was being presented? Ms. Pehoushek stated yes. Chair Steiner stated regardless of what color it was on the map, it was not what they were currently discussing? Ms. Pehoushek stated no. Chair Steiner stated they would temporarily put that on hold. If the significance of that color difference became more germane they would definitely return to it. Commissioner Imboden asked on the park property, it read very different on his map and he asked for the designation, was it future Commercial? Ms. Pehoushek stated the striping on the site on that corner in general represented the Yorba Commercial Overlay, the underlying designation of Open Space Park for Yorba Park, the Dog Park, and the YMCA/BMX site would remain in place and the OUSD property would remain Public Facilities and Institutions designation would remain in place. The Commercial Overlay would be proposed on top of that and that change would Page 7 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 8 of 41 only be triggered through an application that contained a development agreement with the City. Commissioner Imboden stated that clarified some of it, he would still have questions for an area at the top, but they would get to that. Commissioner Merino stated forgive him as the way the presentation was formatted there was not a lot of opportunity to speak of things in general, and he had a general question. At the beginning of the presentation Ms. Pehoushek had stated that she had worked with members of the community, and was that the GPAC (General Plan Advisory Committee) process? Ms. Pehoushek stated during 2005 the City Staff conducted 6 community workshops. Those workshops involved the community at large, which included individual invitations to property owners within the 12 focus areas that they had initially developed. They had a workshop with youth, with seniors and those workshops had participation from as few as a dozen people to 200 people. The City established a General Plan Advisory Committee, the GPAC, it was a 15 member committee comprised of individuals representing a broad spectrum of community interests. There were people from the various neighborhoods throughout the City, people from businesses in the City, people representing social services and activity groups in the City, there were people with special interests in the areas, such as biking, the environment, trails, organized sports, the equestrian community and the OTPA, they were a very diverse group of people. They met 9 times during 2005 and they were charged with processing and going through the community workshops and crystallizing the information to assist in developing the community vision statement, which was included in the introduction of the General Plan and in the crafting of the goal and policies that appeared in the General Plan Element. She felt it was by and large, the goals and policies that appeared in the General Plan which were very close to the way they came out of the GPAC process. There had been refinements, but by and large it was a very thorough process. Commissioner Merino asked if it would be Staff's position that the GPAC process reached a consensus and would be aligned with the underlying foundation that they were using to review the land use areas. Ms. Pehoushek stated for the most part yes. Following the work of the GPAC and the community on the land use alternatives, the Planning Commission and the City Council had multiple study sessions to review the land use alternatives. Changes were made to the land use alternatives, originally the recommendation that had come from the GPAC was that the Chapman Hospital and surrounding properties had a Neighborhood Mixed Use designation based on the relationship of those properties to the single family neighborhood to the east, to the proposed trail along Santiago Creek, to Grajalva Park, and also there was a commercial center across the street that provided a variety of goods and services that would be supportive of residential development. Originally that was the thinking with the land use alternative, as she had explained, during the study sessions the Council and Commission thought that hospitals were a priority in the community and they should have a land use designation that reflected that priority. Page 8 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 9 of 41 Commissioner Merino stated during that subsequent process, had Staff identified that perhaps some of the decisions, or points that the City Council and Planning Commission ,~,. were in contravention to the foundation of the GPAC recommendations? Ms. Pehoushek stated no. Commissioner Merino asked what effort had Staff made, as the land use designations were being re-looked at, the re-designations, how much effort had been made by Staff after receiving input, whether it had been from a hearing, to reach out to the property owners to try to create some sort of a reasonable accommodation for both the City to achieve its long range goals while reaching a reasonable accommodation with the land owner? Ms. Pehoushek stated that was not the role of Staff in the process. Staff had taken direction from the Council and Commission. Commissioner Merino stated when a concern had been raised; there had been a community input session, to get the community's input, and basically he was being told that at some point Staff stopped listening because they got direction from either the Planning Commission or City Council and that overrode the community's input, let's call it what it was, he asked if that was safe to say? Ms. Pehoushek stated they presented the product through the community exercises and they received direction and proceeded with that direction. Commissioner Whitaker stated with the Yorba Commercial Overlay, in reviewing the various zones, it appeared that area was the only place that the overlay was used. In other Cities overlays were used. In reviewing all the comments that they had received, there were many about how through down zoning or a zoning change people were concerned about their property not being as marketable or easy to finance. The overlay was used in a lot of others Cities to alleviate that concern, to show where the future might lead, but that they would not take someone currently into anon-conforming status. He asked if there was a reason the overlay was only used in the Yorba Park property? Ms. Pehoushek stated the 1989 General Plan had several overlays. From Staff's perspective when the review of the Land Use Component was started, the number of overlay zones that were in place was a complicated framework to work with and difficult to relay to property owners what the City wanted to see with intended property uses. There were several overlay zones; however, a vision for those overlays had not been communicated as to what they were supposed to do. At the start of the whole exercise they were attempting to better define the land use categories and minimize the number of overlays used, the only reason the overlay was applied to Yorba Park was that it was an area that seemed to have potential for something different, yet Staff had not wanted to be too quick in changing the land use designation. There were not other overlay zones established for the sake of accommodating the spectrum of circumstances that might become non-conforming, as the whole process had been about defining a vision for what } ~ the City wanted to happen, to define areas of the City that might be changed from what was currently occurring. That was the fundamental objective they had wanted to be more Page 9 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 10 of 41 clear about the perspective for the future in each of the areas. w Commissioner Merino stated as he understood it, the methodology that the Staff took to address some of those concerns, in terms of legal non-conforming and continued ownership for the land owners, was the legal non-conforming uses amendment. He understood the amendment would extend the existing ordinance by 12 months. Ms. Pehoushek stated he was getting a little ahead of things, as the ordinance amendment would only apply to property in the Lemon Street corridor and the Katella corridor focus areas that were industrial properties. It was very focused to apply to only industrial properties that would experience a pretty significant land use change. The focus area they were currently reviewing had not involved any of those types of situations. Commissioner Merino stated he understood, but since he broached the subject, the issues that land owners had with the potential change in land use he assumed as a Commission perhaps they could extend the amendment to other focus areas. Chair Steiner asked Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, if he had heard the discussion. Mr. Sheatz stated he had heard, and it was an issue that the Commission could raise and recommend that the amendment be extended to other areas. It was not an issue that had been raised when the ordinance had been drafted. The issue had been raised by owners in that area and it had been tailored specifically to those areas and had an accompanying map to identify those areas. Commissioner Merino stated he was pleased to hear that. As they had gone along, other land owners had raised that issue in other focus areas as well. In dealing with members of the public, who were land owners, in the focus areas they had expressed that an extension in time would mitigate some of the concerns they had with resale or insurance. It was suggested that the mitigation measure would assist in those areas. He asked if it addressed the issues raised by land owners in assisting with resale of their property or in the insurance aspects. Ms. Pehoushek stated other than the industrial properties that were addressed in the ordinance amendment, the property owners who had commented to Staff regarding land use changes, or objections to the land use changes, the basis for their objection had not been finance issues. Their issues had been more of a development potential issue. By and large looking at the broader group of land use changes, in most instances the land use changes would provide greater flexibility to property owners in terms of what they could do with their property. There were exceptions related to the properties on the Katella and Lemon corridor and in Old Towne. Commissioner Merino stated in the one land use area that the amendment had been proposed in it would provide a greater amount of flexibility for them. Chair Steiner stated in reference to the City's desire to see a continued presence of °' hospital services in the City, and that had served in part for Staff's motivation to have made the recommendation that Chapman Hospital property be designated as Public Page 10 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 11 of 41 Facility Use. He asked to what extent would such a designation preclude the provision of other medical services while only permitting required hospital services. Ms. Pehoushek stated Staff had modified the definition of Public Facility and Institutional Use to be more flexible than it was currently written. The modifications allowed ancillary institutional uses and also to accommodate accessory housing or housing related to the institutional use such as assisted living, senior or employee housing and that type of use under the current zoning would not be allowed. In the case of a College or University it would accommodate dormitories. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for Public Comment. Tom Searle, address on file, stated he would read from prepared comments. He appreciated the opportunity to comment and he spoke on behalf of the property owners located at 2501, 2601, 2617 and 2629 %2 E. Chapman Avenue and the vacant land behind the hospital. They objected to the General Plan Update as presented by Staff designating their properties as open space and Public Facility Institutional. He wanted to address the pertinent issues related to those properties. The entire subject site consisted of approximately 23.6 acres, including Chapman Hospital, 2 medical buildings and the abandoned Ross Luce building and the vacant land to the north of those buildings. The vacant property was an irregular in shape. The history of the site included the Commercial Zoning and RO Zoning; they had since 1971 had RO Zoning that had been the result of a lot of plans by the county for a regional park which had since been abandoned. In 2002 the City adopted a resolution #9570 on March 12, with the following findings: Given the uncertainty of the potential development opportunity due to the property size, shape, and proximity to Santiago Creek, creating old landfills on the site that lacked participation by the property owner and any particular development proposal, City Council determined to designate the property as open space. Although under that designation many uses are permitted, absent a specific project, the City Council was uncertain of the best use for the property and views the OS designation and recreation open space zoning as a holding designation, until such a time as a particular project is brought forward. Plans for the project are senior housing that would take advantage of the medical facilities, medical office buildings, which would incorporate the existing medical buildings and vacant land that was currently zoned open space. A state of the art senior housing project had been in the works for many years, a letter had been submitted to the Mayor and City in February of 2008. He asked that the Commission consider their plans for the area and he felt the institutional zoning was too restrictive given current market trends. Thank you. John Moore, address on file, stated he wanted to discuss the Commercial Overlay for Yorba Park. Currently the City had 60% of active park space that it should have and it seemed rather bizarre to him that the City would be selling off existing park space. When he first moved to Orange he would drive by on his way home from work and there would be 4 little league baseball games going on during the season. It seemed to him with reasonable maintenance of the property they could get back to that again. There would be a question of cost and if maintenance was reasonable, but felt it was something that +~ should be looked at before they decided to sell off that land. There were also plans for the creek trail along the west side of the property and in addition to the trail itself there Page 11 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 12 of 41 should be at least a 100' set back from the edge of the creek deemed as open space for landscape. There would also be an issue with traffic that would be generated by a Commercial activity at that site, there was already a problem with that area and the exits of the freeway in that area, and it would be that much worse. John Saunders, address on file, stated he was speaking as the owner of Chapman Medical Center and the office building next door to it. He had been delighted and pleased to be able to have made an investment in the City of Orange in 2003 when the building was purchased. He had been a customer of the medical center with a doctor there and the hospital next door. He had bought it as a building in an area that he had felt very good about. He felt very good about the whole City of Orange, going to Watson's, the University and all the economic reports and it was a charming City. He complimented the City on how they had maintained things in the City and it appeared that it would continue that way. The reason he was speaking was that he strongly objected to the change in zoning for Chapman Medical, from General Commercial to a much more restrictive zoning code. One of the things that had been discussed was that the land owners had been contacted, and he had missed that completely. He had not been made aware of any potential changes until 6 months ago. The contact might have been the administrators of Chapman Medical, which would be his tenant, and possibly they had spoken to them and had not realized the ownership was separate. He had not objected to the idea expressed that it would be good to be a medical center, in fact he had a huge investment in the medical center and the land that it was on. It was his belief that the most likely use for the site would be a medical center and in fact he would be strongly opposed or look very closely at any other use of the facility. With that said, it became a philosophical thing, it was one thing to have a use that was most likely to continue in place, but it was another thing for the City to absolutely compel -through zoning -that it could not be any other use. He had purchased the property with the knowledge that for some reason the medical use failed he would have the opportunity to change the use if it would not economically continue as a medical center. If for some reason there was failure, he had purchased the property understanding there were a wide variety of uses for the site. John Baker, address on file, stated he wanted to set the record straight, he was one of the GPAC members, and it was the desire of the GPAC that the area was supposed to be kept a park and it had been dealt with extensively during their meetings. He felt it I was City Council's wish to change that. He had not thought the overlay should be there until they hammered out the details of what a developer could build there and what he would give in lieu. Such as opt out of fees, like the apartments on the west end, where they took $9,500.00 for the parks and they built nothing down there. It was park land. There was a park that was torn up in West Orange right now. The adult leagues were not there anymore, they went to Del Rio. Where would those people play softball? He had not felt it was a good recommendation, as the City's people had not wanted it to be that way. Pamela Galera, address on file, stated she was a landscape architect and she wanted to state for the record that she had loved the dog park very much, she was just there with her entire family and she had assisted in building the dog park. She felt that people had not understood that site, it had been a methane landfill and that was why they could not develop the land as a park. As a resident of the City of Orange, the best thing they could Page 12 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 13 of 41 do with that site was to develop it into a Commercial site to generate income for the City. She complimented City Staff for their work on the General Plan, and especially Ms. .. Pehoushek who had done a wonderful job on the document. She believed the key to longevity in Orange was the diversity and a variety in lifestyles. It was nice to have the larger residential lots in East Orange, even equestrian lots, however, Mixed Use Development was needed and even medium residential developments. The City needed to continue to attract the young, creative people, to come to the City and continue to rejuvenate the City. Both the young people and those who had downsized enjoyed walking to work, to shop and to dine. Some people had not wanted to drive 5 miles to the nearest Starbucks, which had happened in East Orange. She encouraged the Commission to look at the entire General Plan and the Mixed Use Development and to understand the health, longevity and the climate of the City and the more medium density options in the City. Tom Davidson, address on file, stated he wanted to echo Ms. Galera's comments and he wanted to thank City Staff for their hard work, it was a huge undertaking and they had barely gotten further than a square block yet. He was a man without a focus group, he felt the plan should include areas of East Orange. He felt it was the City's General Plan and the City had gone beyond Tustin and east of that area and he felt it was a shame that the General Plan had not encompassed East Orange. There was a lot of acreage out there. If there was so much concern about one small corner, the City should be concerned about the larger open spaces in Orange as it would become a huge headache for the City. Tom Searle provided a handout which was distributed to the Commissioners. Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing portion of the meeting and asked Ms. Pehoushek if she would respond to some of the points brought up. Ms. Pehoushek stated they heard the objection to the land use designation and she had no further comment on that, Staff had responded to direction and it was the Commissions pleasure to provide an alternate direction based on those comments. In regard to property owner notification and participation early on in the process, for that particular site the CEO of Chapman Hospital was included early on in the City's discussions and early on in the stake holder meetings that focused on different community interests. One of the stake holder meetings was held with representatives of the various medical institutions to get a feel for what they were looking at in the future. That individual was part of those meetings. In terms of property owner notification, Staff had sent direct notices to all property owners of record in all the affected land use areas and there were over 5000 notices sent out for their public workshops. Perhaps a piece of mail had not gotten to the right person, however, they had sent notices out based on the tax assessor's owner information. Regarding Mr. Moore's comments and the setback issue from the trail and future uses on the Yorba site, there was policy language in the land use element that spoke about the relationship between new developments and natural areas, such as the creek corridor, they had attempted to respond to past practices where the creek corridor had been looked at as more of a utility corridor and looked toward the future to look at it as more of a natural amenity with the flood control function. Mr. Baker had not raised any issues that she needed to respond to. Mr. Davidson had mentioned that the General Plan had not encompassed East Orange. The General Plan had in fact included the entire Page 13 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 14 of 41 City. The map included, in the documents and graphics, encompassed the entirety of the City, from the most western edge to the most eastern edge. Perhaps what was being referred to was there had not been any land use changes to the East Orange area. That was due to the onset of the General Plan Update, where the City had adopted in 2005 a major General Plan Amendment that had brought the Irvine Company's East Orange lands into the General Plan. There had been previously 2 General Plans, and that portion of East Orange was united as one whole City. The proposed General Plan Update looked at the City as a unified whole, looking at all areas of the City. Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated he wanted to add a couple of other comments regarding the Yorba Hospital site and he believed they were also speaking about the parcel to the north, which was currently vacant and held a land use designation of open space. Staff was not proposing any recommendations to changes for that area from open space to anything else. That had been open space for decades and the property owner had purchased that land as open space. To change to an Urban designation would be a crucial change, as changing it back to open space would be extremely difficult. He wanted to put forth and they could also ask Mr. Sheatz for further input, but he asked that the Commission to take very serious consideration of that and it would be better to look at that site if there was a project before them. Chair Steiner stated the proposal that was before them was to change the designation from General Commercial to Public Facility Institutional Use. Mr. Knight stated the recommendation that came through the process was to change to Public Facility Institutional Use which would change the fabric of what those uses could be based on for that particular designation. He wasn't stating that they could not make the recommendation for open space, he just cautioned them to look closely at that. Commissioner Merino stated the piece of property that was to the north and a little east of that there was a zone designation to open space for that piece based on what he had been reviewing on the map and he asked if that was correct? Mr. Knight stated no. Currently under the proposed General Plan the area was designated as open space and under the current General Plan it was open space. Commissioner Merino pointed out the area he was speaking about, and he asked if that was being changed to open space? Ms. Pehoushek stated that open space reflected the change that had been made for Grajalva Park, which was a General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Merino stated it showed a change that currently existed, however, had been a change from the existing General Plan. Chair Steiner stated the request to change it to Public Facility Institutional Use was motivated by a desire to provide those types of services at that site, but to the extent that ~' market conditions would be unsupportive of provisions of the types of services that Ms. Pehoushek described earlier, the person who owns that property would be out of luck, Page 14 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes would that be correct? August 3, 2009 15 of 41 Ms. Pehoushek stated essentially if the Public Facility Institutional Use was adopted and the owner needed to do something significantly different with his property. Chair Steiner stated even if it was not something significantly different, but rather would not fall within the definition that Ms. Pehoushek had offered earlier. Ms. Pehoushek stated the property owner would need to apply for a General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Whitaker asked currently with the General Commercial Zoning that existed, had the hospital existed with a CUP or was it o.k. within the current zoning? Ms. Pehoushek stated she had not had that information available. Mr. Knight stated it was either a permitted use or a CUP. Chair Steiner stated at any rate it was not anon-conforming use. Mr. Knight stated that was correct. Commissioner Merino stated just for the record, to be clear, in changing the land use to Commercial the City. ~~. Chair Steiner asked Commercial? Commissioner Merino clarified that he was speaking about the lower area of the map that was being changed from open space to Commercial. Ms. Pehoushek stated in leaving the underlying designation in place with the overlay to function as a tool for the City to potentially work through a development agreement to redevelop the site strictly in exchange for park land or park improvements elsewhere. The definition of the overlay was directly tied into park land. Commissioner Merino stated the larger impact would be that open space would be lost. Ms. Pehoushek stated yes. The desire would be that the park land would be replaced elsewhere in the City. Chair Steiner stated for the record, Mr. Sheatz had confirmed that the hospital existed as a permitted use. Mr. Sheatz stated the medial offices were permitted by right, and the hospital itself existed with a CUP. There was a mix of the two. m*~ Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion and a consensus. Page 15 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 16 of 41 Commissioner Whitaker stated his impression after hearing the presentation was that there was not an over arching reason to change the Commercial Zoning designation with respect to the hospital location. There were a number of financial factors that they needed to consider, there was a vacant and empty office building there and a hospital that had not done its seismic upgrades and it was not certain what would occur there. He would hate to have a blighted zone due to having a Public Facility Institutions Use there. He had not felt there was a need for the change in zoning for that area. With respect to the Yorba Park area, he tended to like overlays and it allowed the marketplace to work. It would not change the existing underlying designation and it would not change the existing use and make someone non-conforming, but it allowed everyone to see where the City was headed. There might not be the finances to bring the area back to a true park and there could be a Commercial user that might want the site, if the Commercial user was willing to trade for park land elsewhere. It would allow the development world to see the vision, without actually mandating or changing the current use. The area could remain open space forever if there would not be a market or developer for the site, the dog park would remain, the green belt would come through and he liked the overlays and felt they were appropriate. His consensus would be to leave the hospital location Commercial Use, with the possibility of an overlay and go with Staff's recommendation for Yorba. Commissioner Merino stated he liked the idea of the possibility of an overlay for the hospital property. He would have preferred to really analyze the land use designations among the myriad that were available, and there could be one that would be a win win for both the City and the property owners involved. He had not felt that too many property ~- owners were involved and that there had been only two or three. He thought that a direction to Staff would be to hold a meeting or two with the property owners to discuss if there was a win win scenario. If there was not one, he was willing to be more convinced by Commissioner Whitakers argument. In terms of Yorba Park, he always had a hard time giving up open space, he understood that the overlay offered a lot of flexibility. There were many issues in creating the dog park and for the City to give up something as attractive for sortie additional income generating Commercial developments in the City, and to give up open space on a risk in finding the right developer and the right set of conditions and that everything would go well so that an equivalent dog park or open space would be created somewhere else concerned him. He would be less inclined to support that part of the proposal. Commissioner Imboden stated it was certainly a complicated site, and anyone who had been in Orange for any time at all knew the complications associated there. On the site to the south of Chapman, he was quite satisfied with the overlay. With the caveat, included in the text of the General Plan proposal, that discussed the potential for compensory park land in terms of a development agreement and that the City was doing their best to maintain open space should the site seem to make more sense as a Commercial development in the future. For the north side of the street he was very torn. He was originally one of the study session members that had concerns about the remaining hospital site and in trying to bring the land use designation to match what was occurring on the ground. The economics of the situation were very real and they had to look at that '°~-~ as part of the opportunity as well as the liability of the site. He would support the earlier comments of leaving the site as it stood. He stated that the focus area was the first that Page 16 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 17 of 41 had been presented, and all the property owners needed to understand that it was difficult for planning Staff and for the Planning Commission and then for the City Council, to have property owners have intentions of developing their properties but to also have the opportunity of selling their property and to have every door remain open for that property owner. Everyone would want to do that, however, there needed to be some consistency in the City's zoning. With that being said, he was torn back and forth on the issue and he would recommend that the existing zoning remain for the north side of Chapman and to accept the study session recommendation for the south side, the park site. Chair Steiner stated he was supportive of the overlay. It afforded the type of flexibility, especially in the current times when the City and property owners needed flexibility. He was pleased that in the future if a project was presented he would not know what limitations or actions would be able to be imposed on that project and an overlay was exactly what the City would want, and what residents wanted the City to have with respect particularly to open space situations. As it related to the north Chapman area he was not in support of the Public Facility designation and that it constituted a much too significant government intrusion. It was a proposal to designate the particular zone, and despite the rather charitable definition which he had not doubted as being accurate, he felt is was just too narrow of a definition of what the property owner would be allowed to do with their property. It was much too significant of an intrusion and he would not be supportive of that change and recommended that it remain Commercial. Commissioner Whitaker made a straw vote motion for Focus Area #1 to leave the current zoning intact with respect to Chapman Hospital and adjoining sites and not change the designation to Public Facility Institutional Use, and to accept the recommendation from Staff for the overlay on Yorba Park. SECOND: Commissioner Imboden AYES: Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: None RECUSED: Commissioner Cunningham MOTION CARRIED Chair Steiner stated they would now hear the presentation on the next focus area, which was Old Towne/Santa Fe Depot Area. He had a disclosure to make, he would be recused from the presentation as he was a part time professor at Chapman University and he was a candidate for judicial office and discussion of certain components on the presentation through his verification with Mr. Sheatz would not allow him to participate in the focus area. Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented an overview of Focus Area #5 Old Towne/Santa Fe Depot consistent with the Staff Report. Vice Chair Whitaker opened the item for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Imboden stated density and FARs' were so important in the historic district. On the Cypress School request he asked for the proposed or potential FAR? Page 17 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 18 of 41 Ms. Pehoushek stated what was being proposed was a conversion of the existing Industrial definition to Light Industrial, which would have a maximum FAR of 1.0, and a 3 story height limit. Old Towne mixed use would need to be looked at, she was not sure that the individual who commented had made a request for a specific use. There was one version of Mixed Use that had a .5 to 1.0 FAR, the other version of the Old Towne Mixed Use had a residential density of 24 units per acre and a FAR range of 1.0 to 1.5. Commissioner Imboden stated essentially one would afford more development on a site than what had currently existed and the other would not. Vice Chair Whitaker stated in the material provided there was a letter from Chapman University and designations that they thought that were needed to reference their specific plan and he asked Ms. Pehoushek if she could summarize that briefly? Ms. Pehoushek stated there had been a comment made about the policies in the Land Use Element and the essence of it was activity related to the Chapman Specific Plan should not be detrimental to Old Towne. Chapman University requested the wording of that policy be changed to delete detrimental effects. That was in essence the comment related to the content and their comment pertained to the old Cypress School, as they were the owners of that property. Vice Chair Whitaker opened the hearing for public comment. Bob Hitchcock, address on file, stated he was a board member of the OTPA and also a member of the General Plan Advisory Committee. Mostly he was a concerned citizen of the substantial investment. The comments made in the Staff Report on page 6, regarding the vision and the General Plan Advisory Committee, not with standing those comments, he took some exception. What had started to become apparent would become more apparent as there were more dissimilarities between those sets of meetings and the vision statement that was in the General Plan Draft. He attended all those meetings, and they had not discussed 8 focus areas but 9. To his surprise when the draft was published one of the focus areas, Lincoln corridor, disappeared and he had no idea how that happened. What was strange about that was that they had spent so much time talking about it. He had a meeting with Staff that Ms. Pehoushek alluded to, regarding density on the spoke streets and he thought they had an agreement that a maximum FAR of .3 would be appropriate as it would be more indicative with what was happening. A third Mixed Use designation not exceeding .3 would be added, and he had not seen that in the draft. In the Staff Report there was discussion about an FAR of .5, which was much greater and he thought there had been an agreement of .3. They needed to remember that S. Glassell was still primarily residential, whereas east and west Chapman were not. Jeff Frankel, address on file, stated he was representing the OTPA and had been a member of the GPAC, although he was pleased to have input, he had been rather disappointed regarding how the meetings with the consultants were conducted and with the outcome. Some of the members felt pressured to form a recommendation that fell within the consultants and community's agenda. Meetings that he attended had not gone ~- well either, they were somewhat hostile. In general the community had problems with the plan, which was reflected in the over 700 letters that the City received. They were Page 18 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 19 of 41 glad the plan had finally gone this far. There had been an attempt to address some of the OTPA's traffic, circulation and density concerns, although all proposals that they had opposed were still included in the General Plan Update. They were opposed to the widening to 4 lanes of Chapman, Lemon to Grand, Glassell, La Veta to Walnut and La Veta and Glassell to Cambridge. They encouraged that those streets remained 2 lanes and they wanted clarification on the issue. They opposed the elimination of on street parking and the re-classification of Palmyra Avenue to a collector street. They opposed the 1.0 FAR spoke street density. Those density levels had already been discussed. They were also opposed to the FAR proposed for the Depot quadrants in the Depot Specific Plan area; they were not opposed to higher density in the adaptive use of commercial and industrial buildings along the railroad tracks. A 1.0 to a 1.5 was too high for adjacent properties. The area was bound by the current Old Towne Standards. There was a proposed 3 story overlay that would not meet the standards and there had been mention of transfer of development rights for the area. He asked if that would equate to higher density projects. The densities proposed were too high if the goal was to limit impacts on historic resources and the proposed densities would have an adverse affect on the historic district and infrastructure and he would not support the proposed densities. He wanted clarification on the proposal to build buildings to property lines to maintain street scapes. It appeared there were areas in the City that could support higher densities, why the density concentration in Old Towne? It was the OTPA's opinion that the proposal would negatively impact the Historic District and create adverse affects on quality of life and property values. Michelle Carter, address on file, stated she spoke on behalf of OTPA and her primary concern was the alternatives discussed in the EIR. As the Commission was probably aware an EIR was required to explore reasonable range of alternatives and relating to the location of projects and the project in general that would offer a substantial envirorunental advantage over a proposed project. What she found lacking in the EIR was any evaluation of alternatives in Old Towne. The Commission was charged with preserving and protecting the district, and definitely charged with the responsibility of ensuring development in Old Towne would not impair the qualities that allowed the district to be registered in the first place. One of the primary qualities that allowed the district to be registered was the concentration of historic buildings in comparison to non- contributing structures. Her concern was with the increase in FAR in the Depot area and in not representing what was on the ground and in the spoke streets. There would be a larger concentration ofnon-contributing structures in Old Towne, and the City would not have an Old Towne that looked like it had in 1939, but an Old Towne that had a very different pattern, fabric and it would not look like it had when it was placed on the register. She believed the EIR was insufficient in exploring alternatives to increase in density to the spoke streets and Depot area. She appreciated the nod to reduce density in the residential district, however, she believed it was not sufficient and suggested the Commission consider increasing density in other areas of the City, such as the Lincoln corridor that had been dropped as a focus area and not place the increased density in an area that was not meant to handle that and would not have the infrastructure to handle an increase in density. -~ Larry Lopez, address on file, stated he echoed the previous speaker's comments. For the past 8 or 9 years the OC Register had voted the City of Orange as having the most Page 19 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 20 of 41 popular Old Towne in Orange County and the change in the General Plan could completely take away the character that made Old Towne. The traffic issues would just destroy it. He had been in Old Towne for over 30 years and he was adamantly opposed to the changes proposed for Old Towne. Kim Mann, address on file, stated when she was considering purchasing a home in Old Towne, and the home she owned now, it had been marketed to her as R-2 property and it would bring added value to her as a homeowner. She opposed the re-zoning of her property from R-2 to R-1 as she wanted the opportunity to build a little cottage in the back of the property. It would not have a negative impact what so ever, as she would have parking on her property in the back. She wanted the R-2 designation to remain. Janet Crenshaw, address on file, stated she was a member of OTPA and she strongly hoped the Commission listened to the other members who had spoken about the issues involved. For those who wanted to maintain an R-2, a granny flat could still be built on that, it was a State Law. Patty Ricci, address on file, stated she lived in Old Towne. She opened up with a quote from the 8/2/2009 edition of the L.A. Times; small Cities like Torrance, Orange and San Luis Obispo are noted for their success in overcoming the passage of time. Orange should be proud to be in this company for all of its hard work and may its success be an inspiration to others. Now they were at another crossroads in the preservation of Old Towne, increase of traffic through its heart and soul, the Plaza. 783 residents sent letters to the City protesting that aspect of the General Plan; it was a significant portion of the population of Old Towne. Residents would not want an increase in traffic. Traffic in general would be generated by people who did not live in Orange and would be just passing through, what would they care about the history and quality of life. Old Towne residents had not wanted the increase in traffic and everything that would come with it. Dan Slater, address on file, stated he had been waiting years for the City to get some of the zoning problems and spot zones resolved in Old Towne. He had letter #14 that responded to the EIR, in selling real estate in Old Towne for 25 years and living in Old Towne he was familiar with every parcel and how it was zoned. He was going to be very specific. Generally Staff had done a fantastic job with their proposals, with the exceptions that had been pointed out by the OTPA that should be noted, specifically there were a couple of things that they should catch. In the Nutwood tract in the 500 and 600 blocks of south Glassell Street and Orange Street that was proposed as Mixed Use, it was all residential and he could not see how Mixed Use across from Holy Family made any sense. All those developments were single family and then there was the historic Watson House in that block, and it was a chance to fix that. On the east side of the 100 block of N. Grand that should be zoned low density residential, which would be the parking lot across the street from the Presbyterian Church. It was buffered on both sides by single family residential and it seemed that the whole block should be zoned consistently residential. The house at the corner of E. Almond and S. Olive Street, the property behind the Schwinn Cyclery, had been zoned Commercial for years and as that property had been developed there would be no way if it was converted to Mixed Use or Commercial that there could be any parking accomplished on that lot without tearing something down. There was a historic single family Spanish court, which were rare in Page 20 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 21 of 41 Old Towne, but very unique, on the 200 block of N. Olive and that was proposed for Mixed Use Zoning as well and he had not felt that would work in a courtyard situation and it should be zoned residential. The recommendations for the study area of Old Towne were generally done very well, but it just had not gone far enough. The borders were still zoned as Multiple Family and they were neighborhoods that had been zoned single family. He had laid that out in his letter to possibly zone those areas as Low to Medium Density Residential. Ms. Pehoushek had provided a response to his letter, which mainly agreed with his points. Annette Drake, address on file, stated she also had property at 347 S. Orange and she had bought the Orange Street property in 1975 and then the Center Street property in 1976. Her objection was to down zoning the two biggest assets that she had, and she had paid on for 34 years. She had a plan for her life that had not fit with the City's plan. She wanted to live in her home and sell her rental. If the property was down zoned she would lose a lot of value in her property. She had been to the workshop and she had not remembered the mention of down zoning property. The vision that they had was certainly not the vision she had for her own personal property. Vice Chair Steiner asked Ms. Pehoushek to respond to the comments heard. Ms. Pehoushek stated in response to Mr. Hitchcock in reference to the other focus areas that had been considered by the GPAC, there were 3 different areas that had been identified which were the Lincoln corridor, the East Chapman and El Modena area and then the Tustin corridor and through the early study sessions for various reasons those areas fell out of the focus areas. In terms of the addition of a Mixed Use designation, which was a meeting that occurred after the public release of the General Plan Draft and EIR and that was why it had not been reflected in the public review document. The .5 FAR that had been referenced in the Staff Report as an option for the Mixed Use designation reflected evaluation of a floor area ratio map that Staff generated through property records, using GIS and they felt .5 captured the level of development that could be found on the outer reaches of the spoke streets. To address Mr. Frankel's comments, the road widening she would want to save for the Circulation Element discussion. The designation to Palmyra as a collector was an existing designation - it was not proposed. The transfer of development rights he mentioned which was a new component as a mechanism for the City to use in developing new open space and also as an incentive for Historic Preservation activity. If a property owner had a historic property and there was an infill site that was either a surface parking lot or anon-contributing building in the district, there could conceivably be some transfer of development rights for the site to an infill site with the density being higher than what had been seen, it was a mechanism for preservation and those details had not been worked out yet. A few of the speakers referenced that density should be concentrated elsewhere, and that was exactly what was being proposed in some of the other alternatives for the different focus areas. The highest density area was being proposed for W. Katella, the area around The Block and the area around Town and Country and Main Street. Ms. Carter commented about the alternative presented in the EIR; she wanted to reiterate that the Old Towne Mixed Use would provide up to 24 units per acre and a 1.0 FAR in the downtown core and the spoke '~~ streets. The proposed Land Use change would reduce the residential density from 24 units per acre to 15 units per acre and it left the FAR range as it stood. It was not Page 21 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 22 of 41 proposed as an alternative, as the proposed Land Use plan was a reduction for many of the spoke streets. The infrastructure issue was addressed in the EIR and acknowledged that there were infrastructure deficiencies in Old Towne. Ms. Pehoushek stated in response to Ms. Mann and also Ms. Drake, the comments that objected to the change in Land Use, from R-2 to R-l. The changes they were referencing, the low medium density residential designation that currently applied allowed 6 to 15 units per acre. The proposed change would represent 2-6 units per acre with the zoning being R-1 or single family. State Law provided for the accommodation of accessory units on single family zoned properties. The change from R-2 to R-1 would affect the development of the property, but would not preclude the building of an additional unit on the property. There was a size limitation of 640 square feet with a potential of creating more housing with minimal impact on the neighborhood. To address Mr. Slater's comments, he had pointed out many changes that had been pointed out in his letter. She had meant to identify the property that was referenced in the response to comments, on Olive and Almond and they had incorrectly addressed the property that was on the S.W. corner that had been under renovation. Mr. Slater meant for a response for the property on the S.E. corner. That property had a Mixed Use designation and there was not a proposal to change that. In terms of the Spanish style court, that location had an Old Towne Mixed Use designation and they proposed to continue that designation, as courtyard apartment, that designation was intended to capture some of the Commercial uses that they saw in down town and the various packaging of residential development. They had not seen the courtyard housing as being in conflict with the Mixed Use designation. In looking at the fringe areas of Old Towne, should the Commission and the City Council find that those areas should be pursued, that it be handled as a separate issue as none of those property owners had been notified of any Land Use changes. Commissioner Cunningham stated Mr. Frankel had brought up the building to the property line issue. Ms. Pehoushek stated in the description of the Old Towne Mixed Use had been intended to apply to the down town core and in the reports it had been indicated that there would be clarifying language for the outer reaches of the spoke streets, with the intention not to build to the property line but to build in a manner more consistent with the historic structures and building patterns that existed in those areas. Commissioner Imboden asked with the Nutwood tract had it not been included because it was outside of the boundary. Ms. Pehoushek stated it was just outside of the boundary. Commissioner Imboden stated on the density for the Santa Fe Specific Plan area they were looking at densities of 1.0 and 1.5 on other properties and transfer development rights and a developer would have the opportunity to seek additional bonuses through the State. He asked if a study had been conducted based on the existing FAR of that area. Ms. Pehoushek stated when they set the density range for the Depot area they started with the framework of the environment they were attempting to create. The reference point Page 22 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 23 of 41 was the Plaza, the down town core and the feel of those developments. They looked at the FAR conditions of the Plaza and the down town core to get a sense of the FARs on the ground. Some had no parking and they had diverse dynamics. It was the gauge for setting an FAR range for the area around the Depot. They looked at the larger buildings that could be looked at for adaptive reuse and would allow other things to be done with those properties. The objective was to encourage development of an environment that there would be the same level of building relationship to the street, pedestrian appeal and street edge and to maintain the feel that existed in other parts of the down town area. The reoccurring comment Staff had received, between Lemon and the Depot, was that it felt like a no mans land, in crossing Lemon one would walk off the edge of the earth and those were the types of comments received. People who lived in that neighborhood realized that they would be favorable to changes that would make the area more of a part of Old Towne. Commissioner Imboden stated there had been discussion regarding alternatives and the response had been that there had been a significant decrease in Old Towne and he wanted to clarify that she had not spoke directly about the Depot area, as there was a potential for an increase in density there. In reviewing the EIR, the only potential alternative that had been sought to mitigate that was the option that decreased the level everywhere. Ms. Pehoushek stated the Depot Specific Plan was a plan that was developing concurrently with the General Plan. There had been a workshop a few weeks ago on the Depot Plan where they were looking at density around the depot and she could not give him any specifics on where they were landing on the Depot Plan. ~~ Commissioner Imboden stated he was not asking her to comment on the Depot Specific Plan, but on the areas that were incorporated in that plan and the potential for an increase in density. Ms. Pehoushek stated nothing more than what was proposed in the General Plan. Commissioner Imboden asked had they not just stated that they were speaking about making them a recipient of transfer development rights. Ms. Pehoushek stated on the transfer of development rights framework it was not specifically for the Depot area, it was something that would be applicable to Old Towne. Commissioner Imboden asked if they had not received a chart in the General Plan Draft that showed where those could be specifically rendered. What had been indicated was that there was potential for impact in the area and what Ms. Pehoushek had stated was that the process for alternatives should seek alternatives that should potentially mitigate those impacts. The question posed, was had they looked at other alternatives? It was a fairly simple answer yes or not, had Staff looked at other alternatives that would potentially mitigate the development that so many people had concerns about? Ms. Pehoushek stated there were a couple of things, one of the alternatives, alternative #3, on page 6-37 of the EIR, in that particular alternative there were areas which she read from: portions of Old Towne and Santa Fe Depot focus areas would be designated as low Page 23 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 24 of 41 density residential for residential Mixed Use at 15 units per acre maximum. Under alternative #3, those were designated for low medium or medium residential at 24 units per acre under the proposed General Plan. That alternative had looked at lower densities in Old Towne. Commissioner Imboden asked if alternative #3 had looked at lower densities across the board. Ms. Pehoushek stated yes. Commissioner Imboden stated what he was getting at was if the alternative was a comprehensive reduction in density everywhere, he had a concern with the comments being made that the alternatives had not addressed that potential impact in Old Towne. Ms. Pehoushek stated alternative #3 looked at lower densities in parts of Old Towne. The Plan looked at an overall reduction in density, with alternative #3 looking at a further reduction in density. Commissioner Imboden asked if there was another alternative other than a blanket reduction that was for the entire City, was there another alternative that looked at shifting density somewhere else. Ms. Pehoushek stated no. There was density being shifted in other areas. Commissioner Imboden stated he was specifically speaking of the Depot area. He was not speaking about residential quadrants of Old Towne and he was speaking about the Depot area, and were they not seeing an increase there? Ms. Pehoushek stated no, the intention was that there was an industrial corridor in that area. Commissioner Imboden stated he understood all of that; his question was in regard to density in the Depot area. Ms. Pehoushek stated the answer was no. Commissioner Merino stated one of the things stated was the area was reviewed for what existed on the ground and overall there would be a reduction in density. In fact in some parts with the overlay of the Old Towne Mixed Use there would be an increase in density. Ms. Pehoushek stated those were in areas that were designated Industrial and it was a completely different type of Land Use. Commissioner Merino stated if there had been a long range goal to reduce the overall density in Old Towne that would not support that goal, based on the Mixed Use "' designation density would be increased. Page 24 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 25 of 41 Ms. Pehoushek stated the Depot area was a very focused area of the larger Old Towne area. Commissioner Merino stated would that be the only place they would see an increase, as he had understood there was an increase to the FAR of 1.5 in some cases. Ms. Pehoushek stated that would be in non-residential for building intensity. Commissioner Merino stated if the goal was to reduce density to maintain the historic character, potentially there was the opposite effect with the change in Land Use designation. Ms. Pehoushek stated there was an Old Towne letter that provided the overall change, yes there would be an increase and a total shift of development character at plan build out in the area around the Depot that would encompass more intense residential development that existed. Commissioner Merino asked if she saw the potential for an overall increase in any of the other overlay areas, as it appeared they were putting the Old Towne Mixed Use designation on top of it. Ms. Pehoushek stated she did not know what else to say. N4 ~, Vice Chair Whitaker stated regarding the overall increase in R-1 Zoning, specifically his concerns were with properties on S. Orange, N. Pine and N. Harwood, on those blocks there were historic duplexes and a historic court complex that were consistent with their zoning. In down zoning to R-1, they would create a legal non-conforming use and he had not seen anywhere that there was a willingness to address that. It concerned him when a site was made legal non-conforming and even in a good financial market it was difficult to finance, they were more expensive to finance and it was difficult to find people to finance. They were currently in a very difficult financial market. Essentially the proposal would take properties and down zone them to a legal non-conforming and create a situation that would make it more difficult for the purchaser of the property to buy or for the current property owner to refinance. Had there been any consideration given to that situation? Ms. Pehoushek stated Staff could not come up with a workable alternative to capture all of those alternatives. Typically in dealing with legal non-conforming issues in regards to financing, the property owner would be provided with information from the code that applied to the non-conforming provisions of the code and the level of destruction possible. Her experience at the counter appeared to suffice, but not to discount the Vice Chair's comments. Commissioner Imboden asked if there had been a reason from a planning perspective that Staff would be opposed to having historic properties that existed in those zones to call them for what they were and had always been, that would create spot conditions, but also `'" preserve what was there and would there be a problem in moving in that direction? Page 25 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 26 of 41 Ms. Pehoushek stated that made for a more complicated Land Use issue. Mr. Sheatz stated he was not certain of the circumstances the Commissioner was referring to and spot zoning was discouraged. It was not completely prohibited, as it existed, but it was discouraged. In establishing a plan the Law clearly discouraged a City from creating situations where there was a patchwork of zoning. Commissioner Imboden stated even in an area that was a nationally registered district, where there were cultural resources that had never existed as anything other that what they were built as, would the law give exception? Mr. Sheatz stated they were being forced into an all or nothing proposition. He had never seen anything that stated spot zoning was o.k. where there was a specific district involved. Mr. Knight stated, based on his experience with other City zoning issues, he had seen instances when a zoning issue was much more draconian, in attempting to reduce zoning by restricting what could occur on a property. The community felt that would be a solution and it had taken a few years to realize that they needed to think a bit more globally as areas could not be financed and ultimately improvements could not be made. The answer might not be spot zoning, but to look at non-conforming areas in the future and to create classes of types of uses in specific areas, such as the historic district.. That would provide additional opportunities. The zoning code would clearly state to the financial institution that the property, based on zoning, would not be in jeopardy and it could move forward with renovations, in order to preserve historic structures. Commissioner Merino stated planning was over the long term and the community's feedback was for a reduction in density and not moving in a direction of more Mixed Use areas in Old Towne. Commissioner Cunningham stated in reviewing the map many of the Industrial designations had been changed to Mixed Use and had any thought been given to using an overlay, given the uncertain times and the economy, and understanding many of the components of the General Plan had been written prior to the recession. He asked if any thought had been given in taking a more flexible approach. Ms. Pehoushek stated for the Industrial properties in the area that consideration had not been made as they had not heard any objection from the property owners. They had not looked at an overlay zone. She wanted to refer back to density in Old Towne, on the final EIR in response to comments page 3.24B-55 there was a table that laid out residential density and Commercial intensity and it had not isolated areas of Old Towne but gave an overall existing and proposed. There would be an overall reduction of 537 housing units and an increase of 69,000 square feet of Commercial development. Commissioner Whitaker asked in looking at the re-designation of Land Use had they looked at contributing structures to realize which structures were multi-family as opposed °~"'~` to single family, had a survey of contributing structures been looked at? Page 26 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 27 of 41 Ms. Pehoushek stated no, they had looked at field conditions. They had looked at previous areas that had the potential to go from medium density to low density and those areas had been left alone. They had not looked at a concentration of historic residential properties or a pattern such as that. ~~,~.~• Vice Chair Whitaker brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion and a consensus. Commissioner Cunningham stated he was not in support of the R-2 to R-1 Zoning; he had not liked the plan taking away value and property owner's right-a-way. He had some concerns about the expansion to 4 lanes, and he would discuss that in a later element presentation. In the Industrial and Residential changes to Mixed Use, his concern was based on the current economic climate and how long would there be the situation of non- conforming operations. Commissioner Imboden stated in the re-designation of the residential quadrants of Old Towne it had been an issue that had been discussed for some time. Staff had previously been given direction from City Council to move in the direction presented and to conduct studies to have it happen. He supported that and the community had stated they wanted that too; keeping in mind second units would still be allowable in R-1 Zoned areas. Based on the comments that were made by Vice Chair Whitaker, there were a number of historic multi-family properties that had always been zoned as such and the potential to place them into a negative financing situation seemed a bit crazy to him to do that. He had posed the question if it was problematic from a zoning point of view as had been discussed by Mr. Sheatz and in reviewing the maps he noted there were single properties that had not fit into the block. In reviewing the proposal it would be a change and he questioned why they were looking at changing to a use that would not work and why would they want to use a one size fits all for historic resources that would not work. From the General Plan; the City recognized the single most important component to be public participation. He had sat through many meetings that were very lengthy and that had strong community support and input; he had not remembered an instance were they had received over 700 letters from citizens expressing their concerns about issues. He agreed with some of the comments and some of the responses made, but in some instances he felt they had failed to respond. Maybe he was supported by Ms. Pehoushek's response, but he was not convinced that the alternatives had been explored in order to protect historic resources, particularly in the Depot area. It was not to be misunderstood; he was in full support of Mixed Use in that area and having the area adaptively re-use some of the buildings in that area. When the question had been posed to determine an FAR of 1.5, he had received an answer, from his perspective that dealt more with what Staff would want to see, rather than what existed. He had made the same comment in the initial briefing in regard to the spoke streets. Commissioner Imboden stated everyone present could certainly understand the difference in what occurred in the Plaza vs. what occurred on the spoke streets and what was in the Depot, to cloud it with a one size fits all, they were clearly speaking of two very different things. In looking at an increase in density of what was in the Plaza to what was in the Industrial zone he had been lost there, he had not followed that. He understood the Nutwood area and that those property owners had not been noticed and that would be Page 27 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 28 of 41 something the City might want to look at in the future and he would encourage the City to do that. On the Cypress School, it was a situation of one size fits all again. He had understood that the designation that Chapman was asking for on that property, however, the density would be a potential of 1.5 at that site if their request was granted and that was without any study of what occurred in the field. They would need to speak about Palmyra later, he would save that, he was concerned with on street parking and additional lane development. He had to save that for later when they spoke about mobility. There was much opposition to the widening of streets in Old Towne and having more traffic in Old Towne which was not only unacceptable by residents of Old Towne but by professional standards. There was the proposal for an increase in density and he had not understood that. On transfer of development rights it would be in an area where they already had no measure of and they would not know what a 1.5 looked like. His last concern was the spoke streets; they had heard a discussion that Staff researched the block and he understood that the current FAR was 1.0, however, the General Plan was being revised and it was crucial that they review what was in the historic district and ensure what they were doing was responsible. He had understood that the way that was tracked was that properties from 0 to 2.5 and properties from 2.5 to 5.0 had been done in quarter increments. He had a problem with that methodology and he had been involved in projects in Old Towne long enough to know that the FAR on residential properties, he was speaking about residential properties outside of the spoke streets, which were typically over 2.5, but far below 5.0. The properties were being put into a category that was pushing the envelope quite a bit higher than what was actually in the field. He supported the designations before him in terms of uses, but he was far, far away from ,~, approving the densities before him. Commissioner Merino stated he agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Imboden. What had stuck out for him was in regard to the one size fits all and how that conflicted with a Historic District that needed to be maintained and the credibility of the district. They had heard several speakers' state that the one size fits all zoning could potentially impact that. He thought to pull it back even further, there appeared to be a misalignment of a vision between what they were reviewing and what residents and the community wanted to see. Due to that he had a difficulty supporting some of the proposals and overlays presented. Vice Chair Whitaker stated his comments were much aligned with his fellow Commissioners. He supported the reduction in density, but as noted in the study session recommendations where existing uses were looked at and understood what was there and where there were individual properties marked even though there were surrounding other uses; that type of survey should have been completed with respect to Historic Resource multi-family properties that were sprinkled throughout Old Towne. Those properties needed to be preserved, sold and financed without having to be legal non-conforming. He had to disagree slightly with some of his colleagues with respect to the Industrial area and the Mixed Use density and he would support the increased density. He agreed that the one size fits all would not work, as in the spoke streets. The 1.5 was way too high and there needed to be a third Mixed Use designation; maybe at a .3 level or .35 in the residential spoke streets. He would support the 1.0 for adaptive reuse in the Industrial "` area. With that said, it was going to be difficult to craft a consensus, he had not known if any of the Commissioners had a motion they wished to craft. Page 28 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 29 of 41 Commissioner Merino stated with the Staff having heard the concerns presented, he had a very clear belief that they would not get through all the Land Use Focus areas during the meeting; and would it be possible that Staff could return at a later time after re-visiting the issues and present it again? Fes, uu Mr. Knight stated it was entirely possible; it would be at the direction of the Planning Commission to take the input, be provided further information or to itemize some of the information gathered to assist in crystallizing their thoughts. They had anticipated that there would be questions that were brought up from the presentation that would require further research on Staff's part. They could bring the focus area back at the September meeting. Commissioner Imboden stated based on those comments; he wanted to ensure that Staff understood where he was coming from. In the instance of Old Towne; in terms of the Depot area he was not against a density that would allow additional development. He was concerned with a density that was proposed that he had no measure of what existed; that was not to say he would not review a density that allowed for some more development. He had not wanted it to sound as if he had not wanted to be able to go beyond what existed; he did not want to freeze the site in time, but rather the relationship of what was in the field against what was proposed. Commissioner Cunningham stated he felt they were all coming from the same mind in terms of where they wanted to go. Commissioner Merino made a motion to place Focus Area #5 at the end of the process to allow Staff to return with a modified plan, taking the Commissions input into consideration. Ms. Pehoushek asked if the Commission was looking for Staff to return with an alternate proposal based on the comments and concerns stated or responses to those comments and concerns. Vice Chair Whitaker stated an alternative proposal from the comments heard from the dais. Commissioner Imboden asked what that would do to the EIR; he was not expecting a revised plan to return, but rather a descriptive response to the concerns. Ms. Pehoushek stated based on the feedback what would come back would be a lower development level from what was proposed, and from a CEQA standpoint it would not be anything worse than what was proposed. Mr. Knight stated from a CEQA standpoint there would not be a concern. Most of the information that would return would be in line with what Commissioner Imboden stated; not necessarily an alternative, but to provide clarifying information about some of the issues raised. Vice Chair Whitaker stated he understood the difference. Page 29 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 30 of 41 Commissioner Imboden stated he was afraid they would put Staff into a tail spin in asking for another plan; rather some sort of formal recognition about the concerns expressed was what he was suggesting. Commissioner Merino stated it could return as recommendations that the Planning Commission could adopt where they would make their recommendations to the City Council from. Ms. Pehoushek stated FAR maps could be provided and they had looked at the quarter increments calculation and there was a map that broke that out into l Oths. They had FAR maps of all of Old Towne and they could provide further information about what existed on the ground. Commissioner Merino stated he would not want to mislead staff, that with the additional information there could still something that was presented that would be objectionable and it could still require them to return with an alternative. Vice Chair Whitaker stated what would return would be data based on the comments and concerns and then in would be up to the Commission to provide a consensus from the dais. Commissioner Merino made a motion that Staff return on a date certain of September 21, ...: 2009 with additional data for review by the Planning Commission with the potential to ,, make a recommendation to City Council based on the comments heard. Ms. Pehoushek asked, to be clear, the Commissioners wanted to see the FAR maps, something depicting contributing multi-family structures, and was there anything else? Commissioner Imboden stated he wanted some type of formal acknowledgement from Staff of the concerns that were presented. When the item went onto Council, he wanted the information in writing and not only in minutes that they would need to dig through. Vice Chair Whitaker stated in a form much like the responses to the property owners. SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, and Whitaker NOES: None RECUSED: Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED Chair Steiner stated they had Focus Areas 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 yet to be heard and he felt it would be unlikely to process 6 items in an hour. He had a card for focus areas 6 and 7 and there would be people that would want to speak on those later items. He asked Mr. Knight when the remainder of the Focus Areas would be heard. Mr. Knight stated it would be on September 9, 2009 and those would be announced. Page 30 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 31 of 41 Chair Steiner stated it appeared that those Focus Areas that were not heard tonight, would be heard on September 9, 2009. They would hear from Staff on Focus Area #2, the Katella Corridor. Ms. Pehoushek presented an overview of Focus Area #2 Katella Corridor consistent with the Staff Report. Commissioner Merino stated in reference to the Ordinance Amendment on the 6 and 12 month extension, he asked if that was an additional 6 months for a total of 18 months? Ms. Pehoushek stated the time frame was 12 months. Property owners would have a 12 month time frame and the property owner would have the opportunity to request an extension from the City that would go to the Planning Commission as proposed in the ordinance. Commissioner Whitaker stated with respect to neighborhood Mixed Use and the changes to General Commercial, the existing General Commercial that was along Katella that would be Mixed Use for the existing residential he asked would they get legal non- conforming status or would the Mixed Use allow the currently permitted uses to exist in the zone? Ms. Pehoushek stated Staff was in the process of creating Mixed Use zoning standards to support the Land Use designation of the General Plan. The Commercial and Residential uses that existed, as they crafted new standards, those would all continue to be permitted within the Mixed Use zoning and not have the circumstance of legal non-conforming conditions created as a result of the Mixed Use. Commissioner Whitaker stated back to the other section where they would be taking a Commercial Recreational Use to a General Commercial Use, he asked with the Commercial Recreational that had been created in the `90's with a broad standard could there be Industrial Uses in the Commercial Recreational zone? Ms. Pehoushek stated yes. Commissioner Whitaker stated by changing the area back to General Commercial Use, some of the existing businesses would become legal non-conforming? Ms. Pehoushek stated yes, the Industrial Uses that remained would become legal non- conforming. Commissioner Imboden stated there was a color issue on the map he was reviewing, north of Katella between Batavia and Glassell there was a triangular form around the cul- de-sacs that were being brought into General Commercial which he could read, in moving up above to down below of what was just outside the study area, the color on his map had not matched the use. It was Industrial. ~~~' Ms. Pehoushek stated that was existing. Page 31 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 32 of 41 Commissioner Imboden stated the areas around the cul-de-sacs which were currently Industrial Use were being converted to General Commercial Use. The area outside the focus area remained Industrial Use, but had a higher FAR. Ms. Pehoushek stated that was correct, and the FAR was the discussion for another focus area. Commissioner Cunningham stated Foxborough seemed to be the issue that stuck out for him in the focus area and he asked why the resistance to allow them to keep their existing density instead of down zoning? Ms. Pehoushek stated during the study sessions it was originally proposed 24 units per acre, and during the study sessions the sentiment was a concern for the 24 unit per acre and its interface with the abutting single family development. Commissioner Cunningham asked what the existing density was. Ms. Pehoushek stated 15-24 units per acre. Commissioner Cunningham asked for the actual for the Foxborough Apartments. Ms. Pehoushek stated she believed it was 12. The feedback for density was taken from the participants of the study session. ~..,~, Commissioner Merino stated the Lemon Street portion that was just off of the focus area they were reviewing, wasn't the part that was Industrial changed to Medium Density Residential. He wanted clarification as Ms. Pehoushek had stated it would be Commercial? Ms. Pehoushek stated that was a different area. Chair Steiner stated one of the goals of what the City had undertaken was to stimulate reinvestment and redevelopment in property. To what extent if a property owner stated that the proposed re-designation of density discouraged that very type of reinvestment and redevelopment that they purported to crave; he asked would it be something Staff should take into consideration? He understood that during the study session Staff had received input from some unknown figures who wanted lower density. When the most affected party would be the property owner and they were stating that it would discourage the type of redevelopment and reinvestment the City was purporting to seek. He asked would Ms. Pehoushek agree that the argument from the property owner was the most important input that they could receive. Ms. Pehoushek stated there were two sides to that perspective. To any land use changes they were proposing the property owner would be interested in maximizing their development potential. Staff had received a lot of feedback from the public that all of the land use changes were motivated by creating income for the City. The objective in the ~`~'°~" land use changes was to have the most strategic change for an area and what would be most compatible with the community. There was a process of weighing economic Page 32 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 33 of 41 viability vs. the community's desire for it. Chair Steiner asked how many letters had Staff received. Ms. Pehoushek stated particular to the focus area they were proposing they had only received the letter from Foxborough Apartments. Commissioner Imboden stated the properties that abutted the apartments were not noticed, as their properties were not directly affected. Ms. Pehoushek stated they had not received notice. There were people from the neighborhoods that participated in the community workshops. Chair Steiner asked was she certain that people who lived in the area had given input? Ms. Pehoushek stated early on in the community workshops, yes. Chair Steiner asked if she drew a distinction between maximizing development potential and redevelopment/reinvestment. Ms. Pehoushek stated not necessarily, there was a balance that could be struck. Commissioner Merino stated in the initial presentation it was stated that Staff had spoken ~, to the land owner that was directly affected and they agreed that there was a meeting of the minds for the Neighborhood Mixed Use, the higher density and FAR and was that correct? Ms. Pehoushek stated no. Her contact with the property owner was in meetings to discuss concerns regarding the proposed density and responding to the letter they submitted. Commissioner Merino stated it was Ms. Pehoushek's observation that the Neighborhood Mixed Use with the 24 units per acre would accommodate that piece of property and the landowners concerns. He asked if she would agree with that. Ms. Pehoushek stated the 24 units per acre were consistent with the maximum density with their current designation. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for public comment. Sergio Sendowsky, address on file, stated he directly abutted the Mixed Use to the south, a walk able distance. Adding retail on a 40 mph highway was an ineffective way to create a walk able neighborhood, all that would do would be to make people drive to the places they needed to shop, it would be no different than the way it currently was. There were better locations to add higher density homes that made more sense. Adding homes to an area that already had stores, grouped in an area about 1,000 feet wide would enable ~" residents to walk to them and there could be a much wider variety of stores. Instead of proposing to place residents in a thin linear area, they could be in a center or near a Page 33 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 34 of 41 shopping area and in a larger area with a larger area of shops. If the shopping center had alleys or buffers the impact would be greatly reduced. If the neighbors were apartments they would revitalize the area without impacting privacy. It would hyper vitalize under used shopping centers organically reducing the need to get in their cars and create more trips to centers that forced people to drive there. As far as comments about the existing apartments, on the notice that happened on a General Plan Update it only notified people who would encounter a change; and would not obviously contact people abutting the properties. The group that was present, he was sure, had not represented the group that the change would greatly affect. There had been an outreach meeting by the owners of the apartments and there were at least 40 people present and there was a very negative response received. He was not certain of the density proposed at that time. He could not speak for them he only remembered what he saw, and as far as the increase in density up against his neighborhood would be very, very negative. Fred Kelsey, address on file, stated he had an Orange grove behind him when he bought the property approximately 35 years ago. He now had a brown building behind him and he had plumbing trucks that went in and out all day. He got caught by a zoning change that he had not realized would happen and that negatively impact his lifestyle and the value of his property. His fear was that the re-zoning would make things worse. What they had now was business hour noise, weekends were quiet, it was a secure area and actually protected the rear of his house. He understood with the new Mixed Use designation they could build a 3 story apartment behind him with cars going in an out all day long, with windows viewing directly into his backyard. He had not understood how to mitigate the negative impact that would have on his property and his quality of life. His main point was that he asked the Commissioners to take into consideration that the changes had negative impacts on single family dwellers. Morgan Davidson, address on file, stated under a year ago he purchased his first home and had moved from urban Los Angeles specifically to a suburban neighborhood. His intention was not to walk to businesses but to drive. After reading the General Plan Update and the amendment he had concerns about the re-zoning from Commercial to Mixed Use would affect his property value and quality of life. Language throughout the land use section in the plan made it clear that the intent of the Mixed Use re-zoning would be to open the Katella corridor to multi-family dwelling units on top of ground floor Commercial units. In fact the plan stated that Residential Mixed Use projects would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods and be of a scale and character that would not detract from the abutting single family neighborhoods. In fact one of the stated benefits of Mixed Use was that it encouraged around the clock activity. Around the clock activity, he might be missing something there, but he had not understood how that would improve his quality of life or the value of his property or having 2-3 story apartments looking into his backyard. Policy 6.2 stated that buffering techniques could be setbacks, screening, and appearance standards; there was no specific requirement for the size of the walls, setbacks, etc. There was an argument, such as the Depot Walk, helped the existing surrounding neighborhood, with the difference being that the neighborhood consisted of multi-level apartments and town homes and not single story homes. He had looked at the Depot Walk and noticed that multi-story developments were right up against dividing walls. He felt that would not work with the existing family homes along Katella. The General Plan had very few requirements, if any, for future Page 34 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 35 of 41 developers and not in the context of privacy which was a major concern for him and other residents and if that language did not exist, it could not be acted upon. Until there were solutions for setbacks, noise, pollution, crime and traffic in the form of requirements in the zoning code he encouraged the Planning Commission and residents of the 200 single family homes directly behind the Katella corridor to oppose any Mixed Use re-zoning efforts. Michael Houston, address on file, prepared comments that were taken in for the record. He stated he was an attorney with Rattan & Tucker and he was formerly a 27 year resident of Orange and it was his pleasure to represent UDR. He had prepared comments and he would read from those and deviate to broach issues that had been discussed. In brief the proposal that related to the property, which he pointed to on the map, that was approximately 7 '/2 acres and was currently zoned Medium Density Residential. He wanted to be clear that he was requesting a Mixed Use application of 24 units per acre applied to that property and not the 15 units per acre density. That they would not change the present, existing use of the property. There had been discussion with outreach to a former project that had been withdrawn that was not being proposed or would be proposed; what they were specifically requesting was to merely maintain the maximum density permitted under the current and existing General Plan. He also wanted to highlight that the request was based on one simple point, absent increasing or at the very least to maintain present density, the proposed designation would not facilitate re- investment and redevelopment activity; which was verbatim from the Staff Report as a goal of the General Plan Update for the Katella corridor. Some of those concepts related to down zoning to change the maximum density for their site and the two other residential sites that were the only residential sites along the corridor that were presently allowed to have a maximum density of 24 units per acre. To reduce that density to 15 would be a down zone, with the target of 8. The General Plan zoning designation contained a maximum; it was not typically what was allowed through the entitlement process. The entire area of Mixed Use was actually a target of 8 units and 4 units less than the current existing facilities on site; keeping in mind that there would be something less than the number stated. In the administrative meeting there had been discussion about how could particular properties be treated without treating an entire area, such as to create spot zoning or some type of inconsistency. He pointed out that the residential units were the only ones that existed in that area. If the goal was to increase some type of synergy with Mixed Use, whether it was a lower density or not, to look at the parcelization of the area which was made up of very small discreet parcels. If there was an attempt to encourage some sort of reasoned Mixed Use they would want to focus on a larger site, smaller sites would require aggregation by one property owner that would attempt to buy up parcels. Chair Steiner asked Ms. Pehoushek to respond to the points made. He stated he wanted to commend the residents from the neighborhood for staying and he realized that they had been there 3 '/2 hours and obviously it was a matter of concern and it was important that they heard input from people in the community, they all lived in Orange, and it helped them to form their decisions. Ms. Pehoushek stated she believed the residents comments were mainly objections. To respond to the comment about around the clock activity, one of the fundamental concepts Page 35 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 36 of 41 in a Mixed Use environment as opposed to a General Commercial environment was the around the clock atmosphere either on a neighborhood scale of a more intense scale that it provided for a situation that at any time of day there was some type of activity. Certainly from single family resident's perspective there concerns were valid, and from the flip side of the law enforcement and planning world that around the clock activity was a good thing as there would not be Commercial properties that would be cleared out at 5:00 p.m. with parking lot activity of whatever spectrum occurring there; and in properties where there was no around the clock activity it was conducive to the possibility of questionable activities. Regarding target densities referenced to by Mr. Houston, the Land Use Element on page 13, table LU1 identified the different developments and the intensity and density related to the different uses. What Mr. Houston referred to as a target density actually was what Staff referred to as an expected density which reflected past trends. In the case of the 15 units per acre Mixed Use category it would be an expected development level of 8 units per acre, and for the 24 units per acre the expected level would be 16. It was not a target; it was what would be expected over a number of properties with that designation. Commissioner Merino stated as he looked at alternatives to study, was there anything in the proposed Land Use designations, whether it be something that could be leveraged, and he saw that the most flexible was the Neighborhood Mixed Use, other than increasing the density to meet one of the property owners concerns. The area could be left General Commercial but that would not necessarily provide greater flexibility over the long run in terms of development. Could there be General Commercial within the Mixed Use area? Ms. Pehoushek stated a full spectrum of Commercial developments would be anticipated to be allowed in the Neighborhood Mixed Use districts. The exception would be in those areas that they discouraged the auto corridor uses. Commissioner Merino stated he could not find a Land Use designation that would resolve the issues brought forth by the neighbors as an alternative and he felt Staff had chosen a designation that had the least impact. Ms. Pehoushek stated the transfer of development rights components would look to the Neighborhood Mixed Use areas in where there could be development rights for open space. There was the potential of increased density through affordable housing and things like that. Commissioner Merino stated what she had just stated validated the concerns of the community and the potential for a higher density project. Ms. Pehoushek stated the General Commercial designation would not accommodate housing in a straight forward sort of way and there could be more intense density in that development. Across the board one of the changes for the Land Use designation for General Commercial would be to increase the existing maximum FAR of .5 to 1.0 which would apply to all General Commercial property across the City and there could be a '°'" potential for increase. Page 36 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 37 of 41 Commissioner Whitaker stated with respect to aggregation, he asked if Staff had looked at that at all as it had logic as one of the things with the multi-family housing why was the entire corridor considered as needing to be Neighborhood Mixed Use and not parcel aggregation on suitable parcels? Ms. Pehoushek stated they looked at the corridor as a unified area. Except for the multi- family development on the north side of the street, there were similar characteristics on the entire stretch of the corridor. To take the thing full circle it had been initially proposed Neighborhood Mixed Use at 24 units per acre, after early study sessions the Mixed Use was taken off the table and the area was left as it was, then during the last round of study sessions it was added back as a Mixed Use corridor. Commissioner Whitaker stated his understanding was that in the early stages of the community meetings there was a Lincoln corridor, an East Chapman corridor, where there was a fair amount of Mixed Use; and through community objection those corridors were taken off the table. Had Staff thought about that and why were the single family residents in the subject area any different than the ones that had been dropped? Ms. Pehoushek stated the direction provided early on when proposing a Mixed Use designation based on the community input had lead to the retraction of the proposal. Dynamics changed and the area was proposed for Mixed Use, with direction provided for that designation and it had not been brought forward by Staff. Commissioner Cunningham stated with the around the clock activity, it had struck him as odd that in the past year that he had been on the Commission around the clock activity had been discouraged on other projects and what he was hearing was that around the clock activity in the proposed plan was encouraged right next to residential neighborhoods. He was attempting to get his head around where that had come from; some shadowy figure that had been mentioned and it appeared had wanted it back in play. He understood where the residents were coming from and had not moved to Orange because they desired around the clock activity. Ms. Pehoushek stated one of the things she had not addressed was the issue of privacy in development standards and they were working on developing standards that were very tailored to the specific type of activity and specific type of developments in the Neighborhood Mixed Use areas vs. the Old Towne areas vs. the Urban Mixed Use areas. The intention of the Neighborhood Mixed Use was to provide a neighborhood oriented Commercial district on a smaller scale. They had gone through painstaking detail reviewing what could conceivably be permitted uses in the different Mixed Use areas and the appropriateness of those would be covered in a future presentation. The public had not had an opportunity to review that product. She was not able to provide those details and the zoning was the mechanism for controlling the activity and the impact of the uses on neighboring residences. Chair Steiner stated he was a little concerned why if the designation change had been yanked for Lincoln why it had not for the Katella corridor. For him it was the uncertainty of the direction that had not come from Staff; he was attempting to figure out if the prevailing logic was that the objections of the residents on the Lincoln corridor justified Page 37 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 38 of 41 removal of changes to that area it made sense that the concerns of the neighbors of the focus area they were reviewing were similar. He was not unsupportive of Mixed Use, but certainly there were concerns regarding the unknowns, such as what would the setbacks be, what screening would be required and he was comfortable that the residents would have some input in developing those standards. He asked why the area was still before them. Ms. Pehoushek stated on the other focus areas; in terms of El Modena it was dropped primarily because there was a prevailing sense of satisfaction with the existing Land Use and there was not any overwhelming desire for change in that area. The Lincoln corridor was dropped in part due to the neighborhood opposition and there was a fair amount of input during City Council briefings in tying that corridor into the approval of the Del Rio project. Commissioner Merino stated there were other parts of the focus area that were changed as well, beyond the Mixed Use area and if they only wanted to address the Mixed Use area it could not completely drop out as there were other changes and he asked if that was correct? Ms. Pehoushek stated yes. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or consensus. Commissioner Merino stated it had seemed to him that one of those focus area that had a particular component, Mixed Use, should be left alone. He had not seen a need based on the existing condition and Staff had not identified a particular reason, other than the mysterious unidentified person who wanted the change. He proposed to leave that portion as existed and the remainder of the area made sense to change. Chair Steiner asked when he referred to that portion he was referring to what area? Commissioner Merino stated the area from Glassell to the Santa Ana River. Commissioner Cunningham stated it was Glassell to California Street. Commissioner Whitaker stated they had not discussed in depth the issue of the changes for some of the Commercial Recreation to General Commercial, once again he had not understood the logic. They had Commercial Recreation that allowed a multitude of uses and the market place had decided that those uses were directed more towards home improvement and they were the ones that existed. There had always been Industrial there and those businesses were doing fine. He had not understood the reason to change those to legal non-conforming and then the need to create additional statutes. With respect to the multi-family he had not agreed with the down zoning from 24 to 15, those properties already had that designation and he struggled with creating Mixed Use along that section of the corridor. He was leaning toward leaving the entire corridor as it existed. The entire Smart & Final and Fed Ex center was getting an entire rehab in a terrible economy ~' and the corridor seemed to be taking care of itself. Page 38 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 39 of 41 Commissioner Imboden stated he was somewhat of the same conviction. He was not convinced of the proposed changes before him. It had been a ping pong ball for Staff and it had been a problematic focus area which made him even more uncomfortable with it. If they could not find a place for it and it had been batted back and forth it made him uncomfortable. One thing that he was very uncomfortable with in the corridor was that the properties that lined the south side of Katella were not large properties and they all backed up to single family residential and there was too much potential for heavily impacting those properties and also to the properties to the north. He would entertain some changes to the area, but he could not understand a justification for the proposal before them. Commissioner Cunningham stated he agreed with a lot of what had been said. Earlier in the `90's there had been an expectation that development would take a certain path and the market had other ideas and it had gone in a different direction, and maybe they needed to draw a lesson from that. It was an attempt to jazz up Katella and that was what he had gotten from the General Plan, that the City wanted it to be jazzier and hipper and he understood the logic to that. He was more sympathetic to the Urban Mixed Use designation; he understood that there was logic in attempting to tap into the synergy of what was happening in Anaheim. Not to sound like Commissioner Overlay, but in those instances and uncertain times he would be more in favor of an overlay zone to allow that potential in the future, rather than hence forth it shall be Urban Mixed Used because they thought that was the wave of the future. On the Neighborhood Mixed Use in initially reviewing that he had thought it was kind of cool, and the more he looked at it and the residents that lived there, it had become an idea where a rationale was needed and he z4,~ could not find one. He would rather leave that part of the area as existed as well as the Commercial Recreational; he had not found a reason to re-zone that. On Foxborough, in attempting to raise incentives for investments in the corridor reducing or down zoning would be a disincentive to investment and it made no sense to him and he could not support any change that would take it down from 24 to 15. He would not support it, other than having an overlay over the Commercial Recreational, but he would not support it as a change in designation. Commissioner Merino stated he had not seen an existing Commercial Recreation on the plans, he asked if that Land Use designation would still be viable? Ms. Pehoushek stated the concept that was being proposed would be to eliminate Commercial Recreation that had come from the study sessions and input received. As they began their thinking on the whole corridor it was based on the premise that the Commercial Recreation designation was being realized and the proposed Land Uses were more of a reality based perspective. Commissioner Merino asked if an overlay could be used as suggested by Commissioner Cunningham? Ms. Pehoushek stated fundamentally in the existing Commercial Recreation area, was it something that they wanted to see occurring on Katella? A reason to save that designation would be to provide flexibility for property owners. Conceivably they could look at carrying over similar provision that were in place for the Commercial Recreation Page 39 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 40 of 41 district. The fundamental question was had the Commercial Recreation designation made sense if they left it in place. They received letters from some of the car dealerships requesting a change in Land Use designation to a Mixed Use designation. There had been a Land Use alternative that was Commercial Recreation Mixed Use and instead called it Urban Mixed Use with the residential being the new component at 40 units per acre. Chair Steiner stated that would have rendered several legal non-conforming uses. Would the only way to avoid creating a bunch of legal non-conforming would be to leave it Commercial Recreation with an overlay as discussed and was there another way to achieve that? Ms. Pehoushek stated it could be Commercial Recreation with a new added residential component that had been proposed earlier in the process. Currently Commercial Recreation would not allow residential, and the Mixed Use designation would provide for residential uses. Commissioner Whitaker asked if they came to a consensus of Urban Mixed Use, would that designation include the industrial uses that would be allowed on a Commercial Recreation and it would be changing the definition of Urban Mixed Use. Would that be easier to administer? Ms. Pehoushek stated Industrial uses were not permitted in Commercial Recreational areas. She would not want to encourage an Industrial use next to a residential h ;~ development. Chair Steiner asked Mr. Knight if he could see where they were going with the issue. They had not wanted to create legal non-conforming situations and there was an awareness to acknowledge the focus area in its proximity to the Platinum Triangle and the need therefore to accommodate that proximity. Mr. Knight stated they could continue the discussion, Ms. Pehoushek's comments were well taken and the Commercial Recreation would not permit Industrial but had provisions in the zoning code which would preserve those uses. If they kept within those same lines, they could make changes to the zoning code if they used the Urban Mixed Use designation to allow those uses to remain in place. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion with respect to the Katella corridor that the entire area from the Santa Ana River to Glassell be deemed Urban Mixed Use, but with respect to the existing Industrial Uses that there be a similar zoning change, similar to that of the Commercial Recreation zone that was put into place in the 1990's in order to preserve those uses; from Katella and Glassell to California Street that the current zoning remain in place. SECOND: Commissioner Merino AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner, and Whitaker ~~~~~~° NOES: None Page 40 of 41 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2009 41 of 41 MOTION CARRIED (3) ADJOURNMENT Chair Steiner stated the discussion regarding the remaining Focus Areas would continue on September 9, 2009 and the next regular scheduled Planning Commission Meeting would be held on Monday, August 17, 2009. MEETING ADJOURNED @ 11:15 P.M. Page 41 of 41 Pages