2006 - November 20
e-0.-500.G,.;;; .3
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
November 20,2006
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Imboden, Steiner
None
Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director
Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Mari Burke, Recording Secretary
Chair Bonina announced that due to the length of the agenda, the meeting would be
continuous to approximately 9:15 p.m., and then recessed for 15 minutes, resume at 9:30
p.m. and continue to II p.m. Typically any items not concluded by II p.m. would be
continued to the next meeting.
INRE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Philip Bettencourt. address on file stated:
. He is a member of the Planning Team evaluating the Ridgeline property in East Orange.
. The former Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa, Peter Buffa, has been retained by the
property owners to perform independent interviews and community assessments
concerning the property.
. Mr. Buffa would be grateful to have the opportunity to visit with City Staff members.
This would be in addition to community meetings being planned.
IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.
(1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2606-06 - ROYAL STREET
COMMUNICATIONS
A proposed co-location of six (6) antennas onto an eXlstmg 55'0" high non-stealth
monopole wireless communications structure and new ground equipment on the property
of a neighborhood shopping center (Saddleback Plaza). The site is located at 3413 E.
Chapman Avenue. This item was continued from the October 16,2006 meeting.
NOTE: The applicant is requesting that this item be continued to a date uncertain.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bilodeau
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
None MOTION CARRIED.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR:
(2) THERE WERE NOT ANY MINUTES FOR REVIEW AT THIS MEETING.
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS:
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2598-06, VARIANCE NO. 2161-06
AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 118-06 - SWIM SAFE
SWIM SCHOOL
A request to allow for the conversion of a 4,111 square foot office building into a private
swim school, on a property zoned O-P (Office Professional). In association with the
CUP, the applicant is requesting the variance and administrative adjustment approval to
allow a reduction in dimensions for the depth of the parking stalls and the back-up area.
The site is located at 1722 East Rose A venue. This item was continued from the October
16,2006 meeting.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the prOVlSlons of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 44-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2598-06, Variance 2161-06 and Administrative Adjustment No. 118-06.
Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Bonina asked Ms. Thakur to elaborate on the inability to move the entrance to the
side due to ADA requirements. Ms. Thakur responded that the loading zone and
handicapped parking needs to be in a location that is closest to the entrance of the
building. If the building entrance was moved to the side of the building there would not
be a direct pathway from the parking spot into the building and this would not be in
compliance with the ADA standard.
The applicant, Mr. Jim Flahive stated:
. taking into consideration the suggestions received at the last meeting, the parking was
reorganized as it is now being presented.
. regarding the safety issues, they would take them up with the Building Department: as
far as walking into the pool area and the pool positioning, he believes they have a
solution.
Chair Bonina asked Mr. Flahive to share the potential solution with the Commission.
Mr. Don Lee, the applicant's architect stated:
. They might have to make the pool slightly smaller.
. As they build a little wall next to the apron of the pool there are some construction
Issues.
. They spoke with the Building Department about the fire exit being in that area.
Page 2 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
Chair Bonina asked Mr. Lee to speak about the entry way and the potential for moving it
to the concrete patio area. Mr. Lee responded that perhaps they misunderstood. The
parking lot was restriped and from a design standpoint they felt it was better to keep the
handicapped parking near the main entrance. If it were to move to the side there is no
convenient way to give handicapped access to the building near the front desk. There is
going to be a front desk function not currently shown and the handicapped person would
therefore be forced to maneuver around a toilet storage area and come around.
Chair Bonina asked if the front desk function would be a greeting area or podium in the
entry. Mr. Lee responded it would be a desk for check in.
Chair Bonina asked about the bollards being introduced in front of the building. Mr. Lee
replied there are currently windows there and there will be wheel stops and bollards
installed for safety purposes. Chair Bonina asked if additional glass will be installed.
Mr. Lee responded "no".
Chair Bonina asked for more detail about the fire exit. Mr. Lee responded that although
Building and Safety has already seen the plans presented to the Commission, the
specified positioning of the fire exit has not yet been resolved with the Building
Department.
Chair Bonina asked if the placement of the bathroom doors further away from the water
was addressed. Mr. Lee responded they did study it and they may ultimately make a
change; however, what they found was the toilets weren't deep enough to move the doors
to the side. This would result in a requirement to tear down the existing toilet facility and
enlarge it so they would have the required distance from the sink to the wall.
Chair Bonina asked for insight into the parent viewing area. Mr. Lee responded it is
basically an open area with plastic chairs and most parents don't stay.
Commissioner Imboden asked if they got a final decision as to whether the fire exit was
required or not. Mr. Lee responded they thought they did; however, at this point in time
he wasn't sure.
Commissioner Bilodeau noted that the zoning code required 10% of the parking area be
landscaped and since there is only 7-1/2% he asked ifthere was a variance to cover it.
Ms. Thakur responded that in light of the fact that it is an existing development and there
are constraints, in order to develop the parking lot and revitalize the area, a waiver of that
requirement was being proposed. Chair Bonina stated that an Administrative Adjustment
would therefore be required for the landscaping. Mr. Knight stated that it was an existing
building that was non-conforming and the intent is to bring the building up to the
standard or as close as they can get it. Chair Bonina confirmed with Mr. Knight that the
Administrative Adjustment is not required.
Commissioner Bilodeau stated the revised plans represent a definite improvement in the
layout of the lot from the original submission.
Page 3 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
Commissioner Imboden asked if the 18' parking spaces would be reduced in size to 15'2"
to accommodate the placement of the bollards. Mr. Knight replied "no, and even though
wheel stops are not mandated, if the applicant chooses to use them they need to be at least
34" away."
Chair Bonina asked what the parking lot lighting program looks like. Mr. Lee replied
this is another issue where they will be working with the Building Department to ensure
they meet the minimum requirements. They plan to have lighting along the wall on the
bottom and then lights on the building itself.
Commissioner Bilodeau stated he thought the site plan was much improved and although
it would be nice to have 24' in the aisle way he believed the applicant had done about
everything they could do with the existing site. Commissioner Bilodeau suggested:
(1) the driveway apron be flared out a bit more to provide easier access to the site
(2) turf be planted in the planter on the east side (he thought it was actually on the
south side), as the goal would be to have cars overhang the planter completely.
He stated he wouldn't be opposed to making it a concrete walkway for safety but
noted the planter was required to adhere to the Code in terms of landscaped area
in the parking lot.
Commissioner Imboden expressed appreciation for the applicant's efforts to improve the
site; however, he stated he wasn't convinced that they met the safety intent of the Code,
specifically because of the use being requested. He cited a number of issues still exist
with the interior and even though they aren't part of the application an overall interest in
the safety of the children is of paramount importance. Commissioner Imboden stated that
although this business provides a very valuable service to the community, he could not
approve the application as submitted.
Chair Bonina thanked the applicant and Staff for their efforts expended with the physical
constraints that they have both on the exterior and interior of this particular location, for
the use being proposed. Although he recognized the significance and need for this type
of business in the community, Chair Bonina concluded stating he could not support the
application in this location due to the compromise of child safety.
Commissioner Imboden made a motion to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2598-06,
Variance No. 2161-06 And Administrative Adjustment No. 118-06.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden
Commissioner Bilodeau, Steiner
None
None
MOTION FAILED.
Chair Bonina stated that since the motion for denial failed, the application was still alive.
Page 4 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
Commissioner Bilodeau made a motion to continue the application to a future meeting.
Chair Bonina asked what the basis of continuance would be. Commissioner Bilodeau
responded that he didn't believe the issue would get (3) votes at this meeting and a 5th
Commissioner would be available at the next meeting.
Commissioner Steiner offered a second to the motion and suggested the following items
be studied and additional information be provided with respect to:
(I) Having a 3' concrete walkway along the east side of the parking lot, which is
currently planned to be a planter with low growing plants.
(2) Explore a flared apron on the driveway.
Commissioner Bilodeau added:
(3) To/from the existing building entry, a crosswalk be striped all the way across the east
side of the parking lot.
Chair Bonina added:
(4) Explore shifting the entry way to the south and further away from the pool area.
Further, if this is deemed not feasible, Chair Bonina would like an explanation as to
the reason(s).
Commissioner Imboden stated he could support a continuance; however, in order for him
to approve this application he would need to see a different attitude toward the safety of
the children. Critical issues cited by Commissioner Imboden were:
(I) The fire exit path next to the pool potentially could be a problem with people falling
in during their attempt to exit the building and people being stepped on as they
attempted to leave the building.
(2) The entry being moved to the rear should seriously be considered, as patrons would
be pushed closer to the pool as a result of the planned greeting station.
(3) The restroom situation (as proposed) places patrons close to the pool upon entering
and exiting.
Commissioner Imboden concluded stating he needs to see a commitment on the part of
the applicant that seriously addresses the way people use this site in and out of the
building.
Chair Bonina asked Mr. Knight to provide a date certain in the event the motion for
continuance is approved. The discussion concluded with the applicant and
Commissioners agreeing to December 18th for a continuance.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Page 5 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS
(4) APPEAL NO. 513-06 OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DETERMINATION OF DRC NO. 4143-06 - APPELLANT: MAXWELL
LAWRENCE
An appeal of the Design Review Committee's (DRC) denial of application No. 4343-06
to instal1 a pitched roof rather than repair the existing flat roof on an Eichler designed
single-family residence located at 1301 N. Linda Vista Street, within the Fairhills Tract.
NOTE: This project is categorical1y exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 - Maintenance
and Repair.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Take action on appeal.
Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview.
Commissioner Steiner asked Mr. Ryan for an explanation of the process by which the
nomination is made to the National Registered Historic District. Mr. Ryan responded it
takes a minimum of 10% of the people within the area designated to nominate the area
and that an application is made to the State Office of Historic Preservation.
Commissioner Steiner asked what quantity the 10% would represent for this area. Mr.
Ryan responded that he believed there are 183 residents in the tract, which would equal
approximately 18. Commissioner Steiner asked for the date the application was received.
Mr. Ryan was unable to provide that information. Commissioner Steiner asked what the
typical duration was between application and approval. Mr. Ryan stated there are some
limitations that have slowed the process so his belief was it is now approximately 6
months. Commissioner Steiner asked if it was safe to assume the application was
received within the last 180 days. Mr. Ryan responded affirmatively.
Chair Bonina asked Mr. Ryan for a recap of the sequence of events to do a remodel on
this property and if the applicant submitted a set of plans to the Building Department and
then moved forward based on the plans. Mr. Ryan responded the sequence of events, as
he understood it was:
(I) the applicant removed the flat roofing materials and received a stop work order as
he did not have a permit;
(2) the applicant came in and submitted plans and applied for a building permit;
(3) at this time the City realized this was an Eichler building and the roof form would
be changed and therefore the requirement was to go before the Design Review
Committee.
Chair Bonina asked for confirmation that the City understood the line of the roof would
change based on the plans reviewed. Mr. Ryan responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Imboden asked Mr. Ryan for confirmation that regardless if the form
changes or not, if a homeowner changed their roof, a permit is required. Mr. Ryan
responded affirmatively. Commissioner Steiner asked if it would be required for removal
of existing roofing material. Mr. Ryan responded affirmatively again. Commissioner
Page 6 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
Steiner asked if a permit was sought in this case. Mr. Ryan responded that it was not.
Chair Bonina asked for clarification that a roof removal permit is required to remove the
materials from a roof. Mr. Knight clarified that anytime you demolish a portion of a
structure, if you are not planning to rebuild the structure, you need a demolition permit.
Since most people remove the roof and replace it, they would bypass the demolition
permit and just obtain the roofing permit for re-roofing.
Darren Lawrence stated:
. One of the minimum requirements for being listed as a National Registered Historic
District is the age of the home must be 50 years. The homes in the appellant's
neighborhood are only 44 years.
. The subject neighborhood is the youngest Eichler neighborhood built in Orange.
. The only exclusion for houses being listed on the register would be those with a second
story addition, not necessarily those with a roof change. They would therefore stil1 be
eligible.
. Even though the Infill Guidelines do apply there was only one area presented at the
Design Review Committee and that had to do with the impact on the neighborhood as a
result of the pitched roof. When the entire neighborhood was being considered, it only
included the Eichler tracts within the neighborhood. There were areas excluded,
including the houses directly behind the Lawrence residence which has a home with a hip
roof that is exactly the same as the roof planned for the Lawrence residence. A
photograph was provided to the Commission.
. His father did start tearing off the roof and then went to get a permit. His father was
told to go to the Building Department.
. His father showed the plans to the Manager (at the time) of the Building Department
and was told to update the plans to be up to date with the laws and they would give him a
permit.
. When he brought them back he was told the Manager was on vacation but that a permit
couldn't be issued because the house was considered to have a historic interest.
. At the time they were trying to process the permit they were experiencing significant
leaks. The leaks had been building up which is a typical aspect of flat roofs as they hold
water.
. 3 reasons cited at the DRC for the house to have a hip roof were: (1) repair people
could not pinpoint leak areas. A pitch roof could be fixed a lot easier than a flat roof. (2)
to cover the air conditioner unit-it would not be seen from the road (3) to not have
puddles of water sitting on the flat roof.
Commissioner Imboden asked the appellant if they believed there was justification for
them to have a pitched roof because other homes in the area have pitched roofs. Mr.
Lawrence responded affirmatively. Commissioner Imboden stated he understood the
other homes with pitched roofs were not in the same neighborhood. Mr. Lawrence stated
"that is what the DRC said to me; they said they were only taking into consideration the
Eichler tract." Further, Mr. Lawrence stated that the Infil1 Guidelines state that one
should take into consideration the character of the existing neighborhood. Commissioner
Imboden stated that for the record, the houses shown in the photographs provided by Mr.
Lawrence are not Eichler homes of the same tract; they were not of the same
development. Mr. Lawrence responded, "they are not of the same tract, but they are part
of the neighborhood, as the existing neighborhood would not consist of only Eichlers."
Page 7 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
Mr. Lawrence pointed out that there are other houses with the exact type of roof he would
prefer and there is a home directly across the street with a second story addition and hip
roof that was an Eichler. He indicated that plan was approved some time ago and there
are more houses with hip roofs then there are flat roof homes and that wasn't taken into
consideration at all.
Mr. Lawrence stated they currently have a flat roof being put on; they have permits; they
ripped off the structure; they are up to date as far as the permits and are doing it properly
because they need to have the roof fixed. The reason for pursuing the denial is they
believe the proposal would be a longer-term remedy.
Commissioner Imboden mentioned the suggestion of the DRC to use a taper insulation
roof that would give some roof pitch and solve some of the problems mentioned and he
asked Mr. Lawrence if they had considered that solution. Mr. Lawrence responded they
had not, due to his belief that ifthere was a leak they would not be able to locate it easily.
Public input was provided as follows:
Dennis Lvnch. address on file stated:
. He and his wife were Eichler owners for approximately 1-1/2 years.
. The integrity of the neighborhood should be preserved.
. Two homes in the neighborhood have had changes in the roof line and the consensus
seems to be they no longer fit the neighborhood.
. Eichler hired the best modernist architects of the time who developed these beautiful
house plans and the roof line which is the signature of these houses should not be
changed.
. These homes are important to Orange and they should be maintained and not changed.
Greg Harrison. address on file stated:
. He lives in the neighborhood in question.
. The National Register of Historic Places has established the Eichler homes are worthy
of being preserved and treasured. This was established in 2005 in the Palo Alto area.
. The exterior fat;ade and the roof line are defining characteristics of these unique,
modem homes.
. There are only a few hundred of these homes in So. California and they deserve to be
respected and preserved.
. They deserve to be preserved in the community of Orange for those who appreciate
important architecture and the sense of community it can create.
. There is an entire economy of contractors and businesses that have been built up to take
care of these homes. Issues like leaking roofs or heating systems that need to be attended
to can be professional1y taken care of. These businesses are easy to locate.
. The community he lives in real1y love the Eichler houses and they have created a sense
of community.
Brian Jacobs. address on file stated:
. He is representing the Fairhaven Eichler Homeowners Association and would like to
suggest they strongly support the City's Infill Residential Guidelines.
Page 8 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20,2006
. Eichler homes are the subject of two wonderful coffee table books.
. The Eichler architecture is widely recognized.
. Unfortunately significantly changing the rooflines does affect the aesthetics of the
neighborhood.
. He has personally had a great deal of experience with flat roofs and he knows they can
be difficult but he deals with it.
. Flat roofs can be effectively covered and sealed.
. He has had 3 different buildings within the past 5 years that required new roofs. None
of these buildings have leaked. One is nearly 100 years old.
. Even if the water is dammed up a little, it does eventually evaporate.
. In terms of insulation, there is wonderful sheet foam available and as it was pointed out,
it can be tapered.
. With respect to the air conditioning, there is a type of air conditioning that is extremely
effective and very energy efficient. It is a mini split system whereby the compressor is
outside of the building and all that is sent to the various locations in the home is two
copper tubes for the refrigerant. These systems are widely used in Europe.
. In consideration for the neighborhood and the historic value of the homes the Fairhaven
Eichler neighborhood would like the Planning Commission to deny this application.
Kevin Wilkeson. address on file stated:
. He lives in the neighborhood and he moved there and to the City of Orange because of
the Eichler homes.
. The Eichler homes have unique character and great architecture.
. The flat roofs can work; they can be maintained. There are many new buildings built
with them i.e. schools, hospitals, Home Depot, Target.
. His house has the exact floor and roof plan. His roof is about lO years old and does not
leak. They can be maintained if you find the right people to work on them.
. The Eichlers are a great historical resource for the community.
. They should be protected and preserved and he asked the Planning Commission to not
al10w any visible modifications to be done to the project.
Marvin Maver. address on file stated:
. He lives directly across the street from Mr. Lawrence.
. He thinks with a few minor exceptions, almost all that have purchased Eichler homes
are dedicated to maintaining the integrity and the Eichler concept. The DRC report puts
it more articulately then he could.
. Before the stop order was issued Mr. Lawrence had actually framed the roof so he could
look across and see it was an unsightly departure from the Eichler concept that was not
necessary.
. He has a flat roof and with proper maintenance has not had any problems.
. IfMr. Lawrence would like a referral to a roofer he could provide one so he wouldn't
have any problems either.
. He urged the Planning Commission to deny the appeal.
Tiffinv Mansouri. address on file stated:
. She lives around the corner from the Lawrence residence.
. There have been several excellent points already made.
. She and her husband moved to Orange from Corona del Mar specifically because they
Page 9 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
wanted to live in an Eichler they respected.
. They enjoy the modernist architecture.
. The flat roof is a singularly unique component to these Eichler homes and to that
specific roof design in general.
. There are several alternatives to a built up roof. Many people have already discussed
this. One is a rigid foam insulation type roof.
. These small modifications are cumulative. When she walks around the neighborhood
and sees some of the modifications done to the Eichler's it is hurtful because the
Eichler's are architectural gems that should be preserved.
. She is opposed to the application.
Lori Cantley. address on file stated:
. She lives immediately south of the project.
. She is in agreement with the City of Orange that the roof should be returned to its
original form.
. The roof design is predominantly seen as people enter the neighborhood.
. The Lawrence home is one of the original model homes placed at an entry point and
continues to be one of the Eichler homes that is seen as you enter the neighborhood.
. The roof addition is not in line with any of the modernist principles. The appeal of an
Eichler home is simple forms.
. This particular design has an A-frame with two flat roofs on either side and the
proposed design would detract from the clean lines which this plan is known for.
. There are several other roofs with this distinct design in the neighborhood and this
modification would definitely stand out.
. There are a number of ways the issues of a flat roof can be dealt with.
. As the 50 year mark of the Eichlers in Orange approaches; there is an opportunity to be
listed on the National Historic Registry.
. These homes have architectural significance and she believes the design intent that
Eichler architects had in mind when they designed them needs to be respected.
Marc Ettinger. address on file stated:
. For the past 10 years he has lived in an Eichler.
. The entire concept that one must raise the roof and build a pitched roof because a flat
roof continuously leaks and there is no way to solve the problem is completely false.
. There is a completely flat roof over his entire home.
. They knew their roof leaked when they moved in, so they invested in tapered rigid
insulation. It is a hard insulation tapered enough so the water falls from the inside to the
out.
. They haven't had any problems with the roof and it has been on 8-9 years.
. He has a reputable roofer and the Lawrence's can get one too.
. If they didn't want the roofthey've got, they shouldn't have bought the property.
. Everyone should be entitled to do what they want with the homes they own but in
certain circumstances the modifications should be confined so as to not be an eyesore.
. He urged the Commission to deny the application.
Steve Flannigan. address on file stated:
. He is a privileged owner of an Eichler home.
. There is a finite number of Eichler residents in the world.
Page 10 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20,2006
. They are part of Orange and California history.
. He urged the Commission to protect the architectural style of these homes and deny the
application.
Maxwell Lawrence and Darren Lawrence were asked to speak to the items raised by the
audience and raise any other points they would like heard.
Darren Lawrence stated:
. Flat roofed industrial buildings use steel materials. This should be taken into
consideration as an A-frame home has different weight limitations.
. His father has owned the home for 32 years so he has been a long time resident.
. His father purchased a 30 year roof that started leaking after 10 years.
. The gentleman that lives next to them is an Eichler enthusiast and architect and
although he has stated he would never make this type of change to his home, he thought it
would look beautiful.
. They purchased the home because his mother loved it. The interior is stil1 the same,
they are just trying to protect it with a roof that doesn't leak.
. They are not trying to create an eyesore.
Maxwell Lawrence stated:
. The change they are proposing is identical to one that an engineer did to his home and it
was approved 15 years ago. He hasn't had a leak since that time and it covers the a/c
ducts.
. One of his neighbors that lives across the street has round a/c ducts that lay on top of the
flat roof and it looks horrible.
. There are a lot of houses that look atrocious.
. He flew into Palo Alto and talked to a lot of the homeowners that are part of the homes
listed in the Historic Registry and they told him he could put any kind of a slant roof on
that he wants. (He presented photos of Eichler homes in Palo Alto where similar style
changes have been made.)
. Caddy-corner to his home a second story addition was put on an Eichler and it looks
horrible.
. He purchased the most expensive, 30-year roof from Gen Star and he did his A-frame
and flat roof, using the Gen Star crew and within 10 years it started leaking.
. This is the 6th roofhe has done and you can't get them repaired.
. The lady around the corner (Ruth) lives in an Eichler which has leaked for 2 years
straight.
. He went out with Joe Woollett and signed up 43 people. 39 of those people signed a
contract and they couldn't get a reputable roofer to do the job. The roofers you can get to
do the job are the ones working out of their homes or they are little companies.
Chair Bonina asked Mr. Lawrence if he has engaged the services of a roofer that he is
comfortable with and if so, what guarantee is he receiving. Mr. Lawrence responded they
haven't started yet; they are only getting a 5-year guarantee; it will take 3 days to put it
on and if it starts leaking they will come out and try to patch it, which they never can
patch because you don't know where the water is coming from. He anticipates the same
exact problem he had previously to recur within 6-7 years.
Page II of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
Mr. Lawrence stated he has had the plans in his possession for approximately 1-1/2 years
from an engineer that did his own roof and received approval so he thought there
wouldn't be a problem. The person (a personal friend of the appellant) that was going to
do the job took a couple of weeks off his regular job and started ripping the roof off. Mr.
Lawrence concurrently took the plans in (6 times). On the 5th or 6th time he was told by
the head of the Building Department to go get a draft, more refined mechanical drawing.
Mr. Lawrence went and got a structural engineer to do it. The engineer went to his home,
as he wanted assurance the structure could handle the proposed roof. The next day he
went to the Planning Department, signed in, and was told he had to go to the Building
Department. He then went to the Building Department where he also signed in (7th
time). The 7'h time he signed in he was told the Manager went on vacation for 3 weeks
and someone else told him his house was historical. He then went to a leading historical
architect who laughed and asked, "How do mean historical?"
Mr. Lawrence stated the water draining has destroyed the wall, all his marble, the paint
and he has had live electricity since September 6th that has been shorting and burning out.
A home 100' away in Villa Park burnt to the ground, it couldn't be put out. Mr.
Lawrence stated they have been shutting off the electricity at night and it is freezing. In
addition, he spent $489 in August on electricity and $44 in September.
He concluded stating he thought the shape of the house was beautiful.
Darren Lawrence reiterated the National Register of Historical Places would recognize
them even with the new roof as the only Eichler houses that are excluded are those with a
second story add-on.
Copies of letters from neighbors that have the same type of home and have had roof
problems were provided. Pictures of homes in Palo Alto were also provided.
Commissioner Steiner empathized with Mr. Lawrence's position; however, indicated he
found it difficult to reconcile the horror stories experienced by the Lawrence family with
the substantial amount of commentary that was engendered from others that also own
Eichler homes in the area and have very successfully managed problems with leakage.
Commissioner Steiner expressed regret that the Lawrence's found themselves in this
situation and stated that he hoped that however the Commission ruled it would work out
favorably for the Lawrence family.
Commissioner Imboden indicated he had reviewed the roof framing plan that shows a
shear wall (at the lower right bottom of the plan) and stated that as he looked at the
elevation and floor plan of the house it shows a garage as well as a transom window over
the garage door. Commissioner Imboden stated he was not clear how a shear wall could
be put there when there is both a door and a window. Mr. Lawrence responded:
. the structure of the window is still there as it always has been
. on the left side of the house, those windows are along the same side, exactly above in
each room as well
. the other house is exactly the same that had the roof done
.. the top of the roofis already layered with plywood and that construction would actually
connect to that
Page 12 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
. the window in the garage wouldn't change the actual structure; it wouldn't move at all
. there are beams that run through the house
Commissioner Imboden asked the appellants if they were of the understanding that if this
house were built according to the plans presented, they would no longer have a garage
door that could be opened, nor a transom over the top? The appellant responded the
garage would still be there, the door would open and it wouldn't affect it at all. It is
being built directly on top of the plywood.
Recognizing that the appellant had attested to the fact that their home would still be
eligible for the National Register with the proposed modifications, Commissioner
Imboden asked the appellant if it were deemed that the modifications would make it
ineligible, would they stil1 want to go ahead with the modifications. Darren Lawrence
responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Bilodeau stated he had to agree with the comments made by
Commissioner Steiner. He felt there were some persuasive arguments made by the
appellants in terms of the fact the home is not eligible to be on the National Register at
this point based on its age; however, he concluded stating he believed the City had to
adhere to the Infill Guidelines and try to maintain the architectural integrity of the Eichler
neighborhoods just as they do with Old Towne.
Commissioner Imboden stated he does have a little experience with Eichler homes and he
was disappointed the appellants would stil1 go ahead with the project even ifthey knew it
meant the house would not be eligible for listing on the National Register. Commissioner
Imboden cited the amount of testimony received from Eichler homeowners that there are
other solutions that can remedy the problem without making the proposed changes. He
quoted a statement made by one of the attendees that the roofline is the signature of the
Eichler home and added that there are absolutely other style roofs with Eichler homes but
with the Eichler homes there is an issue of honesty in design, an expression of the
structure. His opinion was the proposed hip roof would cause the home to lose its
integrity and therefore would no longer be eligible for the National Register. He added
there are plenty of licensed contractors that could do the roof for them and bring it into
conformance with the Infill Design Guidelines. Although sympathetic with their
problems he concluded there were possibilities that haven't been explored yet.
Chair Bonina stated that although it was unfortunate there had been a lot of effort
expended by the appellants in what they are trying to accomplish; there are Guidelines
and what is compel1ing is the neighborhood coming forward and defending the
architecture. He applauded them for doing that and moved forward with a motion to
deny Appeal No. 513-06 of the Design Review Committee Determination of DRC No.
4143-06.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
None
Page 13 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20,2006
MOTION CARRIED.
The appel1ant was notified they could further appeal to the City Council with another
application and deposit. The appellant was told to contact Mr. Knight if they had further
questions.
(5) MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2535-05
BEACON AUTISM SPECTRUM INDEPENDENCE CENTER (BASIC)
A request to permit the operation of the Beacon Autism Spectrum Independence Center
(BASIC), separate from the operation of the Beacon Day School, under extended hours.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 - (Class I _
Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 49-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2535-05.
Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Dr. Estonactoc, the applicant's representative added they would like to extend the hours
of operation to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, although the services will stop at 8:00
p.m. He advised that the additional hour is for Staff to write notes and parents won't be
permitted to stay at the facility, as there is confidential information that must be
safeguarded. Dr. Siznata stated they have not yet decided to have parent groups on
Saturday; however, if they do they will follow the recommendation in the Staff Report
with respect to the number of adults/parents so as to eliminate the need for parking in the
neighboring residential areas.
Commissioner Imboden referred to the existing Conditional Use Permit (see Attachment
No.4) and noted when the previous plan was approved, there was a requirement for (2)
handicap accessible routes to be delineated across the drive aisle and a new 6' wood
fence. Commissioner Imboden stated that he visited the site and that is not what was
ultimately built. Furthermore, the new plan shows the handicapped van space in the
comer does have an accessible route to a 36" gate but the gate was pad locked. He stated
he had concerns with extending conditional use on this site when the initial issues that the
Commission felt were serious haven't been addressed. He asked for clarification of these
items. Dr. Lang, the applicant's representative, responded that perhaps she
misunderstood; however, in the front they put up a white picket fence that matched the
existing fence next door. In the back of the school they put up a fence that is consistent
with what they've seen at other schools and since their students elope, the safety of the
students is paramount. Dr. Lang advised there is a lock on the gate but it is an open lock
meant to serve as a deterrent to the students who may otherwise elope. Dr. Lang offered
that if there is another fence that is consistent with the architecture and provides safety
Page 14 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
for the students she is amenable to changing the fence. Regarding the handicap
accessible routes, Dr. Lang stated they put new black top down which had to be seasoned
and then resealed. When it is resealed the striping will be put in place. She apologized
for the delay and indicated she would soon be in compliance.
Chair Bonina asked if it was reasonable to say once inside the buildings the adults and
children had full range of the building. Specifically he was concerned with Building B
(the building closest to Collins, furthest away from Chapman). Dr. Lang responded that
building has administrative offices and that is not where the students go for educational
opportunities; it is for Staff only.
Chair Bonina reiterated the importance of the striping in the parking lot.
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2535-05.
Recognizing this project was categorically exempt from CEQA a second to the motion
was offered.
SECOND: Commissioner Bonina
Commissioner Imboden asked City Staff to follow up on the issues he mentioned and
address the handicapped issues on this site. He noted a locked gate is not ADA
compliant.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2609-06 - MR. CRANE, INC.
(APPLICANT: LEE STEINBERG)
A request to allow an excess of 25% office space in the existing two-story, 14,644 sq. ft.
industrial building. Currently, 34% of the building is utilized for office (un-permitted,
applicant seeks to legalize), and has operated as such for approximately 26 years.
However, the increased demand for business has resulted in the applicant's need to
expand and provide for additional office space, so as to have room for increased
operations. The site is located at 647 N. Hariton Street.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provIsions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 - (Class 1 -
Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 51-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2609-06.
Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview.
Page 15 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
Chair Bonina asked for confirmation that the additional parking required was part of the
plan. Ms. Thakur confirmed and added that Staff has reviewed the plans and no
additional parking other than what was identified is required at this time. Chair Bonina
asked for clarification that the parking included (2) handicap spaces. Ms. Thakur
confirmed that was accurate.
The applicant stated most of the equipment is so large that it is maintained in the rear
yard and that the administrative work done in the office has grown proportionately with
the business so consequently they need to expand the square footage of the office. He
added there is enough land to provide adequate parking and they will not change the
amount oflandscaping.
Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 - (Class I _
Existing Facilities), Chair Bonina made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No.
2609-06.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bilodeau
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(7) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2614-06, MINOR SITE PLAN
REVIEW NO. 0467-06 - THE WESTERN CORDAGE BUILDING
A request to allow the existing vacant Western Cordage Building to be used for
"Professional Office" and "Education" uses, within the M-l (Light Industrial) Zone.
Parking for this proposal is being proposed as a Minor Site Plan Review. It is to be
provided in the Chapman University Palm Avenue parking lot (i.e., "the Palm Lot"),
across the street from 501 West Palm. The site is located at 501 West Palm.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 - (Class 3 - New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 50-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2614-06 and Minor Site Plan Review No. 0467-06.
A project overview was provided by Contract Staff Planner Christine Kelly during which
she noted the Minor Site Plan Review was not before the Commission at this meeting; it
was really more of a notification. The reason is the Minor Site Plan Review is for the
ultimate layout of the parking lot. The parking lot for the Palm Lot (the property across
the street from 501 West Palm) is the parking lot proposed to be used for parking. In
Page 16 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20,2006
addition, Ms. Kelly noted the following corrections need to be made in the Conditions of
Approval section of the Resolution:
(1) Condition S. (Planning-first line) the number of spaces should read "114" versus
"109".
(2) Condition 9 (Public Works-second sentence) add "Prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy" the street lights need to be installed.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked who uses the 114 parking spaces in the Palm lot. Ms.
Kelly responded they are designated for University use.
Chair Bonina asked if parking in the Palm lot has been attached to any building within
the Campus Specific Plan. Ms. Kelly responded "no".
A power point presentation was provided by Ken Ryan, EDA W during which he
highlighted:
(I) They agree with the Staff Report and the Conditions of Approval.
(2) The existing steel window frames would be retained.
(3) They will be removing the green awnings on the windows and the steel mesh cages in
front of the doors, which were not part of the original structure.
(4) They will be retaining the Western Cordage Company signage.
(5) They will be redoing the brick to match its original character.
(6) The dilapidated doors will be replaced to match the originals.
In conclusion, Mr. Ryan stated they are really pleased to honor the City's rich history and
to work with City Staff and the community to do what they think is a pretty significant
adaptive reuse of this important building.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked what would prevent students from parking in the depot lot
across the street so as to avoid purchasing a parking permit. Mr. Ryan responded there is
a comprehensive program for enforcement in place that includes penalties plus they have
a stealth monitoring system in place and are mindful of the necessity to provide adequate,
conveniently located parking, which is continuously addressed.
Commissioner Imboden asked what is occurring in the adjacencies. Referring to the site
plan Mr. Ryan responded the main uses of the site today are:
.625 West Palm and 63S-B are used by Chapman University for storage, repair and
printing. There is a small amount of Staff there.
. 63SA is St. Joseph's Hospital.
.611 and 615 is the Pure Effect Water Filtration Company.
.545,541,543,601 and 607 is the Marathon Garage Door Company.
. 549 is Del Taco facilities.
. 535 is a long time tenant, Gothic Moon.
Commissioner Imboden asked Mr. Ryan to look into his crystal ball and advise what he
expects to see happening to the site 100 years from now. Mr. Ryan responded that this
beautiful, restored, adaptive building will still be there as they are spending some serious
funds on restoration and the older sort of manufacturing/industrial buildings would be
going away over time.
Page 17 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20,2006
Public input was provided as follows:
Jeff FrankeL OTPA stated:
. The Western Cordage building is one of the finest and most prominent examples ofa
brick industrial building in Old Towne having most if not all of its character defining
features in tact.
. It is important historically due to the fact that at one time it was the largest employer in
the City of Orange.
. They appreciated that Chapman University has met with them to review and discuss the
proposed adaptive reuse plan for the building.
. The proposed plan seems very thorough as far as the restorations are concerned.
. They want assurances that all work will meet Secretary of the Interior Standards for an
adaptive reuse.
. OTP A sees this as a very important project as it is really the first true adaptive reuse of
an industrial building in the district. For this reason it is imperative to pay close attention
to every detail to ensure everything is done correctly.
Recognizing that this project is categorically exempt from the provIsIOns of CEQA,
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2614-06
and Minor Site Plan Review No. 0467-06.
SECOND:
Commissioner Bilodeau
Prior to voting on the motion the discussion ensued as follows.
Commissioner Imboden applauded the proposed plans for the building and the fact that
Chapman recognized the significance of this building to Old Towne; however, after an
overall review he believes there are a lot of loose ends. Specifically:
(1) This proposal requires parking to go off-site.
(2) With 114 parking spaces offsite, how many trips would be generated each day?
(3) Additional background is required on the categorical exemption that explains how
Staff came to this exemption.
(4) There are pedestrian issues that need to be dealt with. There isn't a clear, obvious
way as to how these will be solved.
(5) There are lighting issues that need to be dealt with.
(6) Sign issues need to be dealt with.
(7) In terms of the preservation aspects, these items have not been before the Design
Review Committee. Although these may be minor, one of the options available to
Chapman would be removal of historic windows and replacement of new windows.
This is a very simple building and it was Commissioner Imboden's opinion if the
existing windows are removed, a character defining feature of the building would be
removed.
Commissioner Imboden added that this is a significant enough project that these issues
should be addressed and brought before the Commission. Further, Commissioner
Imboden stated he didn't feel there was clear enough definition of what else takes place
Page IS of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
on the site.
Chair Bonina asked Ms. Kelly to elaborate on the CEQA category exemption. Ms. Kelly
responded that there are differing environmental actions that could be taken on a project
and that in the CEQA there are a list of items that are considered categorically exempt
which are defined by class:
(I) A Class I is an existing facility with minor changes that do not create impact.
(2) A Class 3 is a new construction or a conversion of smaller structure.
(3) Class 31 pertains to historic resources limited to maintenance, rehabilitation,
restoration, preservation or reconstruction of historic property.
Ms. Kelly stated that basically a review of the classes of exemptions is conducted to see
if the project qualifies for one or more and in this instance the project qualified for three.
Chair Bonina asked at what point Staff and the applicant would get further clarity on the
off-site parking. Ms. Kelly responded that she understood Commissioner Imboden's
concern and that the way the Code reads is parking is a permitted use, on-site, on an
adjacent lot or 300' within the distance of the lot. This qualified as within 300' of the lot
and because it is a permitted use in the Code it was brought forward as a given. As far as
working it out she advised City and Chapman Staff members would make a decision after
collectively reviewing other factors i.e. the distance they wanted to put the light from the
quiet zone, etc.
Commissioner Imboden asked if there are other factors then why was it before the
Commission before the questions had been answered. Ms. Kelly responded "because
parking is a permitted use; it is not a conditional use and so if they were coming in with a
use that didn't require a Conditional Use Permit, it wouldn't have been before the
Commission; it is not a discretionary action and so what they have to do to use it, how it
is worked out and what the covenant agreements say are things that would normally be
done at a Stafflevel."
Commissioner Imboden followed up that he understood that absolutely parking was a
permitted use and he doesn't know that there is a problem with the parking but he
couldn't tell because he didn't have the solution before him. Typically when the CUP
comes to the Commission they have the information regarding parking, moving about the
site and how the site will function and how the use being granted will function with the
site. Too much of that information is missing and he stated he didn't understand why this
project should be different. He realized they could be handled at the Staff level but he
didn't understand why the site wasn't looked at more holistically in making their
decision. He was concerned about the number of trips associated with 114 parking
spaces. Without this information he questioned the review of this project and why it was
somewhat bifurcated instead of coming forward in the traditional sense.
Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz interjected that from the CEQA standpoint, when
the analysis on the project is conducted, once you reach the exemption, the review stops.
Considering the fact the parking is a permitted use, to begin with, it was not part of the
entitlement so it would therefore not play into a portion of the analysis.
Page 19 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20,2006
Mr. Knight added that these projects do go before the Site Review Committee which does
include the City Traffic Engineer (Tom Mahood). Parking already exists and has been
utilized in varying degrees over the years, so the trips associated with that parking have
been considered along with the characteristics of the traffic.
Chair Bonina asked for confirmation that the City Traffic Engineer did in fact fully
review the project and the fact there are 114 spaces with a street to be crossed and
potential increase in the number of trips. Mr. Knight responded that he could not attest to
the fact that a specific traffic analysis was done because he didn't know. What he did say
is that it went before the Staff Review Committee in a setting where they could ask
questions and none were raised on this specific topic. Ms. Kelly added that she did work
with a Traffic Engineer and the condition was his wording. Her experience with the City
is if a traffic study is required the need is recognized at the Staff Review Committee
meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Steiner
Commissioner Imboden
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(8) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-0003, PRE-ZONING NO. 1241-
06, AND ADDENDUM NO. 1779-06 - MANCHESTER WALK ANNEXATION
A proposal to facilitate a boundary line adjustment between the City of Orange and the
City of Anaheim, whereby approximately 332 sq. ft. of property is to be de-annexed from
the City of Anaheim and annexed into the l2ity of Orange (with concurrent annexation to
the Municipal Water District of Orange County from the City of Anaheim Public Utility).
NOTE: An adequate assessment of the potential environmental impacts of General Plan
Amendment No. 2006-0003 and Pre-Zoning No. 1241-06 was prepared in accordance
with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, in the form of an Addendum to Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1736-04. Based on an environmental evaluation, the
General Plan Amendment and Pre-Zoning of the 332-square feet ofland will not result in
any significant environmental impacts that have not already been addressed in the MND.
Because none of the conditions identified with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines
have occurred, the preparation of an Addendum to MND is appropriate and consistent
with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 48-06 recommending to the City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2006-0003, Pre-Zoning No. 1241-06,
and Addendum No. 1779-06.
A project overview was provided by Contract Senior Project Manager Christine Kelly.
Page 20 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20,2006
Chair Bonina asked if the piece of property that is in the City of Orange that Anaheim
thought was their property was part of this project. Ms. Kelly responded "no, they are
actually looking at some ultimate development of a larger piece of property in Anaheim
and they wanted to wait and do it at that time."
Recognizing an adequate assessment of the potential environmental impacts of General
Plan Amendment No. 2006-0003 and Pre-Zoning No. 1241-06 was prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, in the form of an Addendum
to Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Commissioner Bilodeau made a motion to
approve General Plan Amendment No. 2006-0003, Pre-Zoning No. 1241-06, and
Addendum No. 1779-06.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(9) ZONE CHANGE NO. 1232-05, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16878,
MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 377-06, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
NO. 4109-06, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 116-06 AND MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1767-06 - PACIFIC GROVE
A request to subdivide the subject vacant property (former railroad right-of-way) into 6
residential lots and 2 lettered lots (Lots A & B), in association with the construction of 6
detached one-story (with mezzanine) single-family residences. A 30' wide private street
(Pacific Grove Lane) with stop-controlled access at LaVeta to Fairhaven Avenue is
proposed. The site is located west of Esplanade Avenue and east of Woodland Street,
between LaVeta and Fairhaven Avenue.
NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1767-06 was prepared to evaluate
the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Environmental --- Adopt Resolution No. PC 39-05
recommending City Council approval of Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration
No. 1767-06 as being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act Guidelines.
Project --- Adopt Resolution No. PC 52-06 recommending City Council approval of Zone
Change No. 1232-05, Tentative Tract Map No. 16878, Design Review Committee No.
4109-06 and Administrative Adjustment No. 116-06.
Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Page 21 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
Razaali Hedaegh, the project architect provided some history of the project:
. The site is just about 3.9 acres.
. They are proposing homes on I acre ofthe site.
. 1.6 acres is being dedicated to the City.
. The balance is landscaping and a 30' wide drive.
. The site is being developed as a R-I-7 zone which is the prevailing zone of the area.
. The project does not require an amendment to the General Plan and in fact the applicant
is not asking for any variances.
. The 10% Administrative Adjustment has been requested and granted due to the shape of
the area where the homes are to be placed.
. In many cases they are well under the developer standards. They are allowed to build
2-story homes that can go up to 32'. Given the fabric of the neighborhood with an eye to
the Eichler homes they have kept the height of the buildings wel1 under that.
. The buildings are essentially I-story with a mezzanine facing away from the Eichler
homes.
. The consensus of the Design Review Committee was that the design of the houses is
exemplary and the work has been with utmost consideration for the existing fabric of the
neighborhood.
. The Design Review Committee expressed these homes have been designed with a keen
awareness to how the Eichler homes came to be and the historic value they have.
. The prevailing style is a modernistic style; however, the Design Review Committee
acknowledged the architect's effort not to emulate the Eichler homes.
. From the outset they have truly made a conscious effort to have the lowest impact
possible on the neighborhood but do the project in a manner that is fiscal1y viable
(examples of how this was achieved were provided).
. They have made a genuine effort to work with the neighborhood, i.e. both in March and
October, 2005 they held meetings with the neighbors. Many of them support the project.
. A strong desire was expressed by the neighborhood that they wanted continued access
to the multipurpose walk. The dedication to the City of that area was a direct result of
acting on the input from the neighbors.
. The walk continues from Fairhaven all the way to LaVeta.
. There is an underground fuel line that is maintained by Kinder Morgan.
. The residences are placed well outside of the 30' easement required for the fuel line.
. All the mitigation plans required for a line of this type will be taken into consideration.
. They have painstakingly designed the grading of the site so there will be zero surface
runoff oriented toward the neighboring houses. Part of their effort has been to not raise
the adjacent grade which has been done at a cost to the developer.
. Most of the storm water that is created by the driveway is filtered.
. These houses will bring added value to the neighborhood.
Public input was provided as follows:
Brian Jacobs. address on file stated:
. He was disappointed with the late hour this item appeared on the agenda as others
would have been present at an earlier hour.
. He has a number of issues with this project: massing - in fact, the mezzanine is
basically a second story; the setback requirements, also the safety issue of the Kinder
Page 22 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
Morgan pipeline is very high on his list.
. When their homes were purchased, the multipurpose path was an attraction. The City
had earmarked that area as part of a bikeway path and they were envisioning an extension
of the Esplanade Walkway.
. The developer is proposing a 10' wide, straight, decomposed granite road below where
the houses are located and that is not aesthetically complimentary to the neighborhood.
. No landscaping is proposed.
. There will be problems created with runoff and maintenance.
. Where the houses are, the path becomes a dotted line on an asphalt road. That is not the
recreational resource that was envisioned when the work was done on the General Plan.
. He would like to see the Commission respect the amount of time and effort expended
for the General Plan.
Dottie Ronan. address on file stated:
. She was providing documents for review by the Commission. One of the documents
was a Department of Homeland Security document dated April 10,2006 that is basically
scolding Kinder Morgan and telling them they must comply with enhanced safety
standards and routine maintenance on this pipeline.
. She was there to urge the Commission to not adopt any resolution recommending City
Council approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
. The Staff Report was produced along with the Developers report and relied heavily on
the Developers report and it didn't appear to go outside any of the assertions put forth by
the developers consultant.
. The developers report only goes back to 1952 yet the historic use of the property by the
railroad dated back to 1902.
. Indiscreet chemical dumping may have occurred on the property and agricultural
chemicals may be on the property as a result of the railroad use; therefore, a much more
rigorous environmental report should be required.
. The Developers report states there is a concern for the health and welfare of the
construction workers as the construction occurs.
. She noticed there is discussion in the Developers report about only mitigating the
hazards related to the construction portion of the project. There is also a reference that it
will be paved over and there isn't going to be any lasting problem with the possible
chemical presence because it will be paved over. That doesn't apply to Lot B that is
being granted back to the City as an unlandscaped walking path. The City will have
some decomposed granite as a walking path with dirt on both sides.
. The Kinder Morgan pipeline is of paramount concern.
. She has done some research on Kinder Morgan and they have an abysmal safety record.
. Kinder Morgan doesn't really have an appropriate mapping of the pipeline.
. There was going to be potholing done in 16 areas where 2 pipelines exist (they would
pothole in 8 areas on each pipeline) with a Kinder Morgan representative on site. After
potholing just 3 areas, each site showed the pipeline was damaged due to external forces.
Consequently the Kinder Morgan representative stopped the potholing because they were
concerned with the safety issues associated with the pipeline and the fact there was
damage to it.
. Kinder Morgan takes a reactive approach to pipeline safety.
. A two level home among a lot of single level Eichlers is not in compliance with the
Design Infil1 Guidelines.
Page 23 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20,2006
Steven Ormenyi. address on file stated:
. He is the landscape architect for this project.
. The plant material is primarily California natives as well as some Mediterranean plants
from Australia and Europe for color.
. A lot of time was spent to develop the plan as they wanted a sustainable, drought
tolerant landscape for the whole area.
Chair Bonina asked if the California natives are indicative of the surrounding
neighborhoods. Mr. Ormenyi responded the surrounding neighborhoods have a lot of
exotic plants and lawns that require a lot of resources to maintain.
Chair Bonina asked if the landscape plan is for the front of the home as well as what is
along the pathway. Mr. Ormenyi responded the area includes the side ofthe development
but does not extend all the way to the north of the site which is the walkway that would
connect to the County maintained walkway on the other side of Fairhaven. Chair Bonina
asked if that was the area that would be dedicated to the City. Mr. Ormenyi responded
affirmatively. Chair Bonina asked if there was a reason this is not planned to be
landscaped. Mr. Ormenyi replied that was basically the direction at this point in time.
John Butler. address on file stated:
. He would like the Commission to deny the zone change.
. One of his biggest fears is the movement of dirt on the pipeline.
. He reiterated the point made by Miss Ronan regarding the potholing being terminated.
. When he walks out of his back yard there are yellow tags 3' and 6' out. Supposedly
that is where the lines are. That is very close to his home and he thinks it is a problem
waiting to happen.
. On June 26th a petition was signed by 123 homeowners that did not want this
development to proceed.
. He feels the mezzanine is really a second story. Sight lines stating there is only a I'
grading difference are inaccurate. There is 3-1/2' on his lot alone.
. He hoped (if approved), the Commission would have a good conscience to sleep.
Kevin Wilkeson. address on file stated:
. His concern is to protect the character of the Eichler neighborhood.
. He thinks the scale and density of the buildings will negatively impact the
neighborhood; consequently, he would like to see the heights of the buildings reduced.
. rfthey can't be stopped altogether, he at least would like to see fewer houses built.
Tiffiny Mansouri. address on file stated:
. She would like to echo some of the concerns already made about this development:
the scale, massing, size of these houses, the loss of the Esplanade walkway and the safety
of the pipeline.
Joe Chrastka. address on file stated:
. He lives directly behind the development.
. He has a major concern over the pipeline.
. From his home he can see people on the pathway and this parcel is significantly higher
Page 24 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
than his lot.
. He had considered purchasing the parcel himself and the realtor was unable to obtain an
environmental impact study from the railroad as part of the condition of sale. They
refused to offer it. He went to the City as they were requiring it.
. The developer wishes to build these houses within 10' of the existing resident's rear
yards. The rear yard setback is 25' and that was part of the reason he wanted to buy this
parcel (so he could expand his own home).
. If the City takes over Parcel B they will have a lot of exposure (as will the taxpayers)
from any issues related to this parcel.
. He is concerned about privacy issues resulting from the new lots being 3' higher than
his.
. He asked that the Commission not approve this project and look at the detrimental
issues involved with the pipeline.
John Wolfe. address on file stated:
. Last week there was an interesting piece of equipment attached to one of the stand
pipes. It is a big yellow pipe that goes down into the ground. He thought it was there to
monitor gas leakage from the pipeline. Someone is measuring something.
. Landscaping is important. The path from Fairhaven down to 17th Street was the subject
of a community campaign to have the watering system fixed which was necessary to
preserve the landscaping that was in place.
. His property would abut the driveway of Pacific Grove. He has had access to that
driveway since the tract was built. Under common law there is easement by implication.
Every homeowner with a swimming pool and notable construction i.e fencing, was done
via that rear access. Loss of this access will have a negative impact on his property
value.
. He didn't see anything on the plans about fencing. Is there another fence behind his
that will create a dead zone where trash collects?
. He didn't see anything about proposed lighting which may affect his privacy.
. He suggested using the land for a park, extending La Veta Park or have a dedicated
Orange Grove as there is in Hart Park.
. He's not against houses per se but he would like continued access.
Steve Flanagan. address on file stated:
. His property abuts the proposed development.
. The rooflines of the Eichlers directly behind this development will be affected due to
the scale of the houses in this project.
. 60' is the minimum requirement for street frontage and these are going to be less than
that so at the very least he would hope the 60' requirement would be upheld.
. His house is at the comer of Lot I. He has 2 small children. There are over 20 children
in the area that he fears will be subjected to a dangerous environment due to excavation,
construction and the pipeline.
. He's scared of the pipeline as it is right now, even without development work being
done.
. No matter how hard you try to mitigate, people make mistakes, which could be
disastrous. He doesn't see any safe way to develop this property.
Page 25 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20,2006
Chair Bonina stated that based on the amount of concern expressed about the pipeline,
the Commission would need to understand more about it i.e., Phase I---that research has
been done to understand what occupied the site and Phase II---that some borings were
done to understand what is in the ground.
Mr. Hedaegh responded that they have taken Phase I a step further and they did lO
additional soil samples which were anodized; "The analytical results suggest that this
site is not adversely affected by the historical agricultural or railroad operations" (see the
Environmental Report attached to the Commission package).
Mr. Hedaegh responded to other issues/concerns raised by the attendees as follows:
. He wanted to set a few issues straight. Someone had stated:
(1) that this is a pristine piece of property;
(2) that this has been a dumping ground for chemicals, railroad uses and pesticides.
Mr. Hedaegh stated neither one of those statements is true-there is absolutely no
evidence whatsoever to support those statements. The reality is this parcel was a switch
station. The Mitigation Plans were therefore very simple plans that consisted of dust
control through watering of the site.
. People are currently trespassing on the site. It is being used to drive RV's and boats
into the back yards of the adjacent homes. There is evidence of children building ramps
and using it for dirt bike riding. The use of the site is completely unsupervised. There is
trash there.
. The yellow tags are tracers. The potholing element is part of the mitigation plan that
Kinder Morgan requested the developer to do. That is normally done during the course
of construction. They wanted to get ahead of themselves because the project has been in
the City for 1-1/2 years. The potholing was started with continuous inspection. The
damage was not done as a result of the potholing operation; there was existing damage to
the corrosive control coating of the pipes.
. The potholing was not stopped out of fear; it was stopped as a result of the developer
wanting Kinder Morgan to pay for it.
. Kinder Morgan stopped the 3'd potholing as a result of them discovering eXlstmg
damages. It was Mr. Hedaegh's opinion that this development actually sheds more light
on the existing condition of the pipeline.
Chair Bonina asked for confirmation that they are not moving forward due to no financial
assistance from Kinder Morgan. Mr. Hedaegh replied that as part of the mitigation plan,
during construction one of the items Kinder Morgan is asking is that the location of the
pipes be verified. That is a very routine thing and they have placed the tracers for the
developer. Kinder Morgan provides a field person to do continuous inspection during
potholing. The developer will have surveyors and their own contractors that specialize in
potholing and are sanctioned by Kinder Morgan. What happened is during the potholing,
Page 26 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
Kinder stopped operation for necessary repairs. The cost of mobilizing another team to
go back to the site became a financial issue. The developer wanted to go back to Kinder
Morgan and assign responsibility so if additional repairs are to be done it would be clear
who would be incurring the costs for the team to go back.
Chair Bonina asked if Kinder Morgan had finished the potholing. Mr. Hedaegh
responded the potholing would be done during construction.
Mr. Hedaegh addressed the comments made about the character of the homes as follows:
. They went before the DRC and the DRC acknowledged that they intentionally did not
mimic the Eichler homes.
. The Eichler homes currently sit over 120' away from the backside of the proposed
houses.
. A lot of the neighbors that spoke on behalf of this project are not available at this
meeting.
. The houses on the east side of the Pacific Grove property are 10' higher than the
proposed houses. One of the neighbors pointed out at the DRC meeting that his home
looks into the Eichler homes as his home is over 12' higher than the existing Eichler
homes. A model of a home facing the Eichler homes was shown to the Commission.
. The proposed mezzanine is 300 sq. ft., on the front of the home, looking toward the
East. Given the cost of this development you can't build houses that are 2500 sq. ft.
Chair Bonina asked if there was access to the mezzanine area. Mr. Hedaegh responded
there is access from the living room to the mezzanine. Chair Bonina asked if the
mezzanine area was habitable. Mr. Hedaegh replied affirmatively.
Chair Bonina asked if the 1.6 acres (Lot B) is the portion that goes from Fairhaven to the
node where the housing is located. Mr. Hedaegh responded "precisely". Chair Bonina
asked if that area was buildable. Mr. Hedaegh replied it is not, as it is only 40' wide and
once the setbacks are figured, it would not be buildable.
Commissioner Bonina stated that due to the late hour and the amount of concerns of the
neighbors and the questions he still had, he was going to propose a motion to continue
this project to the next meeting. Commissioners Steiner and Imboden agreed.
Commissioner Imboden stated he applauded the Eichler homeowners for attending and
he noted that none of them complained about the style of the homes.
It was agreed to continue the project to December 4, 2006.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked Staff to provide additional insight into the fol1owing:
(1) The rear yard setback is based on a minimum of9S0' of usable open space. That
space is not visible on the plans, so please provide clarification.
(2) Please provide confirmation that the portion being dedicated to the City is in fact
a dedication that the City wants as it may be more appropriately maintained by
HOA or somebody else, rather than the Orange taxpayers.
(3) There are several mature Eucalyptus trees on the site yet the largest tree on the
landscape plan is a 36" box. Perhaps the tree replacements may not be
appropriate.
Page 27 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2006
(4) The slope on the east side of the site is quite large (perhaps 8' tall) and there
doesn't seem to be any detail on the plans of the retaining wall or cross sections.
The bike path and parking may not be achievable due to the fact that a temporary
construction easement may be necessary from the adjacent neighbors to build a
retaining wall. Several large trees will need to be removed to construct the wall.
(5) Some of the neighbors appear to have encroachments onto the property i.e.
staircases and terraced gardens, please confirm if these are in fact encroaching.
If they are, will they need to be removed and who will remove them?
(6) Please advise if the bike lane depicted on the plan is the same location as the on-
street parking or is it a separate bike lane?
Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz suggested Staff focus on returning with the answers
to some specific questions. Mr. Sheatz added that even though it is within the purview of
the Commission to reopen the public hearing, if Staff brought back those questions and
answers then the public hearing wouldn't have to be reopened.
The issues to be reviewed were recapped by the Commission as follows:
1. the grading issues as it relates to the existing homes
2. the environmental concerns
3. the rear setback as it relates to the open space requirement
4. the bike path, the walking path
5. The 1.6 acres to be dedicated: Is it something the City wants? What kind of costs
does it come with? What is the long term liability associated with it? Will the
developer provide some landscaping on the portion of land being dedicated to the
City?
6. Does the mezzanine constitute a second story (what does the Building Code say?)
7. How does the private drive intersect to LaVeta?
8. What kind of lighting will be used? Assurances need to be provided it will not
shine into the yards of the existing residents.
Chair Bonina stated he was more inclined to allow further public discussion simply
because as these questions get answered, more questions will surface.
Chair Bonina reiterated the motion to continue this project to the next regular scheduled
meeting on December 4, 2006.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Bonina made a motion to adjourn the next regular scheduled meeting on December
Page 28 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4, 2006.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
None
November 20, 2006
MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 11:30 p.m.
Page 29 of29 Pages