Loading...
2006 - February 6 Planning Commission Minutes c.. 0l50D~Gt ,;;).3 February 6, 2006 Minutes Planniug Commission City of Orange February 6, 2006 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, and Bonina Commissioner Enderby Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner Anne E. Fox, Contract Staff Planner Jennifer McDonald Le, Senior Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Cyndi Chadwick, Recording Secretary IN RE: COMMISSION REORGANIZATION: Chair Bonina began by stating this item would have to be continued due to the absence of one of the Commissioners. Chair Bonina moved to continue this item to either the first next available date and/or when there is a full Commission, whichever comes first. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: INRE: INRE: Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett None None Enderby MOTION CARRIED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 2005 NOVEMBER 7, 2005 AND NOVEMBER 21, 2005. Commissioner Pruett moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Page I Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2006 Commissioner Bilodeau seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett None None Enderby MOTION CARRIED INRE: NEW HEARINGS: Chair Bonina mentioned that Items 2, 3, and 4 would be heard in reverse order. (4) APPEAL NO. 505-06 - NORTH ORANGE DEL RIO LAND, LLC - AN APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION ON A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE (VARIANCE NO. 2155-05) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMBINATION RETAINING/PERIMETER WALL AT A HEIGHT EXCEEDING THAT PERMITTED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE DEL RIO PLANNED COMMUNITY. THE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GLASSELL STREET BETWEEN RIVERDALE AND LINCOLN AVENUES (DEL RIO PLANNED COMMUNITY). THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA. Commissioner Bilodeau recused himself from this item. Mr. Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner provided a full reading of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission. He stated that Staff recommended upholding the appeal and approving the variance based on the unique circumstances of the variance's project's topography. The original area sloped to the southeast, and since this proj ect was being built after the surrounding area had been approved and developed and to meet existing design standards for sewer flow and storm drains, it was required that this portion of the site be raised to flow to the northwest so that the storm drain water can enter the river and the sewer flow can go into pipes that have existing capacity on Lincoln and adjacent to the river. He explained the Design Review Committee did not review this request because they originally considered the block wall and approved the use of the split-phase block that was being considered. He added the DRC also reviewed and approved the Landscaping Plan for the perimeter and the interior of the project, and the proposed materials used along the perimeter of the wall that was added is the same as used elsewhere in the Del Rio Planned Community. He mentioned there were nine letters of support which included the adjacent property owners. He stated that the Planning Commission's decision on this matter is final unless appealed to the City Council. Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2006 Mr. Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates. 18101 Yon Karman Avenue. Suite 1260. Irvine. CA. He stated he had provided the City with a letter as well as a booklet describing the proposal before the Commission. He mentioned that Staff had been extremely helpful and cooperative. He explained they had met with the Engineering and Public Works Departments on how to sewer and drain the property. He stated at that time, he had a proposal for a sewer lift station, which they had discussed with the City, and the City believed this was not their preferred alternative. He added as a by-product, they ended up having to request the variance before the Commission tonight. He mentioned there was also a substantial increase in the landscaping, and in the area where the wall mav be the highest there is a three foot planter area with five feet back, and then it goes up another 12 feet, at worst case. He explained they created the planter to minimize any impact of the wall. He said although a 10 foot wall is permitted (per Staffs report) essentially, there is nothing in excess of 10 feet that would be solid, and in most cases, it's less than 10 feet. He further explained what they actually added was a decorative barrier which was done intentionally not to impact their neighbors adversely. He pointed out that although he was not present at the meeting with the Zoning Administrator, after reading the minutes, he thought there were two issues raised; one was noise which was addressed in the Staff Report, and the noise issue was not an impact. He also mentioned the land-use compatibility. He said they had looked at light and shade impact, and in both instances, the structures are the impact of shade in that area, not the actual wall, and would not be an adverse impact. He said his team of architects, planners, etc. would be happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Imboden mentioned the trees being planted on the adjacent property to help mitigate the height of the wall. He asked if there was agreement between the property owner and the appellate for the maintenance of those trees. Mr. Elfend replied that those trees would be maintained by the property owner. Commissioner Imboden said on the rendered elevations, it shows Evergreen and deciduous trees on private property, but when he looked on the plan, they did not appear to be there. Mr. Ed Dahl. Summers, Murphy and Partners. 34197 Coast Highway. Dana Point. He said that along Glassell, the wall is articulated back and forth so there would be street trees and trees within the articulated portions. He continued that the representation would have the tubular steel fencing on top with a masonry wall and there might be an opportunity behind the wall to have trees, and it would be a layering effect. He said the foreground was moving forward, but they would continue to develop what was beyond that. Chair Bonina asked Mr. Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, to provide some history of this Item. Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2006 Mr. Hohnbaum explained that the site was a quarry site, and the County had a plan to reclaim the site which would have made it an open space area, and would have drained to the center and formed a pond where it matriculated into the ground as rainwater dissipated. He said there were previous developments proposed with lift stations for sewage and storm drain water. He stated the City of Orange has about two or three of these types of lift stations that are in unusual places and usually only allow this where there is no other alternative. He said in this case, they felt very strongly that the alternative was to fully reclaim the site and get the grading up so the flows for both sewer and storm drain would flow by gravity. He continued in case of a power outage, these lift stations would not be a critical point in the health, safety and welfare for the neighborhood. There are minimum slope standards for these types of facilities, and need to self-clean and flow on their own. He believes as a result of the final grading to achieve the minimum standards, they are not over-steepening the slopes. Chair Bonina asked for clarification about the setbacks of the proposed buildings on the property. Mr. Ravmond Takahiro. Fusco Engineering. 16795 Yon Karman. Irvine. He stated in Planning Areas Three and Four, the setback from the building to the property line is a minimum of 10 feet. Chair Bonina asked if these were two-story buildings. Mr. Takahiro responded this was correct. Chair Bonina asked the applicant to clarifY the landscape treatments along Glassell and Lincoln between the properties. Mr. Elfend stated there were three areas involved. The first one was by the access to the site off of Glassell. He said this was a flat area as indicated by the Landscape Architect, where there is an undulated wall with cutouts. He said when the wall height was increased; they wanted to do some greater landscaping than what had been originally proposed. He continued with the second area; where it juts in and out of Glassell. He explained this was the area where they paid the most attention. He said there was a flat wall, but after speaking with some of the neighbors, they added a three-foot planter with a five-foot back with approximately a seven-foot wall with a maximum five-foot decorative glass or wrought iron wall. He added that off of Glassell, there would be the standard trees with the wall and raised planter with a planting area of a minimum 24 inch box to 36 inch box trees if they can work in that area. He mentioned the association would maintain these trees. The third area would be in the Lincoln area next to the church. The applicant would plant some trees on the church side. The last area would be the access area off of Lincoln where it is adjacent to the car port. He stated it was a very narrow area between the car port and the wall, and no area for planting. Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2006 Chair Bonina asked if the enhanced landscape area behind Orange Christian Assembly would be maintained by the association. Mr. Elfend responded no, this would be maintained by Orange Christian Church since it was on their property, and they had agreed to this. Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Phil Lucere, 3141 Driftwood St.. Orange. He began by stating he supported this program. He continued in regard to the Del Rio Wall Variance, he wanted the Commissioners to visualize an unkept, chain-link fence, overgrown with weeds, plastered with outdated political and/or garage sale signs, backed-up with untrimmed oleander bushes, etc. He stated this is what he has been looking at for 27 years in that neighborhood. He stated a housing development has come in and will change all of this with a well designed wall that will be much higher than what was originally planned, and what appears to be great landscaping. He urged the Commission to approve this Variance. Mrs. Stacy Kochinowski. Pyramid Autism Center. 2830 N. Glassell, Orange. She stated that two years ago, their school moved from Huntington Beach to Orange. She was concerned about the number of houses to be built in this area, and when Mr. Cunningham had met with her, one of her first questions she asked was if the wall could be built higher due to privacy and security concerns for the students. She stated she was in favor of this proj ect. Mr. Mike Shortel. 3116 River Mist Circle. Orange. He stated he was involved in the Del Rio Project since Mr. Cunningham came on board a couple of years ago. He said he has lived at his address since 1986 or '87. He cited what Mr. Lucere spoke of previously, and he was definitely in favor of the new neighbors coming in. He added that although he had reservations in the beginning about the wall variance, those fears were alleviated when he saw how the plans were for landscaping it, and by placing either glass or wrought iron on the top part of the wall. He thought it made it more aesthetically pleasing, and so he was in favor ofthe project. Mr. Larry Trabew. 3139 River Mist Circle. Orange. He stated he had lived there for 27 years. He was pleased with the Del Rio project, and they had kept the neighborhood informed as well as keeping the streets clean. He also mentioned the land-fill mess for many years, and he was glad to see it go away. He also had reservations about the higher wall, but after seeing the plans, he was in support of it, and hoped the Commission would be for it as well. Mrs. Mignon Mitchell. 2932 N. Glassell, Orange. She stated she represented the apartment building on the corner. She wanted to make sure that the wall that was around the perimeter of their building was the same as it was in the plans they originally saw. Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2006 She specifically referenced Section M as a section of solid wall at six foot one inch, with the remainder on top to be tubular or plexi-glass. She wanted to bring to everyone's attention at the Del Rio Project that an agreement had not been worked out in regard to the easement or maintenance of the wall or CC & Rs that should go with it. She did not have anything in regard to the drainage plan because it is at the patios of seven apartments, and wanted to be sure that the planters there would be draining away from the apartments, and this was her main concern. Otherwise, she stated, she was for the project. Mr. Elfend stated that Mr. Cunningham had communicated with Ms. Mitchell on several occasions in addition to communicating with her attorney on several occasions. He said they had provided the most up to date information, and had discussed the drainage issues on several occasions. He stated the drainage would not impact their property. As far as maintenance, they will maintain it. He added there had been previous discussions with her and all the issues had been resolved. He mentioned that Ms. Mitchell had indicated her support, and hopefully his responses would satisfY her. He wanted to clarify the size of the planter, and said it would be three feet by three feet. Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Imboden stated that looking back at the minutes and listening to what was presented tonight, he asked for justification of why this was not approved when it was originally applied for. Chair Bonina stated if Commissioner Imboden was asking on what basis did the Zoning Administrator deny this request. Ms. Roseberry explained that based on the information before the Zoning Administrator at that time, he felt he could not make the findings. She further explained that the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission look at the same findings when looking at a Variance, so he was looking at the finding where it talks about the strict application ofthe Zoning Ordinance could be found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties and that the Variance granted would assure that the adjustment does not constitute a grant of special privileges, and with the information he had in front of him, it was Staffs understanding that he felt he could not make the findings. Commissioner Pruett moved to adopt Resolution No. PC 09-06 upholding the Appeal No. 505-06 approving Variance No. 2155-06 to allow the construction of a combination perimeter retaining wall with a maximum height of 15 feet along Glassell easterly and southerly boundaries on the Del Rio Project. He added that in terms of the findings, the most significant one was the Public Works Staffs recommendation that the site be resurfaced for drainage towards the river and there is the gravity flow for both sewage and storm drain water. He added if there was the use of pump stations and there was some failure, it would be catastrophic for that neighborhood in terms of approving it Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2006 without this. He believed the findings justified the need to re-grade the lot, and then could move forward with the retaining wall as well as the wall heights. He agreed that the glass and the wrought iron at the top of the fence softened the appearance as well as the landscaping. Commissioner Imboden concurred and seconded the motion. Chair Bonina stated the conditions had changed and this was a good collaboration between Staff and the applicant to solve the issues and problems. He felt the applicant had stepped up to address the visual along Glassell and Lincoln along with the contiguous properties. He wanted to endorse this project also. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Pruett None Commissioner Bilodeau Commissioner Enderby MOTION CARRIED (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2558-05, BARBARA SOBEL - THE LINCOLN INSTITUTE. A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A SCHOOL OF MASSAGE WITHIN AN EXISTING TENANT SPACE, WITHIN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 622 EAST KATELLA AVENUE. THIS ITEM IS CA TEGORICALL Y EXEMPT FROM CEQA. Ms. Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner, provided the Staff Report to the Commission. She provided a greater analysis for the Commission's consideration of the parking requirements than what was submitted in the Staff Report because Staff wanted to recommend some additional modifications to the Conditions that were included in the Draft Resolution. She explained that one of the things considered was the proposed use of the school of massage did not operate similarly to other trade schools or business schools or adult education. She added this was because they typically use massage tables, which take up a larger square footage than other types of vocational schools. She also stated the City's parking ratio considers these types of schools based on a ratio of one space for every 35 square feet, and this would be typical space allocation for desk and chair. She said these types of uses although much larger than the proposed use, there are colleges and universities that offer this type of technical training as well as part of their curriculum. Chair Bonina opened up the Public Hearing. Mrs. Barbara Sobel. 1544 E. Palm Avenue. Orange. She thanked Staff for their help, and for coming up with better parking numbers for them. She stated she was the owner and Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2006 director of the Lincoln Institute of Body Therapy for five years, and provided some personal background to the Commission. She explained that they trained professional massage therapists. They do not train in the far eastern tradition. She stated they focused on sports massage, deep tissue, and therapeutic modalities. She said they worked with the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation for the State of California and trained blind and hearing impaired students as well. She added a fair percentage of their students were visually impaired and were looking for a better location that is safer for these students. Presently, they were in a building in two suites; one upstairs and one downstairs and were looking for connectivity for better flow. Chair Bonina asked ifthere were any age restrictions relative to students. Ms. Sobel replied yes there were. She stated their policy states adult, and have had one college-bound 17 year old with parental consent within the past five years. Mr. David Sobel. 1544 E. Palm Avenue. Orange. He stated he had been married to the applicant for 22 years. He said he was currently a social worker. He added that his wife was one of the hardest working people he knew, and was dedicated to what she does and was committed to teaching and training people to enhance their life. Mr. Vincent Shule. 2333 E. Everett. Orange. He stated he was a resident of Orange for six years. He added he started attending Lincoln Institute about a year ago. He had researched many schools, and chose Lincoln based on the flexibility of their schedule as well as the programs they offered. He appreciated the instruction. Mr. Jim Hawkins. Lee & Associates, 701 S. Parker St.. Orange. He stated he represented the property owner and had been working on this project since March 2005. He said this was a unique property that offered some challenges. He explained when they marketed the property, they made it available to physical therapy use, and contacted almost every physical therapist in the Orange, Santa Ana and Tustin areas. They also marketed to home furnishings, and this type of use. They had some offers, but found out that the style of the building as well as the upcoming ground lease presented some challenges to having it remodeled to increase the rents. He stated he met with Staff in August to present this proposal to them with the understanding it would need a Conditional Use Permit and wanted to know the challenges this would present. They made the decision to choose to finalize the lease with Mrs. Sobel in October and they have been going through this process. He stated the sooner they could get the applicant in as a tenant, the better as vagrants had started to move into the vacant building. Mrs. Robin Caradav. 6003 Deerford Street. Lakewood. She stated she was a successful graduate of Lincoln Institute. She was also a registered dental assistant for the State of California. She currently held a license for massage therapy in the cities of Anaheim and Orange, and currently works at St. Joseph Hospital in the Wellness Center. She pointed out that the training she received at Lincoln Institute helped her secure her present Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2006 position, and gave her a well-paid position with a generous compensation program. Mr. Garv Appel. Attorney and Engineer. 18301 Irvine Blvd.. Tustin. He stated he had been retained by Mrs. Sobel to assist her with this project. He thanked Staff for an excellent report. Commissioner Bilodeau thought there was an issue on charging for the massages, and did not know if this was an ongoing issue. Mrs. Sobel responded that they had been asked by the police department to obtain a Establishment Permit and Operator's License, and this had been done. Mr. Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney wanted to clarifY if the applicant had applied for these permits, and the applicant replied they had obtained these permits. Chair Bonina asked Commissioner Bilodeau ifhis question had been answered. Commissioner Bilodeau said it was his understanding the applicant had been told there could not be a charge if someone received a massage from one of the students in a clinical atmosphere. He asked the applicant if this was cleared up to her satisfaction. Mrs. Sobel replied that yes, and she would work with the Police Department ifthey continue to feel that a change to the Municipal Code is necessary. Mr. Sheatz stated his understanding was the applicant was told in order to charge, she would need to get a Massage Establishment Permit. He asked ifthis was correct. Mrs. Sobel responded that she had obtained a Massage Establishment License as well as an Operator's Permit. Ms. Fox explained that the Police Department did not have a problem with the applicant. However, she stated there were Conditions ofthe Establishment Permit that would preclude a fee if the massage is being given by a student. She added that until the Ordinance is amended or pursued with the City Attorney's Office. She pointed out the Establishment License does exist, and Mrs. Sobel would be able to administer a massage and charge a fee for that as long as it was subordinate to the operation of the school. But, the issue ofthe students has not been resolved because this would be an Amendment. Commissioner Pruett mentioned this was outside of their purview. Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Bilodeau made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2558-05, establishing a School of Massage at a property located at 622 East Katella Avenue. This Page 9 Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2006 project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion. Mr. Sheatz pointed out that in her presentation, Ms. Fox had addressed issues to amend Condition No. Three and Condition No. Four. He wanted to know if the maker ofthe motion included these proposed Amendments to the Conditions. Commissioner Bilodeau replied yes. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Pruett, and Imboden None None Commissioner Enderby MOTION CARRIED (2) UPDATE TO THE CITY OF ORANGE LOCAL CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES. THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES REQUIRES LOCAL AGENCIES TO ADOPT "OBJECTIVES, CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES" TO IMPLEMENT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEQA STATUTE AND THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES (STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15022). THE CITY'S LOCAL CEQA GUIDELINES HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE 1999 AND NEED TO BE REVISED TO KEEP UP TO DATE WITH THE CEQA STATUTE AND LOCAL PRACTICES. Ms. Jennifer McDonald Le, Senior Planner, provided the Staff Report to the Commission. She added that Ms. Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner was there to assist in answering any questions. Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Jeff Frankel. OTPA. address on file. He said he was speaking on behalf of Old Towne Preservation Association (OTPA). He stated that members of the OTPA had met with Staff last Friday afternoon, in part, to discuss the local CEQA guidelines update. He added that on the surface, the changes seemed to be appropriate, but they did not have adequate time to review the information to access the implications. He stated they were disappointed they did not receive the information regarding these changes before that meeting so they may have been better prepared to discuss the updates. He said they welcome provisions that will provide increased review of projects dealing with these resources, they do have some questions and concerns. He added the Old Town Design Standards had not been updated since 1999, and OTPA has been pushing for an update of Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2006 the Old Town Design Standards for quite some time with no movement in this direction. He mentioned the Staff Report states that the proposed revisions are consistent with CEQA statutes, but may not be consistent with the Old Town Design Standards, and the Standards may be updated in the near future. He asked what 'near future' meant. It was his understanding that the update of the Standards would not occur until after the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance update is complete. He continued that the Staff Report states the Community Development Department would adopt internal procedures to address any inconsistencies. He asked if a Preservation Planner is not involved, who would be involved in developing these procedures. He believes it needs to be an individual with adequate knowledge of historic preservation and the Old Town Design Standards. He pointed out the local CEQA guidelines states the Community Development Director or designee will determine whether a project falls in the Exemption category. He thinks it should be a requirement that the individual making these determinations is well versed in the City's Old Town Design Standards, the Secretary of Interior Standards and has a background in historic preservation. He also mentioned it is stated that this proj ect is categorically exempt from CEQA, and asked if there were no provisions provided in CEQA that address these local updates. Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing. Chair Bonina asked Staff if there was a process within CEQA that would address updating the CEQA Ordinances. Ms. Pehoushek replied that the noticing of the update to the CEQA guidelines, because this is a Citywide application, typically the notice is put in the local paper providing an adequate notice. She then addressed the issue of the Preservation Planner. Ms. Roseberry interj ected and stated there was no Preservation Planner or Historic Planner. She said there was a Senior Planner who does most of his work with Old Towne. She wanted to make this distinction before Ms. Pehoushek continued. Ms. Pehoushek stated that updating the local CEQA guidelines is a comprehensive update. She said the focus of the preservation component was looking at the language of CEQA and the CEQA guidelines in relationship to the language that is currently in place both in the CEQA guidelines as well as the Old Towne Design Standards. She said the adjustments that were made to the document reflect the language in CEQA, and as they've worked through the CEQA guidelines, these were internally reviewed by Mr. Dan Ryan, the Senior Planner. So, Mr. Ryan as well as Ms. Roseberry had involvement in the CEQA guidelines. She then spoke of the Old Towne Design Standards update. She explained this was on their radar for quite some time, and this was linked to the rezoning of certain areas in Old Towne that are anticipated to come out of the General Plan Update, but this was still premature. She said they would address this when they have an officially acted on the General Plan Update, but there were many intricacies woven into the Old Towne Design Standards, and to do an update on a piece meal basis Page 1 ] Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2006 would further make it a more complex effort. Their plan is to initiate the update to the Old Towne Design Standards following completion of the General Plan Update, and the Zoning modifications that would result from the General Plan Update would be undertaken concurrently with the Old Towne Design Standards Update. Chair Bonina asked what the timeframe was for this. Ms. Pehoushek stated it would be about a year from now assuming they continue with their General Plan schedule of adoption of the plan in the fall. She said they would do some Zoning and General Plan map consistency review towards the end of this year, and initiate the Zoning Update and Old Towne Design Standards in early 2007. Chair Bonina asked if any of the CEQA work pre-empted the Old Towne Design Standards in terms ofrestricting it. Ms. Le replied that the local CEQA guidelines is a Procedural document. It's meant to outline procedures, and does not give any design standards or do anything that would limit their ability to implement design standards as part of the Old Towne Design Standards update. She explained if anything, the proposed revisions refocused the attention on the Old Towne Design Standards and whatever they are, it would be appropriate to address the Old Towne Design Standards as a separate issue from the CEQA guidelines, although they are related. She pointed out the CEQA guidelines are a procedural document, and this is very different from the functions of the Old Towne Design Standards. Ms. Roseberry stated that as a policy any projects that come through current planning, i.e., an exemption or a Negative Declaration or an EIR, she is the one that makes the final determination. She added that sometimes she confers with Mrs. Angus depending on the project. She stated that on a Negative Declaration, her signature is on this document because she believes this is adequate to present to the Planning Commission or to the public. Additionally, E.LR.s do not go out from current planning unless she has reviewed and approved them. She explained that it is her determination if there is a project in Old Towne; it depends on the complexity of the project how they choose to bring in various staff members. Commissioner Pruett pointed out that the changes proposed would assist Staff in procedural matters in which these projects are handled. Ms. Roseberry added this would be for any project because CEQA is a big document, and she did not think it was written by Planners so it could be very complex and there were many intricacies to it. She cited Ms. Le as well as Mr. Sheatz being the experts on this document. She explained that having the guidelines helps planners in their day-to-day workings, and having guidelines that are outdated doesn't help them because they end up looking at the guidelines and then look it up in CEQA, and double-checking with Ms. Le Page 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2006 and/or other planners. She stated it was used as a day-to-day tool to follow all the procedures and guidelines. Commissioner Pruett thought it was important to understand that the CEQA guidelines are for procedural matters, and the guidelines for the Old Town Design are standards to which they are trying to design or maintain the historic nature of Old Towne. Commissioner Imboden asked Staff about the proposed revised document, Page 14, Section 4A, 502.41g. He asked if this would include structures outside of Old Towne. He asked if these structures that were mentioned were put into the original survey that was forwarded to the California State Register. He said the survey he was looking at was more than five years old, so if this is being set up to apply to those properties, would they be captured accurately if the survey is outdated according to the document. Ms. Pehoushek replied that the properties outside of Old Towne were included in the 1992 survey. She added if those properties were actually forwarded, she would have to research this, but she had always considered this as a package deal and were part of the same database. Ms. Le stated the applicability of the CEQA guidelines addresses the language, and discusses the historical resources under CEQA includes those resources identified and Public Resources Code Section 5020.1 or per the other Public Resources Code Section. She explained in the first one, Section 5020.1, it discusses a local register of historical resources, and this is everything in the survey. So, even if the second section did not apply because of the five year time limit, the first section would capture those resources outside of Old Towne simply because they were included in the survey. Commissioner Imboden was concerned the implication was those outlying properties would fall under Local Register of Historic Resources, and he understood that they did not have designation of local landmark status. Ms. Le replied that she would do some research to make sure that these properties were captured. She thought that the Local Register of Historic Resources included the Historical Building Inventory even though it isn't technically a local landmark, it is a City approved inventory of historical resources, but she would check. Commissioner Imboden stated he would like clarification of this before it went to the City Council. He added that he has dealt with this issue many times with structures that were included in City inventories, but were not given any kind of designation. He wanted to make sure the properties that should be included are captured. Ms. Pehoushek stated that some of the properties that are listed outside of the district do have local landmark rating. Page ]3 Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2006 Commissioner Pruett believed that two different issues were being discussed. He believed one was to be listed on the local register for historical resources that the City Council has approved, and the other is landmark status. He asked if landmark status was a whole different issue. Commissioner Imboden stated not necessarily. His understanding is that there are a number of properties that lay outside of Old Towne that were part of the original survey. They were not part of the Old Towne nomination that went to the State office nor do they currently have local landmark status or any type of designation. He said they had only been inventoried. Ms. Pehoushek replied that under CEQA if the City has taken action to adopt a local inventory that's considered the recognized list. Mr. Sheatz stated that this expands the list to what it actually should be under CEQA because it doesn't necessarily have to have the landmark status itself as long as it appears on an officially designated list. Commissioner Imboden wanted to clarify that a local designation of a historical resource is not the same thing as an inventory list. Ms. Pehoushek pointed out that the previous version of the document simply makes a passing reference to the Public Resources Code Section. She said with the updated document, they've actually taken the language from the Public Resources Code Section so it's not buried in some research and put it before the planners to review. Commissioner Imboden explained that simply because something is listed on a city inventory does not place it on a Local Register of Historic Resources. He said this was not connected in any way to a historic survey. He further explained that buildings can be surveyed whether they're eligible for nomination to a local register or not. He stated it was simply a survey of the structure itself, and just because a survey is done, doesn't mean any type of designation is given to that property. His concern is that they're talking about local register designation, which there is a number of structures outside of Old Towne that do not have that designation although they were inventoried. He was not sure they are being captured under those criteria. Also, they have to qualify through four of the four criteria that follow, and it is saying if the inventory is more than five years old, that is does not apply. So, his concern is if their intent is to capture these projects that have been inventoried outside of Old Towne, and they do not have designation as a cultural resource, he is concerned they won't be captured because the inventory they show up on is more than five years old. Mr. Sheatz responded that by law, they do not necessarily have to be designated as that resource, but must be on a list. He added if they are inventoried and on a list, and someone felt they would merit historical significance, even if they don't apply and go Page 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2006 through and receive the historical significance, as long as they're on that list, and it is officially adopted sanctioned by the City, they're protected. He mentioned he has seen this before, and been addressed at meetings where it's worked against the property owner. He stated that their appearance on the list was enough. Commissioner Imboden. said these items were not on the list, and thought these were two different issues. Again, he wanted clarification on this issue. Ms. Pehoushek wanted to address the question about updating the survey. She said this was being done under the General Plan update, and needed to go through the formalities as recognizing this as the officially updated survey. Commissioner Imboden asked about Page 16 under Section A, CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. 2nd paragraph. He wanted clarification on this section. Ms. Le stated the intent of the language was that the Old Towne Design Standards provides some specific design standards. She said there could not be an adverse change to a historic resource, so they would check the language to make sure these things were consistent. Commissioner Imboden mentioned that is was brought up by Staff that outdated guidelines were very problematic. He was concerned about adopting the CEQA guidelines, however this would put another city document out of date with this update. Although it is to be updated in the near future, he stated this had been discussed for many years, and were looking at another year before the Old Towne Design Standards is updated. He stated this was the document that most people in the community turn to when they're looking for information on what they can or cannot do to their property. His concern was if the CEQA document was more stringent than the Design Standard, he believed it could be a potentially troublesome scenario where people work in a certain direction based on these standards only to find out that state law would prohibit them from doing this. He was concerned about the implication of the near future. He wanted a set date on when these document changes would come forward. He was less worried about the Design Standards and the possible rezone of Old Towne. He did not think these documents had to be concurrent. Commissioner Imboden wanted to state that he thought the City should move toward creating a Preservation Planner. He stated this was up to the Council to make this determination. He said that part of the issue is talking about things in the near future, and in the interim, the Community Development Department will adopt internal procedures, but there is no guarantee there is a Staff that is formally trained in preservation. Lastly, he requested the Chair to have the minutes forwarded to the Council prior to their discussion ofthis item. Chair Bonina stated he would do this. He added he did not completely agree with his Page 15 Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2006 comment regarding a Preservation Planner. He believed it would serve the City best if there were multiple planners with this level of expertise in the event there is a change in staffing; either volumes of projects coming in or planners that my go on vacation. Commissioner Bilodeau commented on the OTP A wanting more time to review the CEQA updates. He asked if Mr. Frankel meant he needed two more weeks or two more months. Mr. Frankel replied that they were not opposed to the updates, and did not have the opportunity to meet with the Preservation Committee to discuss it, not that they would propose any changes necessarily. He added they would have like a little bit of time to digest some of the information. He said it would have been nice to have the document a few days before the meeting so they could have had a better discussion, and become familiarized with the document. Chair Bonina asked Staff when the publication in the newspaper, and when was the actual document available for public review. Ms. Le replied it was 10 days before the Planning Commission meeting, but there was no formal public review process for an amendment to the CEQA guidelines. She said this was available in the Staff Reports, and these were available to the public. Ms. Roseberry stated that they generally don't release Staff Reports for back-up material unless it's required in advance of the Planning Commission receiving their packet. She said the OTP A received the document on Friday afternoon, and the PC packets were available the previous Wednesday. Commissioner Imboden commented he received the Summary on Wednesday, but did not receive the proposed changes until Thursday afternoon. Commissioner Pruett thought they should forward a Recommendation to Council and include the Minutes be a part of the package that is forwarded. He said they could include this in the Motion. He added this would provide the opportunity for OTP A to bring these issues before the Council. Chair Bonina wanted it emphasized that the Minutes would be needed quickly. Commissioner Pruett moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 06-06 which recommends to the City Council finding the project categorically exempt from CEQA and also recommends to the City Council approval of both Revisions to the City of Orange Local CEQA Guidelines and to include the Minutes of this meeting as a part of the package to be delivered to the Council for their meeting. Commissioner Imboden seconded the motion. Page 16 Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2006 YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Pruett, and Imboden None None Commissioner Enderby MOTION CARRIED Chair Bonina moved to adjourn this meeting to the next meeting on Wednesday, February 22, 2006. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Imboden and Pruett None None Commissioner Enderby MOTION CARRIED Page 17