2006 - December 4
~d50D.G'~'3
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
4 December 2006
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
None.
Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Mari Burke, Recording Secretary
Chair Bonina welcomed Commissioner Fred Whitaker to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he was very happy to have been appointed and expressed
his appreciation to the City Council for the opportunity to serve the City of Orange.
Congratulations were extended to Councilperson Bilodeau for his election to the City
Council.
INRE:
INRE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN:
(1) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-248, NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NO. 1775-06, AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 407-05 - WIMBLETON
COURT (JOHN C. NGUYEN)
A proposal to subdivide an approximate 1.5-acre parcel into 4 residential parcels. The
General Plan land use designation is Low Density Residential (LDR) and the zoning of
the site is Single Family Residential 7,000 sq. ft. (R-I-7) District. The site is located at
N/S Wimbleton Court E/O Old Chapman Avenue.
NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1775-06 was prepared to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed project. Staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission adopt this document as an adequate and complete assessment of
environmental issues related to the potential approval of this project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Item is being continued to the January 15,2007 meeting.
Chair Bonina made a motion to continue Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-248, Negative
Declaration Co. 1775-06, and Minor Site Plan Review No. 407-05.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
None MOTION CARRIED.
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
INRE:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(2) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 6, 2006.
Chair Bonina made a motion to approve the consent calendar.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner
None
Commissioner Whitaker
None
MOTION CARRIED.
INRE:
CONTINUED HEARINGS: None.
(3) 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 I-story (with mezzanine) single-family residences. A 30' wide private street
(Pacific Grove Lane) with stop-controlled access at La Veta to Fairhaven Avenue is
proposed. The site is located west of Esplanade Street and east of Woodland Street,
between La Veta and Fairhaven Avenue. This item was continued from the November
20, 2006 meeting.
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 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.
The Planning Commission had reviewed this proposal at the November 20, 2006 meeting
and requested clarification and additional information on several items and details
associated with the project proposal. Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur conducted a review
of those specific open items.
Page 2 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
Commissioner Steiner asked if the capacity of a secondary arterial highway is 15,000
trips per day (refer to Page 5 of 9, Par. 8 in the Staff Report). City Principal Civil
Engineer George Liang responded affirmatively. Commissioner Steiner asked what
current usage is. Mr. Liang responded it is 5,200 trips per day, approximately 1/3 of
capacity. Commissioner Steiner asked for confirmation that if the project were to go
forward that the increase in estimated trips is only 60 per day. Mr. Liang responded
affirmatively.
Commissioner Steiner asked for confirmation that the mezzanine is not considered a
second story accordingly to the Uniform Building Code. Ms. Thakur responded, "that is
correct, it is not a second story."
Commissioner Steiner asked Ms. Thakur if the condition of the eXlstmg mature
Eucalyptus trees is unhealthy? Ms. Thakur responded, "They are dying." Commissioner
Whitaker asked if there are areas such as in the easement where trees are not wanted.
Ms. Thakur responded that per discussions with Community Services, they indicated they
are not only not wanted on the easement, they are also not wanted on the trail due to
space and maintenance requirements.
Commissioner Steiner asked for confirmation that the Kinder Morgan pipeline runs from
Long Beach to San Diego and that during the course of that path there are numerous
times where residential areas surround it, and in the City of Orange specifically. Ms.
Thakur responded that is correct.
Commissioner Whitaker asked how much distance there is between the trail easement
and the garage door. Ms. Thakur responded the standard driveway runs 20'xI2'and the
project did meet this requirement.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if the Commission determined landscaping Parcel B was
an appropriate condition, why Community Services prefers hydro seeding as opposed to
imposing a condition of putting in mature plants. Ms. Thakur responded that by hydro
seeding and putting in the native species, less maintenance is required. The cost quoted
to maintain the plants is approximately $5,000 per mile, per year and there are not
sufficient funds in the budget to cover that expense. The Director of Community
Services, Marie Knight, stated when the project was reviewed with Staff one of the
concerns identified was the proposal would deviate from the standard which has been
implemented and they need to be concerned with long term maintenance costs as there
are insufficient funds in their budget to cover those costs.
Commissioner Whitaker stated that for aesthetics it would be better to plant native mature
trees and asked if they could live with a condition of hydro seeding natives why would it
be an issue to plant native mature as opposed to waiting for hydro seeding to take place.
Dana Robertson, City of Orange Park Superintendent, responded that hydro seeding
would establish much better over a wider area than a containered plant. Commissioner
Whitaker asked if there was an irrigation issue. Mr. Robertson stated they are depending
on annual rainfall.
Page 3 of23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
Public input was provided as follows:
Rose Homme. address on file stated:
. Her house is adjacent to one of the proposed houses.
. There is not enough room to safely build the quantity of homes they want to build.
. The burden of police, fire and safety access will be placed on the taxpayers.
. There doesn't seem to be enough room for a turnaround if there is one illegally parked
car.
. She is concerned with the safety issues regarding the Kinder Morgan pipeline raised at
the last meeting by Dottie Ronan.
. There are discrepancies in the plans i.e. the elevations that the homes on Woodlawn sit
at are significantly lower than the proposed homes to be built. (Pictures were provided).
. There is a discrepancy in the lot size and home size provided for the existing homes i.e.
her home sits on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot and is only 1785 sq. ft. This is very different from
what is being proposed.
. The roof line of her home only varies a maximum of 22" so the line of sight will be
very different. (Pictures were provided).
. The homes will be obtrusive at the 10' setback. (Pictures were provided at 10' and 20'
for comparison).
. The proposed height of the homes with the mezzanine is unacceptable. There will be
privacy issues as the existing homes are all glass in the rear.
. The proposed floor plan roofline will infringe on the existing homeowners style of
living as they will cut off the natural sunlight into their homes.
Diana Nichols. address on file stated:
. She and four other neighbors contacted have small children; consequently they were
unable to attend; however, they would love to be able to attend to be able to state the
same things.
. She has lived there for 9 years.
. She believes finally something positive will be happening with the back area.
. It is embarrassing to look back and see a mattress, trash and overgrown weeds.
. It is an opportunity for someone to give the area to the City.
. The style of homes being brought in will look equal to or better than what is already
there which will improve their property values.
. The opportunity shouldn't be squandered.
. Someone was seen in the area recently using the restroom.
. Until the area is cleared, people will be back there doing illegal things. There are no
sanctions for what is done.
. When you're at Fairhaven on the trail in the Santa Ana/Tustin area, it is a wonderful
opportunity for walking.
. You can walk your pets but you are accountable. There are bags for picking up after
your animal. In this area no one picks up anything.
. She lives in the middle and sees people coming and going that throw things over to her
area.
. She has had a person jump her fence, even though it is 20' -25' from the ground.
. To her it is an opportunity to be taken advantage of.
Page 4 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
Brian Jacobs. address on file stated:
. Originally the developer envisioned a path like Esplanade when he proposed this
project. Instead, what is proposed is a 10' wide decomposed granite road from Fairhaven
to the homes and then from the homes to La Veta what is proposed is a dotted line on
asphalt as a continuation of the Esplanade walking path.
. The Esplanade walking path is a wonderful recreational resource for the homes in the
area and what will happen is people will be on a lovely path and when they cross into
Orange there will be the decomposed granite road with weeds on either side. He didn't
think this would be a very good entry into the City of Orange. This doesn't reflect well
on the City of Orange and the City of Orange deserves better.
. He believes the City of Orange has determined they are deficient in having adequate
open space and more park space.
. He didn't think it was too much to ask to be able to continue on with the lovely path
already established and he feels the people of Orange have spent a great deal of time
establishing the General Plan.
. The City has spent a great deal of money establishing the General Plan and this whole
area is in the General Plan as a recreational resource.
. He would like the Commission to honor the work done on the General Plan and declare
this a recreational resource.
Florence Paul. address on file stated:
. She lives in North Tustin so she is not an Orange person; however, she has been asked
to give the Commission a little run down on her park.
. She calls it "her park" because she is completely responsible for the trail and park on
Esplanade from Fairhaven to 17th.
. It took her 2 years to convince the Board of Supervisors that the path was need. It is
actually called a linear park with a trail in it.
. After 2 years Roger Statton, Chairman of the Board Supervisors called her and said
"you made us buy that piece of property from the railroad".
. She responded "good now we'll develop it and I designed it."
. She was told when it went out for bid, who won the bid and how much they paid for it.
. They followed her instructions perfectly.
. It was opened in 1991.
. Today many people are using it from a number of different areas.
. North of her is Orange, with a path extending (practically from hers) across Fairhaven.
. Bill Campbell, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors gave her a map of what they were
going to do. The map was beautiful and showed a path from Fairhaven to go up and
around near LaVeta around to the school.
. She was happy about it and the next thing she saw was a for sale sign on the property.
. She called Bill to inquire what happened but he didn't know.
. Now the people of Orange want the path very badly and they deserve it.
. The people of Tustin are getting the one south of her from 17th down. Nothing has
been done though it has been talked about for a long, long time.
. She has a different campaign going.
. On the trail she got 450 signatures very easily to get one going north. A lot of the
signatures were from people of Orange, which gives you a little idea, of how many
people are using it.
Page 5 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
Chair Bonina stated the park was very beautiful and Ms. Paul's presentation was
followed by applause.
Dottie Ronan. address on file stated:
. She had a number of different points she wanted to make.
. Her property abuts one of the proposed residences.
. She has a nice view over her fence into the easement area. She took photographs and
superimposed a 12' height fence to see what it would look like from her back fence.
(Photographs were submitted for consideration).
. The highest point of her residence is only 11' 6". The document provided by the
developer claims that the average Eichler home height is 14'. That is not the case. In
fact, the starting rear portion of the proposed homes is 12', which is taller than the tallest
Eichler, and it rises up to 23', which is more than twice as tall as the tallest Eichler.
. She understands that a mezzanine need not be considered a second floor from an
architectural standpoint, according to the Uniform Building Guide. (She then read the
Merriam Webster definition ofa mezzanine.)
. Mezzanines are used more for storage in commercial buildings. They are really not
necessarily used in relation to a residential development. It really is another floor; it is a
living floor above another floor; it is two floors. (The photographs provided were
referenced).
. The mezzanine will be very imposing on the back of their property.
. The General Plan indicates a trail for the property, not a residential development.
. More importantly, she wanted to go back to the pipeline.
. Unfortunately there aren't any standards at the City, County or State level and even at
the Federal level with regard to setbacks from pipeline easement.
. There are two pipelines back there that are about 4' apart.
. From her back fence to the pipeline is 94'.
. If you're looking at about a 53' wide lot at the front and a 70' wide lot at the back and
you go out 100' you are on top of the pipeline.
. She had documentation from the National Academy's press (National Advisors on
Science Engineering and Medicine) and they actually quote a suggested standard by API
(a national trade association representing over 400 corporate members from America's
oil and natural gas industry) stating they recommend to all pipeline operators that no
residential development will occur within 50' of the pipeline.
. It is incumbent on the Commission that if there isn't a policy in place for the City of
Orange that they not rush to judgment and set a standard because this won't be the first
time this happens.
. She hoped the Commission would do a lot more homework before any decisions were
made.
John Wolfe. address on file stated:
. His property abuts the driveway or whatever the street will be called.
. He agrees with his neighbors wholeheartedly with respect to the problems this
development will entail.
. He has concern about access to the rear of his property.
. He believes he has a reasonable case to pursue easement by implication since he has
lived in his home 42 years and had access while the railroad was operating and after the
railroad ceased operation.
Page 6 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
. You could get the City to unlock a padlock so you could drive in with building
materials.
. The area has been used for RV storage and in some ways it is better then parking them
in front of your house or in your driveway.
. There are real losses to the value of his property ifhe loses access to that area.
. In the plans he looked at already, he didn't see anything that described fencing, gates or
landscaping that would preclude him from getting in and out of his back fence and he
would like to see that addressed.
Keith Martin. address on file stated:
. He would like to see the project continue.
. He and his girlfriend jog and bike around Orange and Santa Ana and he would think it
would be beneficial to see the trail continued through. It's a safe area and it would make
it safer.
. He lives in an Eichler area and he thinks the building of this style home would inspire
more people with Eichler's to keep them original in what they were intended to be.
John Welty. address on file stated:
. Where he lives he looks out onto the project.
. He has lived in the same residence for 43 years, which is up high on the Chipwood side.
. The property they will be building the homes on has been an eyesore through the years.
. There has been trash dumping, motorcycling, race cars around there. It has been a wild
place for 40-some years.
. He is pleased to see the progress they are trying to make to put in a housing tract, which
will look much better.
. He has seen the plans many times and thinks it will be beautiful.
. All of Orange is beautiful and this area has been an eyesore in a beautiful city.
. This project will be like setting a stone in a diamond ring; it will set it off and it will be
beautiful.
. He thinks it can be done with no problem. There will be quite a few headaches but they
will be ironed out.
. He would like very much to see the project done.
. Lots of people use the area as a dog run and don't clean up. There is already a doggie
park on Y orba and Chapman.
Joe Chrastra. address on file stated:
. He was one of the neighbors that went to the property with the tarp and pipes and tried
to figure out what 10' looked like away from their property wall and he thought a lot of
people were very surprised how big and obstructing it looked behind at 10' away.
. They took a few measurements to try to understand how they were getting (6) 7,000 sq.
ft.lots.
. He went to the City and got a zoning parcel map of the area and had a chance to look at
the project plans as well. He met with the Planner that is involved and one of the things
that she said was that the mezzanine does not qualify as a 2-story structure; however, in
the paperwork she provided he saw nothing that said anything specific to mezzanines.
He did see a section (17.14.090) that says "2-story living area, second story deck or
balcony may extend into the required rear yard setback no closer than 10' from the rear
property line only if the yard abuts a street, alley or permanent open space." He still
Page 7 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
scratches his head and tries to figure out where they get that a 2-story section where it's
the same as a 2-story doesn't qualify for a 2-story. To him it's the same thing.
. Because of the fact they are trying to squeeze 6 lots onto this parcel they are pushing
out the front of the lots into the front easement area that might be better used as a bike
path along the road. Part of the problem with doing it the way they are doing it is the on
street parking shown on the plans would be omitted if the striped bike lane went on there.
That would give the subject parcels, 2 driveway parking spaces and 2 in the garage
parking spaces and since the garage is typically used for storage, that reduces the parking
to 2 spaces in the driveway for a 3,000 sq. ft. house which he doesn't think is adequate.
. He wanted to thank the developer for unearthing a very serious and maybe major
problem with the protective coating on the pipeline.
Chair Bonina announced that generally he has the applicant describe their project first;
however, he purposely put the public speakers first this time so the applicant could
address some of the concerns raised.
The applicant, David Ayenehchi, stated he has been in business in various parts of the
City of Orange for 20+ years so that is how he encountered this property. It was for sale
for a very long time. He did not steal it or buy it cheap. He paid good money for it and
had a vision for it. The vision is very clear and it would have been beneficial for him and
the City. The window of opportunity however has unfortunately gone since the real
estate market is in the tank and not as it was 2 years ago when he purchased the property.
It is still a very good thing for the City and he is still willing to go forward with it if the
Commission is willing to cooperate with him and let it go through. Kinder Morgan was
raised on a number of occasions. He had a meeting with the City officials before he
purchased the property. He was told the pipeline is 3800 miles long. It goes through
various parts of the City. There are parts where this pipeline (Santa Fe Springs) has 18
wheeler trucks drive over it and the depth at that location is only 2'; unlike where this
location is 4'. There is no danger; the pipe can handle 3,000 psi. The water pipes under
the City are 60/80 psi. There is no way there is any danger to anyone. If anything, with
homes and driveways over it, it is made safer than the dumpster it is currently. He is a
graduate from Cal State Fullerton with an emphasis in architecture and he loved the work
of the architect he hired. He would love to live in one of the homes and maybe some day
he will. This property didn't fall in his lap; he knew what he was buying. Many others
had the opportunity to buy it. This is a match made in heaven, the homes can be built and
you can have the trail everyone is interested in.
Rezaali Hedaegh, the project architect stated he made notes based on the public
comments and briefly addressed them as follows:
. In reference to the multi-purpose walk: it was characterized as a road and in fact is a
10' wide, multi-purpose walkway. It is an extension of the existing Tustin tract. From
his work with the City he understands that in the not too distant future the idea is a bike
path will be added to it. It is not proposed (or meant) to be used as a road; however, the
City emergency vehicles may access it as a secondary exit. It is important to note it is
over 2,300' long and it is 40' wide pretty much throughout the entire length of it.
. In reference to the Kinder Morgan pipeline: they have contacted Kinder Morgan and
were provided the record of the entire pipeline as it runs through the City of Orange.
There are many, many instances where the pipe runs right in front of the property line.
Page 8 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
One of the exhibits provided by Kinder Morgan was shared with the Commission. This
was the portion that goes through Wonder Road and was a typical sample of where it
goes right in front of the homes. The question posed by Commissioner Steiner at the last
hearing with reference to how far the houses sit back was answered, "The actual houses
are sitting nearly 27' back from the property line."
. They have presented twice to the Design Review Committee who had interest in how
the profile of the house would affect the adjacent homes. Sight line is a very tricky issue
so he wasn't sure which images were presented by the public he just wanted to bring
attention to the sight line study, which was presented, to a body of experts, the Design
Review Committee, and it met with their satisfaction. They have been ultra sensitive to
how they mass this project.
. With respect to the trees: they looked at the trees that are present on the site and there
are no significant species or natives. The Eucalyptus trees are very short lived and it is
his understanding from their architect (with concurrence from City Staff) that these are at
the end of their life cycle and most are diseased. The reason they went with the type of
trees proposed is with regard to the pipelines that exist, they are not putting any trees
within the easement that would endanger or have root bases that would interfere with the
pipeline operation.
. The potholing is actually shedding light on the existing conditions of the pipeline. A
reference was made that all three potholes unearthed damage. That is not an accurate
representation, as only one of them unearthed the damage and it was damage to the rust
protective coating, which was pre-existing. There are mitigation plans in effect and the
project will be dealing with those lines, as they would with any other utility lines, to
ensure optimum care would be taken.
Chair Bonina asked if the elevations or grades in the sight line study were accurate for the
proposed property and the adjacent properties. Mr. Hedaegh responded the most accurate
information is on their Civil Engineer's drawings. What they had done is essentially
meet with the neighbors and learned they should not raise the height of the site. The site
has a tendency to slope to the south so in keeping with the existing grade, they took every
two pads, kept them where they are and lowered the other two pads by a foot. He did the
same thing with the last two. Effectively the run off will be zero. In addition, what they
did in working with the Civil Engineer is create a soil system that picks up the roof runoff
on every site, right behind the 2' high concrete wall as he understood in the past there
were instances of flooding and that will be eliminated. There are now trench drains,
which will take the run off in the underground line, which is connected to an existing
sewer. The houses to the east are 10' higher (and in some instances even greater) than
the proposed project. They could have chosen methods that were a lot less costly and
elevated them; however, they listened to the suggestions of the neighbors. They go by
shadow studies and the side of the site where the homes face the Eichler homes are at
roofline, 11' high. If people choose to use the balcony off the mezzanine there is
absolutely no visual access.
Chair Bonina asked for confirmation that the lot level of the neighbors in the back is
equal to the proposed homes. Mr. Hedaegh responded that the way they have designed it
is in no instance is the grading of the proposed homes more than 12" above the existing
grade behind the walls. By Code they are allowed to go up to 2'.
Page 9 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
Chair Bonina asked if the proposed wall in the back of the lot is a retaining wall. Mr.
Hedaegh responded it is not a retaining wall; it is a fence wall, which is a belt and
suspender method to ensure they don't encounter any issues with water.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked if the 27' front yard setback took into account the
decomposed granite pathway. Mr. Hedaegh responded, "It does indeed". What happens
to the multi-purpose walk is on the dedicated part there is decomposed granite and by the
time you make your way to the hammerhead in front of the homes there is a 10' easement
that is going to be concrete and it is only for the walking segment. Once it goes past the
houses and continues to La Veta, it goes back to decomposed granite.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked how deep the pad is in front of the garage door (including
the stamped concrete area) of each home. Mr. Hedaegh replied it is 10' wide and he
asked Commissioner Bilodeau if he meant the width or depth of concrete. Commissioner
Bilodeau replied "in length." Mr. Hedaegh replied it is 27'. Commissioner Bilodeau
stated if the decomposed granite area is 10' then you parked a car on the pad it would
extend onto the decomposed granite area. Mr. Hedaegh responded do you want to make
sure the multipurpose walk area is clear if a car is in the garage and one on the driveway?
Chair Bonina responded affirmatively. Mr. Hedaegh responded it is well over 30'.
Commissioner Bilodeau stated he saw 31' on the plans but since 27' was mentioned he
just wanted clarification. Mr. Hedaegh stated the actual front of the houses are further
ahead of the garage, as the garage is pushed back for that very purpose so on the weekend
they could park in front of their homes and not obstruct the multi-purpose walk.
Commissioner Bilodeau stated that was his concern.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked if they are seeking a variance on the lot width on the front
side of the lots. Mr. Hedaegh replied they are not asking for any variances; the
provisions of the code allow an Administrative Adjustment. This is an irregular size lot
and in the rear they are well over the 60' and in most instances they are 65'. In the front
because of the arc shape of the lot, they are allowed up to 10% variation, which they are
well under.
Commissioner Bilodeau stated obviously they are trying to make this a productive area in
terms of land use and several different configurations were considered; however, he
wondered if they tried to lie out 5 homes on the parcel versus 6 to see if they could
achieve greater rear yard setbacks. Mr. Hedaegh replied that to remove one of the homes
would not make this a viable development. He added that with the level of development
in these homes, one less home makes a significant difference. It is important to look at
the mezzanine in the same light. It is an attempt to give some of the square footage (300
sq. ft.) back to the house.
Chair Bonina asked Staff if in fact this development went to 5 lots if they would then
have an opportunity to provide further setback from the rear of the lot as well as bring the
house back further from the proposed street and pipeline. Mr. Knight responded it was a
bit too hypothetical to quantitatively state as obviously if you have 5 lots you would have
the mass of I less home to deal with, as the lots would be bigger and therefore you'd
have more latitude to look at other design solutions. Whether or not that would alter the
setback is unknown, as the homes may get bigger and they make still take advantage of
Page 10 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
having 10' from a I-story home, there are just too many variables---what they paid for
the land, what the anticipated rate of return is, etc.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he walked up and down the property noting a number of
encroachments exist up and down the property line and he questioned what the plan is to
deal with them for Parcel A. Mr. Hedaegh responded they have surveyed the site and all
the encroachments are known. He added that the question came up during the second
meeting with the neighbors and the developer has always been clear about the fact that all
those encroachments would have to be removed although a good 500' of the access from
LaVeta to where the houses are located is much wider than 30' (in fact twice as large) so
practically some of the minor encroachments could remain because they have a very
large landscape belt. In general, the plan is to notify the neighbors of areas where the
encroachments need to be removed as they improve the landscaping within the
development area.
Chair Bonina asked Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney if there could be any adverse
possession assertions. Mr. Sheatz responded there is always a chance and the City
Attorney's office came up with the conclusion that it is going to be a private party matter.
If the developer comes in and wants his property back and the homeowner believes he
has rights through adverse possession, it would be incumbent on them to assert that on an
individual basis.
Commissioner Imboden asked the applicant if the Commission moved toward approval
of the project if the developer would be willing to agree to maintain garages for parking
versus storage in the CC&R's. This would leave the driveways open for guest parking.
Commissioner Imboden asked how much coverage over the pipeline is directly in front of
the proposed properties and if the homeowners association would be maintaining the
property or if it would be left to the individual homeowners. He expressed concern that 5
years down the road a homeowner may want to put up a short masonry wall across the
front of their property and they would bring in a backhoe to start digging. He asked the
applicant how they would avoid that circumstance. Mr. Hedaegh responded that Kinder
Morgan has an agreement in place with the owner that contains very specific guidelines
as to what is allowed in the easement areas which is nothing. To protect the
homeowners, language could be placed in the CC&R's to prohibit digging.
Mr. Hedaegh stated further there are tracers on the pipes and during the construction
there are mitigation plans figured out. Kinder Morgan will be limiting the areas where
access to these six homes will be provided to maybe one or two ingress and one egress.
They are fine with 4' coverage. They will be allowed to mound on top of it or go to a
proper steel plate, which is a common construction practice. The rest of the site will be
fenced and they even have measures as to how the fence is placed so the fence itself does
not become a hazard.
Commissioner Imboden noted that property #6 (last to far right) shows the setback is
21' 4" and he asked what the depth of this particular driveway is and if cars parking on
this drive would hang over the path. Mr. Hedaegh responded that they could accept a
condition of approval that in any instance where they go less than 20' for a carport it
Page 11 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
would clearly be marked "no parking", and further they could look into situations where
this is incorporated into the CC&R's. Mr. Hedaegh responded he would look into it
further. Commissioner Imboden responded that he would like to have an answer to this
as it is completely reasonable that someone would have 2 guests in their driveway and
there could be vehicles blocking the path.
Commissioner Imboden stated he understood City Staff is considering these I-story
structures because they include a mezzanine; however, if they were technically 2-story
structures he wanted to know if the setback would need to be 20' versus 10'. Ms. Thakur
responded affirmatively.
Chair Bonina asked if the statement referenced by one of the public speakers relative to
extending into the 10' setback only if the yard abuts a street, alley or permanent open
space was accurate. Ms. Thakur responded affirmatively and added that because the
mezzanine is not considered a second story the setback is 10'. Mr. Knight read the
specific section of the code that was referenced.
Commissioner Steiner asked Staff to confirm this is a I-story structure. Ms. Thakur
confirmed.
Commissioner Steiner asked the applicant ifhe met with the owners and operators of the
pipeline and discussed the damage to the outer protective coating of the pipeline? Mr.
Hedaegh responded affirmatively. Commissioner Steiner then asked the applicant if the
description that the "pipeline was in serious need of repair" was in any way accurate?
Mr. Hedaegh responded "not at all, quite the contrary". He elaborated that the
construction would be a routine thing and Kinder Morgan had gone ahead and marked the
pipes. There is nothing out of the ordinary that doesn't exist elsewhere in the City of
Orange.
Commissioner Steiner asked for confirmation that the pipeline would be under the road
for the vast majority of the project. Mr. Hedaegh agreed and added that Kinder Morgan
is very adamant there is no structure of any kind placed within the easement.
Chair Bonina asked if the pipeline was 4' or 7' down? Mr. Hedaegh responded that it
varied and he showed a drawing provided by Kinder Morgan, which depicted the pipeline
and the surface of the existing road in the proposed site area and then followed with a
drawing that showed the same data in another area of the pipeline.
Chair Bonina asked if the landscaping exhibit was an accurate depiction of the level of
landscaping that would be supplied on the site. Mr. Steve Ormenyi, the landscape
architect, responded it was a correct description of the quantity of plant materials;
however, the drawings show the plants at a more mature growth as it takes 15-17 years to
get to that level of growth. The shrubs may take 5 years and some of the small material
would take only 2 years.
Chair Bonina asked what types of native plants are being proposed for Lot B. Mr.
Ormenyi responded there is no proposed new landscaping. Chair stated that Staff has
suggested the opportunity of putting some native plants there and he asked what that
Page 12 of23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
would ultimately look like. Mr. Ormenyi responded that there are existing trees in the
right of way but pretty much there is old vegetation behind the fences and along the
central portion of the walkway there are mature shrubs and trees.
Commissioner Whitaker asked (from an architectural point of view) if they weren't
addressing a concern of giving an additional 300 sq. ft. back to the home by including a
mezzanine if they would still do volume ceilings with large windows facing the east. Mr.
Hedaegh responded, "Absolutely, the architectural value that the tall space brings upon
entering the residence becomes the second selling point."
Commissioner Bilodeau read #5 of the Site Planning Guidelines (within the Infill
Guidelines) and stated that what was weighing heavily on him was the setback
requirements and the real or perceived loss of light, air and privacy of the existing
homeowners. He stated he would like to know what the massing of the proposed homes
was planned to be and if the exhibit provided by the architect was accurate or if the
photographs provided by the homeowners was a more accurate depiction of what they
could expect to see. Ms. Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager responded it was
difficult to ascertain. She added she could certainly see the point the residents were
trying to make with respect to the height and massing of a building behind them.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if the initial landscape for the Esplanade trail was hydro
seed or container plants? City Staff responded they didn't have specific information but
they thought it was landscaped with container plants based on how it looks currently.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if there was irrigation in it. City Staff responded he
believed it was an irrigated landscape.
Chair Bonina asked if Lot B is 40' or 50' wide. City Staff responded it varies from 40' to
50' and the proposal is to put a 10' decomposed granite pathway with some sort of native
landscaping on either side. Chair Bonina asked if the pathway is straight or meandering.
City Staff respond it is fairly straight but there is an opportunity to meander it. Chair
Bonina asked how it gets irrigated. City Staff responded" with annual rainfall". Chair
Bonina asked what the opinion is of the 36" box tree. City Staff responded it is a fairly
large tree, typical for a replacement tree. Chair Bonina asked if City Staff was
comfortable with the proposed replacement ratio. The response from City Staff was
"yes".
Chair Bonina asked ifthere was a yard area in front of each of the proposed homes? Ms.
Thakur responded affirmatively. Ms. Thakur also clarified that Lot B has a meandering
path. Chair Bonina asked if there was an area in front of each home that would be
landscaped. Ms. Thakur responded there is a portion available to be landscaped and there
are standards i.e. they cannot have trees or fences over the pipeline; however, shrubbery
is permitted. Chair Bonina asked if there are no trees being proposed in the front of the
homes due to the pipeline. Ms. Thakur responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if Kinder Morgan specified no trees in the front yard due
to the pipeline easement. Ms. Thakur stated Kinder Morgan has a condition that any kind
of landscaping is limited to shrubs and trees are strictly prohibited. Commissioner
Whitaker asked what about further back in the front yard between the home and the
Page 13 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
pipeline easement? Jennifer Le, Senior Planner-Environmental Review Coordinator
interjected that she spoke with Kinder Morgan and reviewed the conditions they
provided. The 30' easement does go into the front yard setback and in terms of the
limitations they are looking for shallow rooted vegetation, trees are not allowed within
the easement so there is a mitigation measure covering that.
Commissioner Steiner stated that he thought both hearings were informational and he had
an opportunity to consider all the evidence presented; however, he didn't think the
concerns voiced regarding the project outweighed the benefit the project would bring to
the area. He added that the concern with respect to the pipeline wasn't significantly
material enough to be considered a reason for denial. He concluded by applauding the
applicant on the uniqueness of this application and project.
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to adopt resolution PC 39-05 recommending City
Council approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1767-06 as prepared in
compliance with CEQA Guidelines.
SECOND: Commissioner Whitaker
Commissioner Imboden echoed some of the comments made by Commissioner Steiner as
he too thought this was a very thorough proposal and a very creative approach at trying to
address many of the issues but he added that he still wasn't entirely comfortable with the
resolutions to a number of issues; specifically:
(I) A pipeline of this nature only 4' under the front yard without any serious
precautions that would prevent someone from digging into that space bothered
him a lot. He stated he thought that he could buy the safety aspect if the front
area was maintained by the HOA and it was covered in the CC&R's.
(2) He wasn't convinced that there is adequate parking with the garages and clear
parking space exists in front of the homes. He elaborated that generally the
garages get used for storage and cars end up being parked on the street.
(3) He wasn't accepting that there isn't an opportunity to put more replacement trees
on the site and added this could help with the privacy issues presented.
(4) The use of the UBC description ofa mezzanine was not necessarily appropriate as
UBC is typically used to evaluate health and safety issues of proposed projects
and planning issues come out of the City's own ordinance. Since the City doesn't
have a definition of a mezzanine he fell back on his own logical definition, which
was a half story meaning it was inserted between two full stories. He added that
the applicant designed the houses so they didn't have views into the properties
behind them but elaborated that the problem arises with the encroachment of the
10' setback, which seemed to be used both ways and should be pulled back to the
20' measurement.
Commissioner Imboden concluded stating he thought this was a viable project but there
are still a number of issues with the site and the surrounding sites that should be resolved
before he could support it.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he was very impressed with the application and when he
walked the property he became acutely aware of the general lack of maintenance, trash
Page 14 of23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
dumping and even some tagging. He added that he believed the presence of good quality
homes would work a long way to alleviate these issues and that the opportunity for the
City to fill it's master plan of having a bike trail through the area passed a couple of years
ago. His opinion was the ability to meet the master plan would only come to fruition by
having a private developer provide it. He summarized his only remaining concerns were:
(I) There should be a requirement to hydro seed a mix of native species in Parcel B
along the trail as specified in the Staff memo.
(2) There should be a requirement to provide an addition of one tree per lot in the
rear yards.
(3) Lot 6 should be reconfigured to have two off site parking spaces in front of the
garage without blocking the trail.
Commissioner Steiner asked that his motion be amended to include these conditions.
Chair Bonina stated he thought this was a project that made sense to move forward with;
however, he still had some concerns that he would raise in the proposal of the next phase
of the resolution.
Commissioner Bilodeau stated he had no issues with the environmental portion of the
motion.
Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz interjected that there seemed to be some confusion
as the motion was on PC Resolution 39-05, which is only for adoption of the MND. Mr.
Knight provided clarification that there was an error on the Planning Commission agenda
in that the recommended action made by Commissioner Steiner related to the adoption of
Resolution PC 52-06 versus 39-05 as it was erroneously stated in the Recommended
Action section on the agenda. Further, PC 52-06 only recommends approval of two
items:
(I) City Council approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1767-06.
(2) Zone Change 1232-05 to change the un-zoned property (an abandoned railroad
right of way) to Single Family Residential zoning R-1-7.
Mr. Knight added there was also Planning Commission action required on the second
resolution, PC 53-06.
Chair Bonina stated the resolutions themselves are accurate and he reiterated the motion
stated by Commissioner Steiner which included moving forward with a recommendation
to adopt resolution PC 52-06 recommending City Council approval of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration No. 1767-06 and Zone Change 1232-05.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Whitaker
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Steiner, Whitaker
Commissioner Imboden
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Page 15 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 53-06 recommending
City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16878, DRC No. 4109-06, Minor Site
Plan Review No. 377-05 and Administrative Adjustment No. 116-06, to permit the
subdivision of the subject parcel, a former railroad right of way located east of Esplanade
Street and west of Woodland Street, between La Veta Avenue and Fairhaven Avenue,
with the conditions proposed and restated by Commissioner Whitaker:
(1) The applicant should be required to hydro seed Parcel B with a mix of native species
as set forth in the Community Services recommendation in the Staff Memo.
(2) Lot 6 at the end of the hammerhead should be reconfigured to have two off-site
parking spaces in front of the garage without blocking the trail.
(3) There should be a requirement to provide an addition of one tree per lot in the rear
yards, which would provide for roughly a 1: 1 replacement of the trees removed.
SECOND: Commissioner Whitaker
Commissioner Bilodeau stated he was in a unique position in that he would be in a
position to vote on this item again when it goes before the City Council. He stated that
he thought the architect had put forth a tremendous effort to try to come up with a unique
project that was in the character of the adjacent Eichler homes. Although he saw many
positive aspects of the project he expressed concern with the rear yard setback in terms of
the Infill Residential Guidelines. He recognized the architect had given his best effort to
make it only a I-story home at the rear of the resident; however, he agreed with
Commissioner Imboden's comments as they related to the definition of a mezzanine. He
concluded stating he was not ready to cast a yes vote on the project yet adding that after
meeting with some of the adjacent homeowners he may change his mind.
Chair Bonina asked Commissioner Steiner if he would entertain an opportunity to add to
his motion that there be a requirement in the CC&R's that vehicles must be parked in the
garage. Commissioner Steiner responded that would be a reasonable provision to be
made.
Chair Bonina stated he would rely on Staff to wordsmith that requirement m the
Conditions of Approval.
Chair Bonina stated initially he had some reservations with this project (which he still
has) but he thought there were some offsetting benefits that are severely needed. He
indicated he would support the project but provided an overview (for City Council
consideration) of the issues he had:
(I) He was still concerned with the pipeline and indicated he hoped the City Council
would focus on it a little more, getting additional information, as it was an area
that he still didn't believe was crystal clear.
(2) The setback in the rear presented a problem but he added that although it pushed
the envelope, it apparently fit into the Guidelines.
Page 16 of23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
(3) The mezzanine may be interpreted as a 2-story structure by the City Council and
if so, they would provide the appropriate conditions.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Whitaker
Commissioners Bonina, Steiner, Whitaker
Commissioner Bilodeau, Imboden
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS:
(4) DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Chapter 17.14 of the
Orange Municipal Code to update State density bonus law per Government Code Section
65915-65915.5.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5
- Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 55-06 recommending to the
City Council approval of the draft Ordinance Amendment.
Associate Planner Julia Gonzalez provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Bonina asked Ms. Gonzalez to elaborate on a statement she made regarding
developers being able to apply for an unlimited number of waivers. Ms. Gonzalez
responded that the waiver is a deviation from a development standard and the burden of
proof falls on the developer versus the City. Chair Bonina asked for confirmation that
there is an economic exercise the developer must present to the City for review and if
appropriate it would be approved. Ms. Gonzalez responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Imboden asked what the affordability aspect of a project is set at currently.
Ms. Gonzalez responded it is 30 years if both an incentive and a density bonus is used
and 10 years if one or the other is utilized.
Chair Bonina opened the public hearing calling for speaker Cesar Covarrubias; however,
Mr. Covarrubias had left the meeting prior to this item being heard.
Chair Bonina made a motion to Adopt Resolution No. PC 55-06 recommending to the
City Council approval of the draft Ordinance Amendment.
SECOND:
Commissioner Imboden
Page 17 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2611-06 - TAFT A VENUE PARTNER
SCHOOL
A request to establish an alternative private school for grades 9-12 utilizing classrooms
and facilities of an existing church.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the prOVISIOns of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 _
Exemptions).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 54-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2611-06
Contract Staff Planner Anne Fox provided a project overview.
Chair Bonina asked for clarification that the hours of operation are 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. and
will not extend beyond. Ms. Fox responded that the students may attend elective courses
offered twice weekly where the hours would extend to 5 p.m. and the conditions of
approval have been worded to address this.
Chair Bonina asked Ms. Fox to elaborate on the increase in occupancy rate as it relates to
the current conditions on the property. Ms. Fox responded there are three Conditional
Use Permits already in existence and there have been improvements made as a result of
those and a second story was also added. The existing conditions don't limit (other than
the pre-school enrollment numbers) the day-to-day numbers because there is no existing
school use ofthe property.
Chair Bonina asked if the parking is addressed by any of the previously approved
Conditional Use Permits. Ms. Fox responded there is an excess of parking even on
Sunday for services. Also, during the weekday there is an abundance of parking.
Chair Bonina asked what triggered the requirement for this Conditional Use Permit. Ms.
Fox responded it was required for the school use as the previous applications only
established the church and pre-school use.
Commissioner Steiner stated the Commission had received a letter from some concerned
neighbors expressing concern there may be construction of an athletic field and he asked
if it is remotely being considered and if it would be permitted. Ms. Fox responded it is
not in the project description as something being required now or in the future and if it
were to be required it would need to come back before the Commission.
Page 18 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
Tom Walters, representing the applicant stated:
. He had been part of the City of Orange for 43 years.
. This is a different type of school program being proposed. These students are enrolled
in some sort of independent study program and they come for supplemental tutoring or
instruction.
. They are adopting a private school from another city that required additional space.
. The condition they imposed is it would be an integral part of their program.
. There are currently 14 students enrolled.
. They have no plans for on-site sports.
. They have a Code of Conduct contract each student and family must agree to.
. They have a requirement that each student participate in a Bible study class, which they
will instruct.
. Each family must attend a church and provide evidence this is taking place.
. They find this a niche need.
. They have had a pre-school on their site for about 20 years.
. It is their hope this school will provide a service to the community.
Chair Bonina asked for confirmation there are no intentions that any area i.e. the parking
lot area would be striped to accommodate any sports activity. The applicant responded
that the P.E. activity requirement would be satisfied off-site; they will not provide that at
this establishment.
Public input was provided as follows:
John Ahern. address on file stated:
. He is a neighbor.
. He has been teaching in the Orange Unified School District for the past 30 years.
. He teaches at risk kids and was concerned about some issues and some of those issues
have already been answered.
. He understands there are two teachers and 14 students now at another site.
. He wonders where the accreditation mentioned on the sign outside the site comes from
and who is the agency overseeing this program.
. There is childcare and a pre-school that has operated very successfully at this site and
he's concerned about an alternative school operating at the same location as some of the
kids that attend independent study do so because they've been kicked out of regular
public school and he's concerned about them being near a pre-school.
. He's concerned about the two driveways; specifically, the east driveway as there is a
high wall and teenagers may be using that driveway to exit.
. He was told there is a possibility of 35-70 students, which alarmed him.
. He wants to know what the parameters are for this site and indicated additional
information is requested.
Ms. Fox responded that she was unfamiliar with the accreditation and typically it's
something the City wouldn't become involved in; however, if the Commission wanted
further information perhaps the applicant could provide it. She indicated Staff did speak
with the Orange County Department of Education regarding the project and they are not
the project proponents. It isn't considered an independent study site and that is why the
Page 19 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
applicant was informed the project needed to be presented as a private school application.
Regarding the driveway access, Ms. Fox indicated there is a condition requiring the
private school be kept as separate as possible from the pre-school site and to use the
westerly driveway will be used for its access. That provides both an egress and ingress to
the site.
Commissioner Imboden asked how that gets enforced. Ms. Fox responded it is on an
honor system and as part of the contractual relationship the parents and students would be
informed of the requirement. (Ms. Fox referred the Commission to Conditions #8 and
#9.)
Chair Bonina asked about the mix of pre-school and students of independent study and if
there was any cause for concern. Ms. Fox responded the Police Department did raise that
concern and that was part of the reason for Condition #9 related to the use of the parking
spaces; however, in general, the Police Department felt the classroom space was
separated far enough from the pre-school and that there should be no interface throughout
the day. Ms. Fox pointed out that the pre-school is also surrounded by its own fencing
and has controlled access for protection of the children that attend the school.
Commissioner Steiner asked for clarification that the Department of Education wouldn't
be a co-applicant as the initiating applicant was a Bible School and he asked if the reason
for this was constitutional. Ms. Fox responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Steiner asked if the students would come from juvenile hall or other
settings, as he would have a concern about exposing pre-school aged children to possible
juvenile delinquents. The applicant responded these students would not be just coming in
from juvenile hall; by in large, they and their parents have decided that standard high
school doesn't work for them. They may have been involved in a disciplinary action
scenario but more often the parents have just decided they don't want their students in a
public high school and this would augment and provide more formal instruction.
Commissioner Steiner asked if they make any effort or plan to make any effort to
determine why the student isn't enrolled in a traditional public school. The applicant
responded affirmatively that they meet with the family and students and they do an
assessment as to whether or not the student would fit as in a small environment they
cannot have a disruptive student. Commissioner Steiner asked if they discover the
student had a violent occurrence in his/her past if they would have the discretion to
decline enrollment. The applicant responded "absolutely, and we also have the discretion
to dismiss."
Commissioner Imboden asked how they would limit access on the easterly drive. The
applicant responded it would be included in the information packet provided upon
enrollment and would be part of the contract and discussed with the parent and student.
If they found this approach didn't work they could also temporarily block it off with
stanchions. Mr. Walters also noted that most of the students would be transported versus
driving themselves.
Page 20 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
Commissioner Imboden asked if the Commission moved forward with the application if
the applicant would be willing to accept a limitation that would prohibit physical
education activity. The applicant responded that would be acceptable.
Recognizing that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Chair Bonina made a motion to approve Conditional
Use Permit No. 2611-06 with a condition to be authored by Staff that would prohibit any
exterior physical activity other than what may exist today for the pre-school.
Commissioner Imboden responded that he would offer a second to the motion with a
further condition that the alternative private school shall physically limit it's access
during the hours when appropriate.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2612-06 - VILLAGE THEATRE _
CHURCH SERVICES.
A request to permit the use of the Village Theatre for worship services, movies and a
playhouse.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provIsIOns of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class I
- Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 57-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2612-06.
Assistant Planning Manager Ed Knight provided a project overview.
Commissioner Steiner asked if there was any concern or if it had been covered that with
the quantity of seats there may be parking issues spilling over into the neighborhood. Mr.
Knight responded at the present time the congregation is rather small; however, if it does
grow, there is a condition specified in the resolution that states the applicant cannot
utilize permanent or temporary loudspeakers which could potentially result in overflow
attendees participating on the outside of the structure and parking in the surrounding
residential area.
Commissioner Imboden asked if approval of this application would potentially limit other
neighboring businesses from coming forward in the future for an alcoholic beverage
permit. Mr. Knight responded he didn't think there was any risk of potentially limiting
those applications as there are liquor licensees near to both schools and churches in the
Page 21 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
City and those are laid out in the considerations for the ordinance. He added that
sensitive uses and potential negative impacts are factors that would come into play if they
come back with a request for a daycare service or Sunday school or other school services
during the week.
The applicant stated:
. The Christian Fellowship started in Orange 20 years ago and they now have a number
of churches.
. Their main campus is in Tustin and they have a plan to start 20 neighborhood churches
over the next 20 years.
. They do social ministry and they see this as a great opportunity for the City and
themselves as well.
No public input was provided on this item.
Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from CEQA, Commissioner Whitaker
made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2612-06.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(7) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2615-06 - WINERZ
A request for an Alcohol Beverage Control License Type 17/20 Beer & Wine Wholesaler
with Off Sale Beer & Wine License for a proposed online wine website to operate from a
336 sq. ft. office within an existing office building.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the proVIsIOns of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class I
- Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 56-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2615-06.
Assistant Planning Manager Ed Knight provided a project overview consistent with the
Staff Report provided by Planning Consultant deKoven James.
Due to the absence of the applicant Chair Bonina asked Assistant City Attorney Gary
Sheatz how the Commission should proceed. Mr. Sheatz responded it was within the
Commission's discretion to take an action i.e. approval, denial or continuance; however,
ifthere was even one single question, he would recommend a continuance so the question
could be answered.
Page 22 of 23 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
4 December 2006
Commissioner Imboden made a motion to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 2615-06.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Chair Bonina made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday,
December 18, 2006.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 10:38 p.m.
Page 23 of 23 Pages