Loading...
2005 - November 21 L~5DO. G.;;)3 Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 2005 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: November 21, 2005 Monday-7:00 p.m. Bilodeau, Enderby, hnboden, Pruett, and Bonina None Alice Angus, Director Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner Anne E. Fox, Contract Staff Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Cyndi Chadwick, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) THERE WILL NOT BE ANY MINUTES AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THIS MEETING. INRE: NEW HEARINGS: (2) MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2461-03 AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 300-03- ORANGE CITY MILLS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A REQUEST TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 403 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AND A PARKING STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF 1,722 PARKING SPACES. THE CITY HAD PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 500 APARTMENTS, AND AN APPROXIMATE 1,200 SPACE PARKING STRUCTURE. THE SITE, A COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL CENTER COMMONLY KNOWN AS "THE BLOCK AT ORANGE" IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE ST ATE ROUTE 22 FREEWAY, SOUTH OF CHAPMAN AVE AND BETWEEN LEWIS STREET AND THE CITY DRIVE. Mr. Christopher Cames, Senior Planner read the Presentation to the Planning Commission. He noted that the Commission's action tonight is a recommendation to the City Council. He continued that the recommendation would be taken to the Council in Page I Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 conjunction with the revisions to the original development agreement and are tentatively scheduled for their review on December 5, 2005. He stated that Staff recommended approval of the proposal and that it has the same impacts as the original approvals considered. He explained the Conditions of approval are the same as what applied to the original projects. If the Commission were to approve the proposal tonight, it would approve the parking structure, the location, and building mass. He further explained the conditions of approval do include that it be reviewed by the Design Review Committee in terms of landscaping and building materials, and that the DRC has not yet looked at those plans. The modification to the Conditional Use Permit approves in concept the 403 condominiums, the Site Plan, and the Building Scale and Massing. He mentioned that the applicant for that part would have to return with an application for Major Site Plan Review to review the specifics on the sighting of that location. He stated this would be reviewed by the City Staff Review Committee as well as the Design Review Committee and would be presented back to the Commission on their Consent Calendar. He further stated that the action tonight is to make a finding that the Addendum for final Environmental hnpact for 1721-03 was prepared in compliance with CEQA and adequately analyzed the Environmental hnpact for the modifications to the original approvals. He said this completed Staffs presentation. Chair Bonina reminded the Commissioners they were functioning as a Planning Commission, not as a DRC. He also stated this would go to the DRC as a future point when there is a Site Plan and more specificity relative to the parking structures. Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Elizabeth Link. applicant. She mentioned that although the deck increased in size, it was really a shift of parking spaces from one part of the site to another. She explained that OCTA and Cal Trans had just begun their project, and the applicant was uncertain what the impacts would be on the site. She mentioned they had envisioned that replacement parking would be built to replace the parking spaces that had been lost due to the realignment of the Interchange at 22 and City Drive. She further mentioned since they had waited to switch to condominiums, Cal Trans and OCTA had proceeded enough so they understand what is happening with the fourth leg and the new design, and they know how many spaces they will be losing. She stated they had accommodated that in the deck, and one of the important features is that the deck will now have a speed ramp, and this was a difference as well. She explained that one of the reasons the deck was bigger is there were fewer on grade spaces in the new plan. She further explained that the ramp would allow people to go directly from the grade all the way up to level four making this more efficient. She also mentioned they were proposing to install counters so when a customer enters each level, it would provide the number of parking spaces available. She said the other significant piece that had changed was an opponent, (who had an office building that is part of this project) who previously spoke up against this Item. She stated Equity Office Properties and Mills Corporation had signed an agreement, in principal, to cooperate on this phase and future project to include Equity's Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 2005 office towers. She said that they would continue to share the existing parking as well as parking in the future. She believed this would be a good catalyst for them to see offices come on board faster for this proj ect. Ms. Link stated that Building F has been released from the project, but they were able to apply housing on the edge of the parking structure. She explained the corridor that will be used by pedestrians would be enhanced with landscaping. She credited Staff with helping them make progress with OCTA and Cal Trans. She mentioned that the tenants are happy, the sales productivity is up, and the relationship with the Police is going well. Mills was concerned that when the modification was added to the Interchange, things would go downhill, but working with the City, OCTA and Cal Trans to come up with the fourth leg design, things are proceeding well. Ms. Link referenced the last meeting in '03, it was discussed that additional parking counts had been done. She stated they recognized the parking shortage, and were short between 800 and 900 cars. She said they had secured in their agreement with Equity Office, the rights for 700 cars, available on the evenings, weekends, and holidays. They are located to the west of the property where the 500 and 600 buildings are. She further explained in addition to that, they had the right to 200 cars for a total of 900 adjacent off- site parking spaces. She mentioned this parking would be used during construction of the deck since they would lose about 400 spaces. She said that they would be operating a shuttle between these parking spaces to minimize the impact to the AMC Theatres. She stated that even when the deck was built, they would continue to have temporary signage. She felt this was a big positive point. Sal Provenza. Toll Brothers. He provided an overview of the company he worked for. He stated they were a solid company, and they built high-end luxury products. He said it would have the look and feel of the elevation on the wall. He mentioned these units were for sale rather than apartments. He said it was important to know that they have built large homes with a high level of specifications, and high density projects in California, such as in Point Richmond, Dublin, and Cupertino, and built projects similar to this. He said in Southern California, they had built single-family communities such as Vista Verde in Y orba Linda. Chair Bonina asked Ms. Link about the shared parking with EOP. He wanted to know the hours of shared parking. Ms. Link replied that currently EOP owned property with 1,302 parking spaces on it. She explained once this project is completed, some of these spaces will be within the deck, and some on the grade in front of their building. Additionally, EOP has two easement agreements with Mills for a total of 552 cars. EOP uses these spaces between 6:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Of the 1,302 spaces they own, Mills has the right to use 1,250 of those spaces starting at 6:00 pm, and weekends, and holidays. She said that currently EOP has gates on their 1,302 spaces until 6:00 pm, but Mills has asked EOP to Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 raise the gates at 5 :00 pm for a better traffic flow for the retail shoppers, etc. Chair Bonina asked if the gates for the 1,302 spaces would go up at 5:00 pm, and Ms. Link replied yes. Ms. Link explained a portion of the 1,250 was available at 5:00 pm, and the 900 was available at 6:00 pm. She believed the greatest impact would be Saturday. Chair Bonina asked if the two parking structures by the hotels would remain the same height. Ms. Link replied they may become shorter, but they did not know the exact configuration until they were past the concept stage. Chair Bonina mentioned the shared police activity, and wanted to know what the City's participation would be for Police help with the further housing development. Ms. Link answered that Mills wanted to get residents as part of the Block that would provide some pride of ownership and to increase the average age assuming that people who would live there would be older than teenagers. She said the big issue was the deck and whether this would be more difficult to keep secure and safe. She stated it was their intention to work with the tenants, and have the proper lighting as well as having cameras on every square foot of the common areas. She added they were working with the Police and Fire Departments, and they had specific requirements for security and safety which they have every intention of complying with these requirements. She said when they had the Development Agreement (which they intend to bring before the Commission on December 5, 2005), the Commission would find these security issues would be supported by the Police and Fire Departments. Chair Bonina stated since the Commission did not have the benefit of the Development Agreement this evening, he asked Ms. Link how the affordable housing component was being addressed. Ms. Link replied that it was their intention to work with the City on what the amount would be, but she thought it was safe to say, it would be more than the $2,850 as they agreed two years ago. Chair Bonina asked if they intended to have an Increase In the fee as well as incorporation of affordable housing. Ms. Link stated that within this project, they did not intend to have affordable housing, but would have 100% in lieu fee. She explained that if Mills developed additional future housing, they were committed to doing affordable housing. Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 2005 Chair Bonina clarified there were other areas, which they currently own and control where affordable housing could be done. Ms. Link stated they would present this at the December 5, 2005 meeting. Chair Bonina asked Staff if with the Equity Shared-Parking Agreement that Mills is entering into, would this hamper their ability to further develop their properties. Mr. Cames replied that the applicant would have to return prior to building the condominiums with a new shared parking agreement. He said this would be expanded to what the City originally approved in 1998. He stated this was part of the Addendum. He explained if they approve the shared parking agreement, this does not allow for any additional expansion beyond what the Commission has seen. Chair Bonina asked Staff to clarify if the shared parking agreement prevented EOP from further development of their property. Mr. Cames answered no. He stated that EOP has approval for four office towers. He said there is nothing in this project that prevents EOP from building any of their approved projects. Commissioner hnboden asked about the original proposal that was granted a c.u.p, which included retail under the rental apartments. He wanted to know where the retail had gone. Ms. Link stated that this was Building F, and it was empty, but they had been able to lease it to a tenant. Commissioner hnboden asked about the amenities for the condos. The applicant stated there would be a variety of amenities such as a pool, multiple spas, a fitness center, a lounge area, and other things one would find in a high-end project. Commissioner Bilodeau asked about the valet parking and what the plans were for it. Ms. Link responded that the valet parking is currently ongoing, but it may be prudent for them to have valet parking in some of the more distant parking. She said they would maintain the same quantity of spaces. She also said they may also move the valet parking on the west site. Commissioner Bilodeau asked Staff how the valet parking was being operated. Mr. Carnes stated it was not considered part of the original shared parking agreement, but Staff has reviewed with the applicant that this will be a part of the new shared parking Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 agreement. Commissioner Bilodeau commented that he has experienced some unpleasant parking experiences at the Block. He stated that it was virtually impossible to find a space sometimes. He also mentioned that it was frustrating to see about 100 empty valet spaces not being used, and the City never actually approved this use. He believed that rather than accommodating the public, it was more of a revenue generator. He was hopeful that this practice would end because it seemed very inefficient. Ms. Link replied that typically a retail center would park in the ratio of 5 cars per 1,000, and the Code is 4.5 cars per 1,000. She explained that they were at a ratio of 8 cars per 1,000, and they never anticipated this. She further explained that if it wasn't for the shared parking agreement they have with EOP, they would be hurting as far as parking is concerned. She believes the parking dilemma has been solved. She stated they would be working on the valet parking issue and it would be addressed in the shared parking study. Commissioner Bilodeau asked Ms. Link how the 1,700 parking spaces were derived. Ms. Link stated that they totaled up all the parking spaces on the site in the existing condition, i.e., what was at the Block a year ago. It was their goal to maintain those spaces. She said they have maintained everything that they have today plus the parking for the residential. She said the only way to do a real count would be to go from existing through today, and make sure they have not lost a single space. She further stated when they came back with the Shared Parking Agreement; they would go through this with the Commission. This would be sometime in January 2006. Chair Bonina referenced a schematic the Commission had. He stated that currently there were 5,324 spaces, and the Commission had approved an additional 1,975 spaces. With the new modification, 1,099 would now be added. He asked if the 1,099 spaces included the EOP arrangement. Ms. Link replied that this did not include the 700 + the 200 off-site spaces. She said they were much better off than a year ago. Commissioner Bilodeau asked Mr. Sheatz if the shared parking agreement between Mills and EOP would come back to the Commission as an encumbrance on the EOP properties. Mr. Sheatz repli-ed he did not know. Commissioner Bilodeau asked what assurances the City had that they would happen. Ms. Link stated there would be easements that were recorded. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if the table that Chair Bonina had referenced earlier would include the spaces that would be lost due to the widening of the 22 freeway. Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 Ms. Link replied yes it did. Chair Bonina asked if the total of 7,323 spaces did not include the 900 anticipated shared parking opportunities, but did include the 460 shared parking arrangement. Ms. Link answered yes to the first part of the question and no to the second part. She also stated to add the 7,323 and 900 together. Commissioner hnboden asked how Mills perceived users of this parking (adjacent to the west) moving off and on the site from a pedestrian standpoint. Ms. Link pointed out where the 700 cars would be. She said they anticipated an enhanced walkway for people who would walk through the residential area. She explained why this was a key part to the project. Speaker: Mr. Mark Valentine. Director of Leasing for Equity Office Property, 333 Citv Blvd. West, Orange. He stated he was in favor of this project. He further stated the EOP and Mills had agreed to cooperate with each other with respect to an overall development plan. Ms. Link thanked the Commission and Staff for their support. She hoped that there would be some construction beginning in January. She said that there would be an opportunity for the public to have a real mixed-use, live, work play project in Orange. She thought the next phase would be great. The Public Hearing was closed. Chair Bonina stated he was relieved to see that the parking issues were being addressed. He hoped that once the development agreement is before the Commission, there is further clarity on the affordable housing component. He hoped to see some type of affordable housing plan on this particular project rather than looking at the future somewhere. Commissioner Pruett commented that this was a complex project with many different facets to it, and it would continue to evolve over time. He stated the matter before the Commission is one that allows for construction of 403 unit condominium with parking spaces at 1,722. He thought it was important to understand that what is before the Commission tonight is a vast improvement over what was presented before. He added that this project is making a modification to a portion of this project, and this modification was a good one from the standpoint in the reduction of units and the increase in parking. He believed there would continue to be parking issues because it is a successful mall. He thought to approve this project was the appropriate direction to take. Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 Commissioner Bilodeau stated he applauded the Mills Corporation for coming forward with additional investments in this community. He said a significant amount of information was presented tonight that was not in the Staff Report regarding parking. He was not sure why the Commission would move forward with this tonight, and segment this and do something on December 5th. He would rather consider it all on December 5, 2005, and all the information would be before the Commission. He wanted a better understanding of what EOP has in terms of plans in the area. He explained this was not part of the Approval, but thought he would have a better understanding of what has been approved, and what is in the future. Commissioner hnboden agreed with some of Commissioner Bilodeau's comments. He realizes that there is only a portion of the proj ect before the Commission this evening. He stated the Commission needed to be comfortable with the entire project and have a good, clear vision of where this project is headed, and he did not have this yet. He further stated there were a large number of issues that are sitting out on contingencies. He felt he needed to see a bit more ofthe picture before he could move forward with this. Chair Bonina asked Staff if there wasn't any reason why they would not review this project in conjunction with the development agreement on December 5th He also asked if there was a particular driver they should consider tonight. Ms. Alice Angns, Community Development Director, answered that initially their intention was to bring the Amendments to the Development Agreement to the Commission at the same time as the Amendments to the Conditional Use Permit, and the Major Site Plan Review. Staff believed that the Amendments for the C.U.P and Major Site Plan were ready to move ahead. She added the Development Agreement Amendments would lock in those changes. She mentioned one exception to this was the Commission had not fully heard the discussion of the housing in lieu fee or Affordable Housing, which is still ongoing. She stated it was not uncommon for Staff to bring as much as they had to that point, and to continue negotiations as it gets to City Council. She said it really had been timing, working with the applicant, and in their mind ready to move portions of this forward. Chair Bonina asked if the City Council would entertain this proposal without the Development Agreement or would Staff present this component that the Commission is looking at this evening along with the Development Agreement. Ms. Angus replied that it would go to City Council under one package, at their first meeting in December. She said there was a lot of information to repackage and get ready for them to take action for their first meeting in December. Commissioner Pruett thought since Staff was trying to move this package along, and the proposal before the Commission basically approves the parking that was approved Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 before, and because it's downsizing the number of units, he saw no reason why they could not approve it because it's basically an improvement and a reduction. Commissioner Pruett moved to adopt Resolutions PC 51-05 and 52-05 recommending to the City Council approval of the modifications to Conditional Use Permit 2461-03 and Major Site Plan Review No. 300-03 respectively. Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion. Chair Bonina advanced a replacement motion to suggest that this Item be continued to the December 5, 2005 meeting when they have the opportunity to review the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement will have information relative to the housing and shared parking information. Commissioner Bilodeau seconded the motion. He explained he had just heard that the parking structure was being upsized, but in fact, this was incorrect. The other two structures were being downsized. He said the actual parking count is not going up. He felt these were the types ofthings that he, as a Commissioner, needed to understand. Commissioner Pruett stated he had not seen any evidence of a parking structure being reduced. Chair Bonina asked the Commissioners to vote on the replacement motion before them. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, hnboden Commissioners Pruett, Enderby None None MOTION CARRIED (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2540-05, VARIANCE NO. 2151-05, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0408-05 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4031-05 - CRAIG MILLER- MILLER AUTOSPORTS. A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A USED CAR SALES BUSINESS BY CONVERTING A VACANT SERVICE STATION SITE THROUGH CERTAIN SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF LANDSCAPING AND PARKING. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM THE CITY'S SIGN REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR A POLE SIGN IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREESTANDING SIGNS AND TO EXCEED THE MINIMUM SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FREESTANDING SIGNS ON THE SAME PARCEL. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 1935 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE. Page 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 Ms. Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner, provided the Staff Report to the Commission. She stated that Staff supports approval of the proposed use through the Conditional Use Permit, the Minor Site Plan Review, and the Design Review Request subject to all of the conditions that are included Draft Resolution 54-05. She also said that Staff does not recommend approval of the Variance in this instance since it would result in the grant of a special privilege and the circumstances regarding the property are not unique or confining as was outlined in their Report. She mentioned in the case of the portion of the Variance seeking an increase in height, the increase does not necessarily achieve a greater visibility to the site since one would basically have to already arrived at the site before seeing the sign. Chair Bonina wanted to confirm that the project went through Staff Review Committee with a set of recommendations provided, and then went through the Design Review Committee. He asked ifthe signage was addressed by the SRC with a recommendation to the DRC which suggests that the project was acceptable with the exception of the sign. He also asked if the Design Review Committee approved the project again without the Variance and Signage. Ms. Fox replied this was correct. She explained that DRC supported approval with some minor changes. She added they felt the recommendation to the Commission was that the Variance was not warranted. Chair Bonina asked Ms. Fox to review the sign criteria in terms of the overall square footage, and what this included. Ms. Fox explained that typically a property of this size would include a wall sign as well as a freestanding sign for a total of two signs. She mentioned that the freestanding sign has a height limit of 15 feet. She further explained the square footage would be limited to half of a square foot per linear feet of street on an arterial. She said in this case, the property has 160 feet so the maximum sign area for the freestanding sign would be 80 square feet. She stated the applicant is proposing 63 square feet, but there is a second sign with 24 square feet. She said the number of wall signs allowed should equal the number of occupants of the building. So, in this case, it would be one wall sign. She stated that one additional wall sign was allowed only if the building elevation was greater than 100 lineal feet. She mentioned that the wall sign conforms to the sign regulations. Chair Bonina asked ifthere was a total signage square footage criteria, i.e., there was not a combined total cap for the size. Ms. Fox replied that the wall signs were treated separately, and the freestanding sign were too. Chair Bonina asked what constituted a sign. Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 Mr. Fox explained that the DRC has debated this, and typically when Staff reviews signs, and there are channel letters or foam letters, you box out where the signage is located on the building. She said it was discussed with the DRC that there was a theme to the building's paint, but they did not attribute that in the gable that faces the front. She stated they only drew a box around the actual letters. Chair Bonina then asked about the environmental status of this site. He asked if the property owner anticipated any remediation work that needs to be done and/or some type of remediation compound being established. Ms. Fox answered that she thought this had already been done to the property. She stated there was a letter from the County of Orange that there had been completion of the site investigation as well as the corrective action. Chair Bonina opened up the Public Hearing. Peter Whittingham. Curt Pringle and Associates. 2400 E. Katella Ave" Anaheim. He stated he was retained by Mr. Miller to assist in processing his application with the City. He thanked the Staff for their efforts and assistance to bring a noteworthy and beneficial project to the City. He explained their initial impressions were the property would require minimal improvements, in reality; the Code requirements have been substantial, as has been and will be the expense of both demolition and improvements. He mentioned the existing sign pole at the southeast comer of the property that served as a sign for the gas station. He said the sign had been removed when the business closed, and Mr. Miller had located the original sign in storage. Mr. Miller is proposing to reface the sign, and replace it at the top of the existing pole. He further explained there were several challenges that merit the Commission's consideration of the Variance Request. He explained it's surrounded on three sides by strips ofland belonging to the adjacent property owner, and severely constraining what can be done on the property after the set backs and landscaping are factored in. He also believes the Variance should be considered because a standard Code compliant sign would significantly impair Mr. Miller's ability to fully market the site. He is also seeking the Variance for the 15 foot height limitation as well as the allowance of a second smaller sign at the southwest comer of the site. Mr. Whittingham also believes there are unique circumstances that exist, citing Page Four of the Staff Report. He said the property either meets the requirements for a second sign or it meets the definition of challenging characteristics. He also mentioned the costs for improvements to this project are substantial. He cited both the elimination of both driveways as well as the manhole. Craig Miller. 12236 Circula Panorama. Santa Ana. He stated he had spent a lot oftime on this project, and had worked hard to come up with acceptable compromises on these items. He mentioned the fencing around the property. He said it was for 24 inch tall Page II Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 2005 steel posts, but was incorrectly submitted as 42 inches. He also mentioned the landscaping requirement of palm trees. He stated that Staff had deviated from the Code requirement of a 24-inch box. He said that they now wanted an eight to 12 brown trunk King palm tree, which are very expensive. He wanted to know ifhe could either have Queen palm tree or go to a standard city tree. He also mentioned the Variance and that there is no street frontage on three sides, and these strips of land are completely unbuildable. He stated that Staff even mentions that they are bounded on one side by the SR-55. He mentioned the square footage allowed is 80 feet, and he is requesting 63 feet with a smaller sign that is lower than the other signs in the area. He said that his business would have a nice selection of import cars, and thought this was something that was missing in this city. Chair Bonina asked the applicant how the cars would be marketed. Mr. Miller stated there would be some type of signage on the vehicle windshield. He said that the vehicles that he will market usually do not have antennas. Chair Bonina asked about the back of the property line near the storage building. He asked if this was a set back. Mr. Miller replied there was about 16 feet oflandscape. He stated when the requirement for a large number of trees and landscaping was imposed, he said there was already landscaping, and trees there. Chair Bonina asked if this was storage or part of the applicant's property. Mr. Miller said this was for storage, but that he had direct access to it. He further stated that the City had requested that he close off the two Chapman entrances, and he said this made sense since it would allow him to have a larger display area in front. He feels he is doing the City a big service since this has potential liability since it is right there by the freeway off-ramp. He did not think he should have to pay for this. He agreed to enter over the easement off of Way field. He again mentioned the 16 feet ofland was part of the storage building. Commissioner hnboden wanted clarification on the landscaping requirements included in Condition No. Seven. He was not sure what the eight-foot brown trunk height meant. Ms. Fox replied that the recommendation was made to the Design Review Committee from the Community Services Department as they provide Conditions for the DRC consideration. She continued that this was equivalent to a 24-inch box tree. She also explained that when one is talking about Palm trees, this means the exposed brown trunk height. The recommendation for the type being proposed for Mr. Miller gave cause to the size recommendation on the trunk height. She said there was some discussion at the DRC, and the Committee chose unanimously to go ahead with this Recommendation. Page 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 Commissioner hnboden clarified the choice ofthe particular species of tree is coming from the applicant, but it's the City stating that if you're using this species, then this is the requirement, and Ms. Fox replied yes. Chair Bonina asked ifthere was a cap of maximum number of cars that can physically fit on the property at anyone time. Ms. Fox stated that Staff did not include an explicit recommendation of how many cars could be accommodated. She mentioned during discussions with Mr. Miller with the types of cars he would showcase, it was apparent to Staffthat you would not want all the cars tightly packed on the site because they are unique. She said it did not go any further with Staff. She explained that an outdoor display area is measured in square footage, and that determines parking. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if the signage along the street would they be changeable message signs or standard signs. Ms. Fox stated that none of the signs would change and it would stay as it is seen. Commissioner Bilodeau mentioned that is seems that way on the drawing. Ms. Fox said it was reflective of a business card that Mr. Miller had included with his application. Mr. Miller stated it was a fixed sign. Chair Bonina asked in the event the Commission moved forward with the denial of the Variance, what opportunities would the applicant have in terms of relocating the sign at Chapman and Wayfield. He asked ifhe could move the sign anywhere along the frontage. Ms. Fox answered that he could not meet the separation requirements. Chair Bonina clarified his statement and said if they moved forward with the endorsement of the denial of the Variance, and he only has one sign, could he move it anywhere along Chapman Avenue. Ms. Fox stated yes, in conformance with Code, but Staff would work with him. Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Enderby made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2540-05, deny Variance No. 2151-05, and approve Minor Site Plan Review No. 0408-05 and Design Page 13 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 Review Committee No. 4031-05, Craig Miller, Miller Autosports. This project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Chair Bonina seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Enderby, Bonina, Pruett, and hnboden None None None MOTION CARRIED Ms. Roseberry read the Appeal process to the applicant. (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2552-05 - (MARl MARl ROLL & SUSHI). APPLICATION FOR PROPOSAL TO ALLOW AN ABC CONTROL LICENSE, TYPE 41 ON SALE BEER AND WINE AT A PUBLIC EATING PLACE. THE LOCATION IS 2610 E. CHAPMAN AVENUE. Ms. Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner provided the Staff Report reading to the Planning Commission for this Item. She mentioned that there is a request because the proj ect is located within a high concentration of licenses that the finding for Public Convenience or Necessity is made by the Commission. She also mentioned a Condition that used to appear separately on the Conditions related to alcohol serving ceasing one hour before closing. She said this had been included as Condition No. Nine in this particular instance. Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Alex Woo. American Liquor License Exchange. 1601 Cloverfield Blvd" #200. Santa Monica. He stated this was for a Japanese fusion restaurant with a seating capacity for 45 people. He mentioned the restaurant has been in existence for a year and a half, and gamered a loyal clientele base that have consistently asked for alcoholic beverages to go along with the fare. He said the request did not include any live entertainment, cocktail lounge, video games, or happy hours. He explained that the Police Department had some initial concerns with the application, but upon further review they are no longer opposing the application. The applicant has reviewed the conditions of approval and concurs with all the Conditions. He thanked the Staff for an insightful report, and requested approval of this item. Commissioner Pruett asked what the American Liquor License Exchange was. Mr. Woo stated they were a firm who specialized in facilitating C.U.P.s and ABC Page 14 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 licenses from an entity to the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. He asked if Condition No. Nine meant you could not consume alcohol one hour before closing, and he was told you could consume alcohol as long as it was sold prior to the hour before closing. Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Pruett suggested striking Condition 10 as he thought it would create confusion with Condition Nine. He explained that Condition 10 stated the hours of operation while Condition Nine indicated the sale of alcohol has to cease one hour before closing. Chair Bonina then suggested putting together both Condition Nine and 10. Commissioner Pruett stated there was really no reason to state the hours of operation. Chair Bonina then asked ifthe Police Department established the hours of operation. Ms. Fox stated that the Police Department did place this Condition on the project. Ms. Roseberry mentioned on Page Six of the Alcohol Management Plan, Item Z states the indication of hours of operation, and the applicant indicated the hours would be 11 :00 am to II :30 pm. She explained the Police Department carried this into their recommended conditions. She thought Commissioner Pruett's concern was he did not want the applicant to have to come in and amend their c.u.P. if they wanted to close earlier. Chair Bonina stated if their hours of operation was articulated in their Management Plan, and the Commission suggests that the alcohol sales ceases one hour prior to closing, then he thought this would suffice. He stated that Condition No. 10 would be eliminated. Commissioner Pruett moved adoption of PC Resolution No. PC 53-05 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2552-05, and deleting Condition No. 10. Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Enderby, Bonina, Pruett, and hnboden None None None Page 15 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 MOTION CARRIED (5) ORDINANCE NO. 17-05; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.04 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE MODIFYING THE DEFINITIONS OF BOARDING HOUSE AND LODGING HOUSE IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE TYPES OF RENTAL ARRANGEMENTS THAT ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT PERMITTED. Mr. Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney made the presentation ofthe Staff Report to the Commission for this Item. Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Donald Wiggins, 3412 E. Vine Avenue. He stated he had been dealing with the City for 18 months regarding boardinghouses in his neighborhood. Based on what had just been presented, he believed that this would further expand the problem instead oflimit it. He said the City made excuses why certain residences were not boardinghouses yet there were numerous amounts of people living in a single residence who were not all one family. He cited the California Supreme Court Decision, Santa Barbara vs. Adamson where the Supreme Court provided an acceptable definition of family that could be used to say who could live in a family zoned area. He stated when he presented this to Mr. De Barry, he said he didn't trust it because it could be challenged and overturned. But ifthe court said this was OK, Mr. Wiggins had a hard time accepting this. He also stated he was confused as to what the purpose of changing something if it wasn't going to solve the problem. Mr. Robert Oran. 1125 E. Madison. He believes something would get done providing the City is willing to spend time enforcing it. He thought this has been the biggest problem. He explained that across the street from where he lives, at 558 N. Maplewood, there were up to eight students there at one time. He further explained there was a parking problem, and a sewage problem because the sewers were not designed for families this large. There was also a street cleaning problem because cars were parked all over the place and were not moved, as well as a noise problem. He also stated there was a problem because when large number of students go to that house, everyone has a car and brings a friend, and they bring their friends so when Mr. Oran wants to have a social gathering at his home, he is forced to block off the street the day before so that their guests can park near his home. He then asked Mr. Sheatz to clarifY his understanding of the Ordinance, and said he needed the City to insist the Ordinance be enforced. Mr. Tim Grisenti. 567 N. Glenrose. He asked the Commission to clarify whether two families could live in a six-bedroom home. He stated he lived through a situation where Page 16 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 a house was purchased in his neighborhood, and multiple families lived in the house. He further commented that there are many houses on his block where there are multiple families living in these houses that have five and six bedrooms. He said that the City does not enforce this Code as the law is today, and was concerned about this. Mr. Len Musgrave, 3145 E. Ruth Place. He explained there was a house around the comer from where he lives that has eight single men living in it with seven vehicles, and park their cars all over the place. He did not understand why Mr. Ed Royce would not address the boardinghouse issue. He also said at another time the Mayor had stated if the residents did not like the situation, they could move. He stated something had to be done. Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing. Chair Bonina asked Mr. Sheatz to rearticulate what the Ordinance does because one of the speakers believed it was doing the opposite. Mr. Sheatz explained that in order to better understand where the Ordinance came from, the definition the City adopted for both boardinghouses and lodging houses came from an Attorney General opinion from 2003. He further explained the City of Lompoc asked the Attorney General if they could opine their definition of a lodging house or boardinghouse. He said given what had happened in the Adamson case, which Mr. Wiggins cited, and subsequent cases to Adamson, which in virtually every instance when cities tried to regulate or get into areas of defining a family, and what unit could live together, was struck down almost automatically by the courts. He went on to say the City ofLompoc told the Attorney General, they wanted to do some of the same things the City of Orange had in their definition. Some of the concerns to the Attorney General was economic use had to be allowed of your property even if it was in a single-family residential zone district. He said if someone wanted to rent out a room, they were allowed to do this. So Lompoc pushed it to the limit, and wanted to see how far they could go. Lompoc asked ifit would be acceptable if two rooms were allowed to be rented out. The Attorney General then went through the analysis of Adamson, went through the analysis of Briseno vs. Santa Ana, and a whole litany of cases. He came back and said yes, as long as Lompoc did not get into the area of trying to define a family or trying to prescribe living arrangements or delve into freedom of association or rights of privacy, they would be OK. So, under the definition that Lompoc put forward, the Attorney General said, a homeowner could have at least two rooms that could be rented out. He further explained the Attorney General had done an analysis if more than two rooms were rented out, and it changed the characteristic of a single-family residential property into a business. He stated this is where it changed the character of the single-family home now, and turned it into the definition of a lodging house or boardinghouse. He continued there was an analysis in the opinion regarding parents renting out rooms to their teenage children. It was said in a humorous vein perhaps to teach them a lesson, but there were various reasons someone would want to do this, and it was perfectly acceptable. He again stated this was the two-rental agreement limit; anything over this changed the characteristic. He made clear this was a 2003 opinion, and cities up and down the state followed suit with Page 17 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 this. To his knowledge, this was not challenged, and has been widely adopted. In preparing this Ordinance, he contacted cities with problems similar to Orange, (both with the university and demographics as well) and interestingly enough, some ofthese cities, Santa Barbara, in particular have steered clear of this issue altogether. He said they will not address this issue and will not get into boardinghouses or lodging houses or any type of enforcement. Chair Bonina made clear that single-family residences, (the homeowner), have the opportunity to enter into two separate rental agreements for one person each irrespective of how many bedrooms they have. Mr. Sheatz stated yes. He then addressed the question posed by Mr. Grisenti regarding the sixth bedroom. He said when Lompoc asked the Attorney General for an opinion, they confined it to a five-bedroom house. He explained they were very specific when they asked for the definition oflodging and boarding houses, and confined it to five bedrooms. However, there was a notation in the Attorney General opinion that discussed if it was a larger home, it was acceptable to go up to 50 per cent or half. Furthermore, there was also a notation that said one would not run across this situation very often. He conveyed the City adopted this here as well to say if there was a six bedroom home or larger, up to 50 per cent of the rooms could be rented out. He made clear this was the way it was drafted in the Ordinance prior to the definition of a boardinghouse. He then read the definition of a boardinghouse. Chair Bonina reiterated the example of the sixth bedroom; there could be three rental agreements to one person each. He said there would be three extra people in the home. Mr. Sheatz stated yes. Commissioner Pruett asked if when a home had six or more bedrooms, and there are separate rental agreements, could the individuals who have rental agreements bring their family with them, i.e., could you end up with two families rather than two individuals. Mr. Sheatz replied yes, this was possible. Chair Bonina then stated he had misunderstood previously, and thanked Mr. Sheatz for clarifying this. Mr. Sheatz thought Chair Bonina was asking about the rental agreement being an individual one. Commissioner further clarified that the issue becomes one as you cannot define the family, but can only define the lease, and Mr. Sheatz stated this was correct. Chair Bonina then referenced the issue of Mr. Musgrave where there are eight men living Page 18 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 in one home, this Ordinance will not necessarily help this situation because those men could claim they were a family. Mr. Sheatz replied this mayor may not affect this situation. He explained that each case is going to depend on the facts. He further conveyed the way the Ordinance is written, and the way the definition is drafted requires those separate agreements. He stated, for example, ifMr. Musgrave reported this to Code enforcement, they go out to investigate and find that there is only one rental agreement with one individual, even though there are eight men with seven vehicles, this won't constitute a boarding or lodging house under the definition of this Ordinance. He said it may capture it in some situations or it may not. If it's a house with living room, and dining rooms that have been converted into bedrooms, and the eight men that are there have separate rental agreements with the owner of the property, this will prohibit this; ifit's in a single family residentially zoned neighborhood because you're not allowed to have a lodging or boardinghouse in those zone districts. Commissioner Pruett conveyed that the opportunity for six men will operate under one lease agreement, is pretty remote because the one individual who puts his name on the lease agreement has liability for that lease agreement and all the costs that are associated with it. He explained typically people who are in that situation recognize the fact this other person they're living with, and sharing the rent without an agreement, that individual can walk away, and he would hold the responsibility for that contract. He stated the issue for a family is when you have a contract or a lease, one person has the responsibility for this, and typically it's the head of household. Therefore, you wouldn't see the family leave unless they all left together. He commented this may not solve all the problems of multiple tenants, but it is moving in the right direction, and did a good job of capturing a lot of problems that the public is faced with in terms to multiple tenants. He posed the question; did they want to go further? Yes. Can they? He stated that legally they have some stumbling blocks in terms of being able to withstand litigation. He believes this is the best approach, and perhaps can fine-tune it down the road. Chair Bonina asked if there was an opportunity to reduce the 50 per cent and stay within the letter or sequence of laws in order to put more of a rein on this. He also asked in what manner this would be enforced, by a proactive or reactive approach. Mr. Sheatz replied trying to reduce the percentage, you would not want to put the property owner in a situation where are giving them less because they own a six bedroom instead of a five bedroom. In other words, he explained with a five-bedroom house, two rooms can be rented out, for a six bedroom 50 per cent is three rooms. He stated how often would be there be a seven bedroom. It then starts to borderline on the absurd. He states this was an effort to accommodate the larger homes that capped out to the six- bedroom home. Page 19 Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 2005 Commissioner hnboden commented where he did not understand the percentage assigned to a higher number of bedrooms, it seemed to him the impacts were equal regardless whether it's an eight bedroom or a two bedroom home. He felt all the impacts were the same, even though the house is larger, it doesn't necessarily accommodate for these impacts. Chair Bonina added that a three bedroom would have a two-car garage, and an eight- bedroom home may have a two-car garage. He thought in terms of traffic & parking, nothing had been accomplished by going with the percentage of an eight or six bedroom home versus the two bedrooms. Mr. Sheatz stated that an eight bedroom would probably have a much bigger lot size as well as a bigger driveway. Secondly, this was a side note in the Attorney General's opinion; there was no effort to penalize those people with a bigger home. The impact may not be any different, but the comment was there was an attempt to accommodate the fact there was something bigger than a four or five bedroom home. It was an allowance of the fact that they had a bigger home, and being penalized for this. Again, he said it came down to economics. Commissioner Pruett commented when they talk about the impacts that are associated with it, the impacts are there whether its rented out or not. He further stated a family with eight bedrooms, they will have a number of children, and those children will have cars. So, when one is dealing with the impacts, one has to assume they were already there when this was considered. He believes the issue goes back to the economic opportunity question. Chair Bonina inteIjected that the nuance was you could rent the room to a family; it could be a family with two or three children, the dynamics and the impacts to the structure has increased, and is not the same. He wasn't sure the Commission has the latitude here. Commissioner Pruett believes the Commission needs to take the legal advice they have been given and use this as a first step. He said it could always come back ifit's not working and be refined. Chair Bonina commented that if it was possible, they were attempting to make it better before they enact it. Mr. Sheatz mentioned that he wasn't sure how many of these situations being discussed would ever be encountered. Commissioner hnboden commented that particularly in a university town, they were lucky not to have a lot of older, larger homes in Old Towne because they would see 10 bedroom homes being rented out. He did not think the impact would be the same as the house was originally constructed with a traditional family living in it. He did not Page 20 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 necessarily agree that the number of bedrooms is equivalent to the size ofthe house. He has seen many six-bedroom homes that are 1,200 square foot. He was not comfortable with the 50 percent for a larger number of bedrooms, but he did not think the Ordinance addressed the issue of size. Mr. Sheatz stated this was a balancing act. He referenced the Briseno case where they got into numbers. He explained when you mess with the numbers in an area that is pre- empted and covered by the Uniform Housing Code, where they will give you the size of a habitable room, he would be willing to say the six bedroom, 1,200 square foot home he referenced, had Uniform Housing Code violations if they were actually occupying those rooms because they were undersized. He said this is a different way of using the enforcement for overcrowding issues, and a legal way of doing it. He mentioned this is where he was challenged when one starts using buzzwords like in the area of the family, and throwing numbers in for sizes. Commissioner hnboden did not understand why there was a limit of two bedrooms, and then accommodate for a larger house, but this did not talk about a larger house, it talked about numbers of bedrooms. It seemed to him that the qualification is not being used to really qualify it. Mr. Sheatz responded that it is implicit when you're talking about bedrooms; it is assumed they meet the size of the Uniform Housing Code. He further stated when you start pushing up, you're increasing size, and you're doing it so it is legal. He said there are those bedrooms that are legal size under the Uniform Housing Code, it will push up the size, and it does make it bigger by the assumption that it will be legal Chair Bonina asked about enforcement. He was assuming City Council would review and view on it. Mr. Sheatz deferred to the Community Development Director, Ms. Alice Angus. Ms. Angus stated she would address the problems with enforcement, what they hope to accomplish with this Ordinance if and when it's adopted, and the method of enforcement. She commented that the Commission had heard from a number of speakers, some claiming that the City does not enforce at all, but she explained they do try to enforce this, but the current Ordinance is somewhat of a slippery slope in terms of whether it would be upheld in court today. She continued what they look at when they receive complaints if they're able to get access to a property, Uniform Housing Code for overcrowding. She said it was an interesting calculation as to how many people can reside in a residence before it's declared overcrowded under the Uniform Housing Code. They also try to get information on the rental agreement based upon the current definition. She explained the new Ordinance would more clearly define the rental agreements, either written or verbal. She stated this would be an instance of proofthat rooms are individually leased or sublet in violation. She said ifthere were more than two Page 21 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 agreements in a five-bedroom house or more than that in a larger house, enforcement would still be a challenge. She stated they take enforcement seriously, and do react on a reactive basis to complaints. She explained complaints are usually driven by neighbor's observations by what they're seeing, and then becomes a fact finding as to what facts are produced that justifies or dismisses the complaints. Chair Bonina asked Ms. Angus what the UHC for overcrowding was about. Mrs. Angus replied this was based on the number of bedrooms, and the definition of a bedroom, which has a minimum square footage. She thought the minimum was 80 square feet. She continued that once a bedroom gets up to 120 square feet, multiple persons are allotted per bedroom. Mr. Sheatz stated the actual number is 70 square feet for the habitable area. He continued where there are more than two people who occupy a room used for sleeping purposes, the required floor area shall be increased at the rate of 50 square feet in excess of two. Chair Bonina asked if they were proposing there could be either an oral or written agreement. Mr. Sheatz stated this was correct. Chair Bonina asked ifthere was any leeway to mandate these agreements be written only. Mr. Sheatz responded it might be easier to enforce the Ordinance with an oral agreement. He cited the example used by Mr. Musgrave using Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs as an example. If they stated they had an oral agreement, it could be enforced by a party admission. He said you no longer need a written document. Chair Bonina asked if it was incumbent upon her to produce the agreement, and if she can't then wouldn't she be in violation. Mr. Sheatz said no, because they're not going after the tenant, but after the homeowner who are making use of their property in this manner. He stated a landlord may not enter into written agreement for this reason, but if tenant can provide proofthey have a oral agreement by check receipts, etc., then this would be enough from an enforcement standpoint to put them in a lodging or boardinghouse category. Chair Bonina commented these were some positive steps to get to a point where the situation can be controlled better than what is currently happening. Commissioner Pruett moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.55-05 recommending to the City Council approval of Ordinance No. 17-05. Page 22 Planning Commission Minutes November 21,2005 Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Enderby, Bonina, Pruett, and hnboden None None None MOTION CARRIED Chair Bonina moved to adjourn this meeting, at 9:45 pm to the next meeting on Monday, December 5, 2005. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, hnboden and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED Page 23