2005 - March 7
MINUTES
APPROVED
March 07, 2005
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Domer, Enderby and Pruett
STAFF
PRESENT:
Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary
Chairman Bonina introduced and welcomed Oz Enderby as the new Planning Commissioner,
joining the commission at this meeting for the first time.
Chairman Pruett also presented a special Resolution of the Planning Commission to Tita Smith for
over twelve years of service on the Planning Commission.
IN RE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
IN RE:
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.
IN RE:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1)
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF
OCTOBER 18, 2004, JANUARY 3, 2005, AND JANUARY 17,2005.
Commissioner Domer moved to approve the minutes from the regular meetings of October 18,
2004, January 3,2005, and January 17, 2005. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Domer and Pruett
None
Commissioner Enderby
None
MOTION CARRIED
(2) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2004-273, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
NO. 363-04 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1746-04 - GUTHRIE
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
A proposal to construct a multi-tenant, 15 building industrial center. To implement
the proposal, the applicant has applied for the following:
Planning Commission
March 7, 2005
. Major Site Plan Review 363-04 to allow the construction of approximately
79,000 sq. ft. of industrial building.
. Tentative Parcel Map 2004-273 to subdivide the project site into 15 parcels
and to establish shared access easements.
The site is located at 434 W. Meats Avenue.
NOTE:
Negative Declaration No. 1746-04 was prepared for the proposed
project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Planning Manager Roseberry introduced Senior Planner Chris Cames, who gave a brief overview
of the project.
The project site is approximately five acres, which are to be subdivided into 15 parcels for the
development of industrial buildings. The tract map includes the creation of access easements and
shared parking easements. The application for major site plan review is for the construction of 15
industrial buildings, ranging in size from 4,000 to 7,000 sq. ft. The site will have approximately
210 parking spaces. The applicant anticipates, once receiving approval from the City, to initiate
the project within 6 months and to have the project completed within 9-12 months. The Staff
Review Committee recommends approval of the project. The Design Review Committee has
reviewed the proposed site, building, and landscaping plans and has recommended approval, as
well. Staff has included a resolution that contains 44 Conditions of Approval.
The public hearing was opened.
John O'Brien, 3185 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA, with Guthrie Development spoke to the
project. He noted that they had received Staffs Conditions of Approval and were in agreement
with all of them.
The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns:
. The area is currently a parking lot for another facility and also a nursery. Does the
development of this site impact the parking requirements of the site that it is currently
serving? Turner Development, that owned both sites and did the initial subdivision on this,
has relocated the parking that is on this particular parcel onto the remaining parcel (which
is approximately 13 acres, and that parking lot is now completed).
. Could you describe the type of uses of these industrial buildings? I note it is an M-2 area;
could you describe what type of uses are permitted in that area? Ms. Roseberry: There are
certain uses that are permitted outright, such as auto body repair are permitted in an M-2
zone, whereas automobile sales and service requires a Conditional Use Permit. The
zoning ordnance differentiates between M-l and M-2 zones. There is a fairly lengthy list
of what is permitted, and some things are conditionally permitted.
. On 2.04, it references that this is in a Redevelopment Area. Are any redevelopment funds
being usedfor this project? No.
The public hearing was closed.
2
Planning Commission
March 7, 2005
Commissioner Pruett moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 13-05, recommending to the City
Council approval of the Negative Declaration No. 1746-04, the Tentative Parcel Map No. 2004-
273, and Major Site Plan Review No. 363-04. Commissioner Domer seconded the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Domer, Enderby and Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
(3) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-0003, ZONE CHANGE NO.
1215-02, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 1707-02, MAJOR SITE PLAN
REVIEW NO. 252-02, AND DESIGN REVIEW NO. 3786-02 - ARCHSTONE
GATEWAY APARTMENTS.
A proposal to construct an 884-unit apartment complex on the former Orange
Drive-In Theater site. The site is located at 291 State College Blvd.
NOTE:
Environmental Impact Report No. 1707-02 was prepared for
the proposed project in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry introduced Acting Principal Planner Anna Pehoushek
who reviewed the Staff Report.
The site is approximately 21 acres in size and is bisected by the jurisdictional boundary of the
cities of Orange and Anaheim. Approximately 12 acres of the site is located in Orange, and will
accommodate 532 of the proposed units. The project site currently has a General Plan land use
designation of General Commercial with Overlay District D, which allows for a high commercial
floor area ratio and is zoned light manufacturing. Consequently, in addition to the Major Site Plan
Review, the applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment to allow high-density
residential uses of up to 50 units per acre in Overlay District D and a zone change to Planned
Community. Approval of the Archstone Gateway Specific Plan is also being requested to establish
development standards tailored to the site. The project is located in the Orange Merged and
Amended Redevelopment Project Area as well as in Uptown Orange, which is the area of the City
generally west of the 57 Freeway and North of Chapman Avenue. This is an area of the City
where the City has been encouraging higher-intensity residential development to complement the
existing retail, medical, office and institutional uses in that part of the City. The proposed
development concept includes two four-story apartment buildings constructed around parking
structures, and a third podium style building consisting of three-stories built over one-story of
parking. The specific plan also provides for a number of neighborhood-serving commercial uses
on the site, should there be an interest in the future for introducing those types of uses to the site.
The site plan is sensitive to the adjacent Park Royale mobile-home park. The Specific Plan also
provides for a framework for development that is compatible with the BRE and Trammel Crow
projects that were approved by the City on Chapman Avenue also in the Uptown Area. The
3
Planning Commission
March 7, 2005
development's theme is also compatible with the recently approved Platinum Triangle Plan in the
City of Anaheim.
Over the past two years, the staffs of the cities of Anaheim and Orange have worked through many
inter-jurisdictional complexities related to providing public services and utilities to the site. The
applicant has also made various design changes to the project to help each City in meeting its
service provision needs. Because the project will be introducing new residential population to the
City and is in a redevelopment area, it is noted that the applicant will be paying over $1.5 million
in affordable housing fees for the development of affordable units elsewhere in the City as part of
Specific Plan implementation, and will also be paying over $5 million in park fees and over
$300,000 in library fees.
The Planning Commission must also make a recommendation regarding the project's
Environmental Impact Report. The EIR includes analysis of the full spectrum of environmental
issues, and all impacts identified as potentially significant have been mitigated to less than
significant levels with the exception of short-term construction-related impacts as well as
cumulative construction-related impacts due to the fact that a number of the cumulative projects
would be under development concurrently with each other and with the proposed project. To
address the air impacts that are unavoidable, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been
prepared.
Staff believes that the proposed project supports the City's development and design objectives for
Uptown Orange, and recommends that the Commission recommend approval of the project to the
City Council. Ms. Pehoushek also noted that Cheryl Flores from the City of Anaheim was in
attendance should the Commission have any questions relative to the procedures of the City of
Anaheim. She noted that the project did go before the Anaheim Planning Commission on
February 23, 2005, and was favorably received and recommended onto their City Council for
approval. The City of Anaheim City Council hearing is scheduled for April 12, 2005.
The public hearing is opened.
Cynthia Hwang, Archstone Smith, spoke to the project and gave an overview of her company. She
thanked Staff for the hard work and contribution to this project. Ms. Hwang noted that Archstone
Smith is a real estate investment trust, with over 200 apartment communities throughout the
country that total over 81,000 apartment units. She also stated that Archstone Smith is rated on the
S&P 500 and ranked on the Forbes 400, which is a ranking of the world's largest companies.
Fortune Magazine also recognized the firm as one of its Most Admired Companies. Archstone's
company philosophy is that they own, build and manage their properties - they don't contract out
to a third party to manage them. Ms. Hwang also gave an overview of the landscaping and design
plans for the project. She went into detail regarding the buffering and sensitivity to the mobile
home park adjacent to the project. The project will have a state-of-the art fitness center, b-b-q
areas, junior Olympic-style pool, business center and also a community clubhouse that will have
entertainment facilities.
Chairman Bonina invited the public to speak to the project.
4
Planning Commission
March 7,2005
John Baker, 1051 Arbor Way, Orange, CA 92868. Mr. Baker had a few questions for the builder:
. \Vould there be a signal on State College Blvd. for a left-hand turn lane?
. W"ill there be a light at the exit of Orangewood?
. 'Will the apartments be handicap accessible? How many?
. How many low/moderate income apartments could be built for the $1.5 million in fees?
. How much traffic will there be relative to the 10,000 housing units in this project and the
l?latinum Triangle? Is Anaheim requiring a signal on Orangewood?
He also noted that he felt it was a shame that the City did not tap into the undeveloped land that
currently exists and conforms to the General Plan and Zoning. A major shopping center with a
major grocery store as a hub would benefit the citizens of Orange with a bigger tax base.
Chairman Bonina asked the Commissioners to offer any issues they may have with the project, and
he additionally asked Staff to note the questions of Mr. Baker (above) and respond to those during
the meeting, as well.
The commissioners had the following questions/concerns:
. Understanding that this project is in both the cities of Anaheim and Orange, are there any
inherent risks that we are assuming with the approval of a project of this sort, where if
something changes in one city or another it could put certain aspects of the project at risk?
Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz: Staff considered a number of issues, police, etc.; we
think we have it all covered. We've entered into various agreements for different types of
services, etc. There has been an enormous effort on behalf of this project to understand all
the issues we may be facing. We would not have brought it to this point if we felt there
was some exposure to the City of Orange.
. Could you cover the issues of security and safety as they relate to the project? Ms.
Pehoushek: The project includes provisions that are safety related - crime prevention
through environmental design. From an actual Police Department perspective, the two
Police Departments had extensive discussions about individuals that could be parking in
the parking structure for one parking building located in Anaheim, but living in a unit
located in Orange. The parking structure will be equipped with signage and emergency
phones that clearly direct people who experience a problem to use the emergency phones.
Residents as they move in will be given information by the leasing office about the proper
protocol to follow if they are victims of crime. Subtle color differentiations will be
included between the buildings and hardscape features that are in Anaheim and those that
are in Orange. There are mitigations in place that require particular lighting that meet
security standards.
Ms. Pehoushek also addressed some of the questions that were addressed by Mr. Baker, above.
The main entrance of the site will be located where the current signal is, so that will function as the
primary access. In terms of the access on Orangewood, as part of the mitigation for the additional
traffic generated by the project, Anaheim will be requiring a signal on Orangewood, as well. The
buildings are served by elevators, and ground-floor units are all handicapped accessible. The $1.5
million collected from the project, as it relates to affordable housing, will cover the land cost for 80
5
Planning Commission
March 7, 2005
units in the City on another site. Regarding the need for retail uses in that part of the city, those
uses are encompassed in the Specific Plan.
Rick Otto, City of Orange Economic Development Department, spoke to the need for
commercialization as raised by Mr. Baker. This property became available almost four years ago.
At that time, the City was looking for additional commercial opportunities. There were no
companies interested in developing this site commercially at that time.
The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns:
. IOn the interior garages, where an individual can park their car and walk into their
apartment, garages are notorious for vibration as cars move throughout the garage. With
car alarms and other issues, how is this managed? Ms. Hwang: The parking structures are
not directly connected; there is a corridor between the actual garage and the corridors to the
lllnits. Specific finish is applied to the garage flooring to mitigate the noise from tire
wheels, etc. Robert Clignett, 144 N. Orange Street, Architects Orange (the architect for
the project), also spoke to the issue. The corridor separates the garage from the units for
sound vibration, etc. The vibration itself, is based on the construction of the garage, and
we have been able to avoid that in the projects we have worked on in the past.
. How many units are actually handicap accessible? Mr. Clignett: The entire project is
handicap accessible.
. I notice that the City of Anaheim actually has a mitigation measure that involves a
graywater system. Does the City of Orange have any type of similar mitigation measure or
ordnance connected with graywater? No. The City of Orange does not have the
infrastructure in place for that sort of facility.
. I note that the utilities (electric, water, etc.) will be served by the individual cities.
Adelphia, which is a City of Anaheim franchise, will serve the entire site? That is correct.
. Is there any other identifiable land within the redevelopment area for the provision of
affordable housing? Rick Otto: The only project we currently have in application is an
18-unit ownership project that was recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission last December 2004. And 9 units out of that, at the moderate level, are
affordable housing.
. What is the stated surplus for affordable housing now? Rick Otto: Per the Redevelopment
Implementation Plan, I believe it is 42 units is the surplus, including the Trammel Crow
and BRE projects.
Ms. Hwang came back before the Commissioners, stating that Archstone Smith had been working
on the project for quite some time, and urged the Commissioners to approve the project.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Domer voiced his concern that the City's land use had not addressed the full range
of housing groups (low income and moderate income). There are almost 2,000 units of rental
apartments in construction for above-moderate income, and there is a critical element of our
community that is missing in all of the City's plans. He questioned if it wouldn't be easier to
providt::: 15%, in the case of this project, 80 units be provided for lower income units? The City
6
Planning Commission
March 7, 2005
would have to spend $8 million to develop these units if developed within the redevelopment
district, $16 million if built elsewhere. Commissioner Domer asked that the Commission consider
approving the project with a motion to make 15% of this project affordable housing. As the
project stands, he is not in favor of it because it does not meet the goals of the City's housing
element of the General Plan.
CommUlnity Development Director, Alice Angus, indicated that the City of Anaheim mayor may
not find affordable units acceptable. Commissioner Domer withdrew his motion and made another
motion to continue this item to allow further exploration of the incorporation of affordable units.
Motion died due to lack of a second.
Commissioner Pruett moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 04-05 recommending City Council
certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 1707-02 as being prepared in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, and Adopt Resolution No. 04-05
recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2002-0003, Zone Change
No. 1215-02, Major Site Plan Review No. 252-02, and Design Review Committee No. 3786-02.
Commissioner Bonina seconded the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Enderby and Pruett
Commissioner Domer
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Bonina moved to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting of March 21, 2005.
Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Domer, Enderby and Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
The mleeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
7