Loading...
2005 - August 8 Q,;l 'jOD.G. ;;J~3 MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: August 8, 2005 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett None Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Tom Mahood, Traffic Engineer Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: (1) MAPLE WALK TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004-0006; SANTA FE DEPOT SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.2; ZONE CHANGE NO. 1230-04; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16786; MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 358-04; DESIGN REVIEW NO. 3944-04; MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1737-04; AND A DEMOLITION REVIEW FOR A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN THE OLD TOWNE HISTORIC DISTRICT Commissioner Pruett moved to approve the request of the applicant to continue the item to an unspecified date, Commissioner Imboden seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2529-05 - ASHLEY MOTOR CARS LLC (ROBIN ASHLEY) A request to allow the retail sale of automobiles in conjunction with the operation of an auto service, repair and storage facility. The subject site is located at 1011 W. Barkley Avenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The applicant has withdrawn the application. Planning Commission August 8, 2005 Commissioner Pruett moved to approve the request of the applicant to withdraw the application, Commissioner Imboden seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: (3) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 18, 2005. Commissioner Pruett moved to approve the Minutes from the regular meeting of July 18, 2005 making one clarification on page 15 in which it should read "Commissioner Pruett asked for a simple response to issues raised by the public during the public hearing", Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED (4) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 42-05 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION AND COMMENDING KEN DOMER FOR OVER ONE AND HALF YEARS OF SERVICE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Commissioner Pruett moved to approve Resolution No. PC 42-05, Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: INRE: INRE: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARINGS: None COMMISSION BUSINESS: 2 Planning Commission August 8, 2005 (5) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) NO. 4007-05 - COSTA AZUL RESTAURANT A request for final determination on a new awning for the Costa Azul restaurant located at 121 N. Lemon Street, within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities. Leslie Roseberry explained that the following two DRC items are before the Planning Commission because the DRC was unable to have a quorum. She explained the staff is in support of the request except for the shape of the awning because it's not in character with the building itself. The recommendation is for a more angular shape. The public hearing was opened. Sharon Galvan. applicant, stated she was requesting to put an awning on the building and she would prefer the rounded shape. She also requested clarification on the 30% signage regulation. Commissioner Imboden asked the applicant if she was open to the recommendation of an angular awning and Ms. Galvan said yes but she preferred the rounded shape. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if the existing sign would stay and the applicant indicated they would be painting over the sign. Commissioner Enderby asked if the awning was to have signage on it and applicant stated it would be just the name and possibly the type ofrestaurant. Chair Bonina asked if the mural on the side of the building would stay and Ms. Galvan indicated it might be removed. No lighting will be used on the awning and the two signs, which project out at 90 degrees, will remain. Jeff Frankel, address on file. from OTPA. He felt a straight, angular awning would be more appropriate and a better fit within the Plaza district. He requested the signage on the awning comply with the design standards. Also OTPA feels clarification is needed on the City's policy that requires the DRC members recuse themselves from Plaza District projects even though they have no economic interest within the required radius. The City needs to revisit this policy and find a solution to this conflict especially since the DRC has been short a member for an extended period of time. Chair Bonina had three questions for staff - what percentage of the awning can be occupied by signage (Leslie indicated it would be 30% of the front part of the awning and she clarified that this application is for the awning only and signage had not been proposed); he questioned Mr. Frankel's concern regarding the DRC members excluding themselves (Mr. Sheatz read the state law that indicates it's a conflict of interest); and he wanted to know the basis for the rounded vs. 3 Planning Commission August 8, 2005 angular issue (Leslie stated the building is a 1940 Western false front and any change has to go with the architecture ofthe building). Commissioner Bilodeau asked where the standards for the shape of the awning were located. Ms. Roseberry said that as you look through the standards it talks about any facade changes have to be in keeping with the existing building type. Commissioner Pruett stated the standards are not specific, but it has to have some semblance of that style. He also noted that there is a sign on the face of the building that will conflict with the proposed awning and was the applicant willing to replace that sign. Commissioner Bonina clarified that it is a mural and is at the discretion of the applicant to remove. Commissioner Pruett wanted to know if a mural is considered signage and anything done to the storefront needs to conform to the design standards. With this in mind, he asked if they should have something stating that not only should the signage be approved by staff but also any additional treatments to the store front including painting over the mural or readdressing that mural. Ms. Roseberry said that if the mural pre-dated the existing code, then it would be a legal non-conforming wall sign/treatment but the date of mural is unknown. Commissioner Pruett stated that the awning is going to conflict with the mural, therefore, there would be some kind of treatment to the mural in order to make the building look acceptable to Old Towne Design Standards. He felt staff, in reviewing the approval of the sign on the awning, should also review the front of the building and determine whether it needs to be modified and what modifications would be acceptable. Applicant had no further comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Imboden stated that the conflict inherent with the DRC and dealing with Old Towne projects is a very serious issue and he hopes City staff and counsel will look at the situation. Commissioner Pruett moved to approve Design Review Committee No. 4007-05 with the recommendations made in the staff report that requires an angular shaped historic pattern on the store front with an additional condition that states the signage on the awning will be submitted to staff for their review and approval and staff will review and approve any modification to the mural on the store front, Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett Commissioner Bilodeau None None MOTION CARRIED (6) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) NO. 4012-05 - THE DISTRICT LOUNGE A request for final determination on a wall sign on a building located at 223 W. Chapman Avenue. 4 Planning Commission August 8, 2005 NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (g) - Existing Facilities - new copy on existing on and off-premise signs. Ms. Roseberry discussed the project and it was felt the existing sign was a legal nonconforming sign and this would be considered a face change. Staff recommendations include number of colors to be reduced from 5 to 3 colors, the sign be repainted using a non-glossy paint, and changing the word "Lounge" on the sign since it does not fit within approved letter styles. Commissioner Pruett received clarification that all replacement signs come back to the Planning Commission or DRC for approval. He noted that the staff recommended repainting the sign after repointing the masonry but that's not in the conditions of approval. Ms. Roseberry explained that repointing the masonry is not a requirement for approving the sign nor is it an issue of health and safety. Commissioner Pruett preferred not only flat paint be used but to also have a washed out appearance that would be reflective of Old Towne signage. Commissioner Imboden questioned whether the brick is going to be repointed and does it require a permit. Alice Angus, Community Development Director, stated that staff did notice there were areas where the mortar between bricks was failing but it did not pose a hazard. However, the sign is painted inappropriately in terms of color and glossiness in relation to Old Towne standards. She wasn't sure if it requires a building permit but they have been in contact with the owner to make sure he is aware of the appropriate way to go about removing the paint and it would be a good time to take care ofthe mortar situation. Ms. Angus indicated the face of the sign could be changed out but it must be in conformance with the design standards. Chair Bonina wanted to ensure the size of the sign remains the same. The public hearing was opened. Mario Marovic. 223 W. Chapman Avenue. applicant. He stated the new sign is not larger than the previous sign. He was unclear about the recommended action on page 2 of the staff report and unsure about the three colors excluding the logo. Ms. Roseberry stated that if there were a logo that was attributable to the company, then that would not be counted toward the colors in the sign. He showed his business card stating the red and white as his logo. He wanted the best thing for downtown Orange. He stated that the previous sign was scripted and the only thing with scripted letters on this sign was the logo. He felt maybe the glossy paint would tone down within 6 months. Commissioner Imboden clarified that the applicant would like the sign left as is and he doesn't intend to repoint the building. Applicant will have to address that with the owner ofthe building. Jeff Frankel, address on file. OTP A. He stated that it was a unique post office building. He referred to the previous DRC staff report. He agrees with the request that a qualified conserver analyze the masonry walls and determine the extent of the damage and have a qualified mason carry out the repointing of the brick work, remove the existing coolers and remove the outdated satellite disk, and to reinstall the fan light. He felt the painted sign was inappropriate in color and design and was opposed to a variance allowing the signage because it doesn't comply with the Old 5 Planning Commission August 8, 2005 Towne Design Standards and the fact there was an existing sign is immaterial in his view and should be removed. He was unfamiliar with the face change regulation. He was open to a sign that is toned down and if it replicated a weathered sign. No further comments from applicant. The public hearing was closed. Chair Bonina wanted to explore the logo issue further concerning the three paint criteria, repointment of the brick, whether the mortar was something that needs to be a condition and he wasn't sure if the glossy paint conforms to the Old Towne standards. Ms. Roseberry explained that there are sections of the zoning ordinance which address non-conforming signs and so that is what staff has been looking at. The Old Towne Design Standards talk about preservation of historical wall signs, but does not address nonconforming signs. Commissioner Imboden was told the DRC did not hear this item due to the conflict and the DRC never received a staff report. The focus of the decision was the sign and not the other issues. Commissioner Imboden concern was not so much with the report coming from the DRC, but just that there were recommendations that were made at one point and then they were pulled when it went to a different reviewing body. Chair Bonina asked if the issue of the air conditioner and the satellite link would have been brought up at the DRC level along with the sign. Ms. Roseberry stated not if the air conditioner is not visible and that some of the issues can be dealt with at the staff level and some have to be brought before the DRC. Commissioner Bilodeau thanked Mr. Marovic for bringing the logo issue to their attention so the colors of it may not be an issue. The Old Towne standards do not specifically say it has to be glossy or non-glossy. The City should embrace businesses that come in with uses that are good overall. He felt the building department should address the mortar issue and he's not persuaded that the applicant should run out and repaint the sign right away. Commissioner Enderby was confused on the staff report because there was one comment that it recommended the owner repaint the glossy paint after repointing the masonry and then later in the report staff it's concerned about brightness and the reflective nature of the new sign and that by repointing the wall it will reduce overall brightness and color and none of this is in the conditions of approval. Ms. Roseberry stated that staff recommendations did not include the requirement to repoint the eastern wall. If they were to repoint right now, it would change the sign because the grout lines would show instead of the paint. If applicant chose to repoint it, it would have to be repainted afterward. Commissioner Imboden addressed the code requiring sign changes within 90 days of a business coming into place. He stated that historic signs are not to be painted over regardless of a change in occupancy so he wants to be sure a blanket statement is not made that it applies in every case. 6 Planning Commission August 8, 2005 Chair Bonina wanted to move for a continuance of this item. He felt there was enough vagueness in the information concerning whether the applicant's logo is a logo, re-pointing of the mortar on the brick, and the issue of glossy vs. non-glossy vs. a paint style more appropriate for Old Towne. Commissioner Imboden understood that the scripted word "Lounge" is not part of what is normally accepted as a sign package. Ms. Roseberry said yes, that the approved letters are of a more block style for Old Towne. Commissioner Pruett wondered when a logo is to be included what exactly is the definition of a logo or how is that defined, making clarification needed on this issue as well. Commissioner Bonina moved to continue Design Review Committee No. 4012-05, Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett Commissioner Bilodeau None None MOTION CARRIED INRE: NEW HEARINGS: (7) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2535-05 - BEACON DAY SCHOOL (MARY JO LANG) A proposal to establish a school for up to 24 autistic students. The subject site is located at 576 and 588 North Glassell Street. NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Class 2 - Replacement or Reconstruction). Ms. Roseberry made a full reading of the staff report. Staff has reviewed the application and they are comfortable with moving ahead with the use. There is sufficient parking and delineation of a play yard. Commissioner Imboden asked that even though both structures are located outside of Old Towne, are both considered contributing structures and Ms. Roseberry replied yes. He also wanted to know if this project required any design changes, would they be directed back to the DRC. Ms. Roseberry said the applicant has not asked for any design changes for the buildings. Commissioner Bilodeau confirmed that there were 8 off-street parking spaces. The public hearing was opened. Marv Jo Lang, 576-588 N. Glassell, applicant. She stated it's a small school for children with autism with 5 students per classroom. 7 Planning Commission August 8, 2005 Chair Bonina asked about security on the property. Ms. Lang indicated that all schools have to be very secure so she is putting a wrought iron fence in front of the buildings with gates. She also clarified that one building would be for classrooms and the other one used for therapy.' There are walkways between the buildings in a gated area. Some of the locks on the doors would have to be changed. She confirmed that the State Department of Education approves the site before the school opens. Commissioner Imboden wanted to be sure the stairs shown on the plan were actually covered by a ramp. The applicant said they were covered but she wasn't sure exactly how far forward the fence on the property came. Commissioner Bonina was concerned that the plans were not real clear in terms of the fencing. He would like to continue the project until they get better drawings as far as clarifying the fencing especially in the front setback area. Commissioner Bilodeau asked how the children arrive and depart. Ms. Lang stated they arrive in a variety of ways - parents drop them off and some come by school bus. There is a school around the corner that could be used for arrivals and departures. Commissioner Imboden wondered since the buildings are contributing structures to the National Register District, was there any state or federal funding that could become part of the project. The applicant replied no. John Baker, 1051 Arbor Way, Orange. He stated he supported the project and felt special schools of this nature are needed. Chair Bonina wanted to make clear that they welcome this school to the City, however, they want to be sure this is a facility that is safe and appropriately designed for these children. In closing Ms. Lang thanked Mr. Baker for his comments. She requested that the process be expedited because she has students who are waiting to get into the school. She asked for direction from the Commission on the fencing. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Imboden sees the important need this institution can provide. He felt however there were a lot of things that were missing from the plans that are needed to convince him that this is a viable site for this use. It appeared to him that there are some inaccuracies in the drafting of the plans and he would want the designer to take a look at those, for instance, there is no front entrance shown on Building B, how do people move around the space, and fencing issues. Commissioner Pruett was especially concerned about the fencing issue because he's not sure how that's being dealt with in the front part of the property. He'd like to see on the plans some delineation as to how one gets from one building to the other and have a crosswalk and small sign letting drivers know someone could be running across this area. He thought the project was fine but just needed better understanding of how one is going to provide that security in terms of the 8 Planning Commission August 8, 2005 fencing and the crossing between the two buildings. He would like staff to find out if there is any tax advantages since the building is a historic contributing structure. Commissioner Bilodeau felt it was a great use for the site. He noted in the conditions of approval the applicant is required to submit a pick-up/drop-off plan before they get their tentative improvement permits. He asked that the applicant work with the Traffic division to find a solution to a possible parking problem that could occur if all spaces are occupied and an additional vehicle might have to back out. Also he thought that Title 24 requires at least one ADA parking space. He would like to see staff expedite this proj ect. Commissioner Enderby concurred with the other Commissioners. Looking at the plans, the applicant leaves a lot left for interpretation and he agrees with a continuation. Chair Bonina stated that there was a lack of detail on the plans, for instance, ADA compliance was not reflected on the plans. In terms of incorporating the fencing, he thought an elevation of the site would be appropriate to understand how that's going to look from Glassell. Lastly, to help with the process of expediting this project, he'd like to continue this item to a date certain. Ms. Roseberry explained that staff would need to have the plans at the latest two weeks prior to the September 7 meeting. If that doesn't work for the applicant, then it could be heard on the 19th of September. Commissioner Pruett recommended talking to staff a little bit about what the applicant wants to do because this is a contributing structure and it needs to be taken into consideration. Commissioner Imboden said it would be advantageous to the applicant to ask their designer to review this project in terms of ADA compliance and how they aesthetically work with these historic buildings. Commissioner Pruett moved to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 2535-05 to the first meeting in September, Commissioner Bilodeau seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED (8) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2538-05 - LIDGARD RESIDENCE A proposal to install interior plumbing (powder room) in a detached accessory structure (recreation room, gym, and home office) in an Rl-6 (Single-Family Residential) zone. The subject site is located at 4119 East Rolling Green Lane. NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. 9 Planning Commission August 8, 2005 Leslie Roseberry read the staff report. Commissioner Imboden asked if this type of project required public noticing and Ms. Roseberry stated it was noticed to property owners within 300' not counting streets. The public hearing was opened. Jeff Tanner, 318 Maui Drive, representing applicant. He explained they want to install interior plumbing in an ancillary building measuring 1439 sq. ft. The structure would consist of a gym, an office, recreation room and powder bath. Chair Bonina wanted to confirm that the building was not designed to be occupied and Mr. Tanner stated that was correct. Chair Bonina asked if they normally put a condition on the property relative to a restriction against occupancy. No condition was listed on this project for a covenant. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Imboden.asked what has triggered the use of a covenant in the past. Mr. Sheatz stated that at the time it was a noticing issue because the covenant required recording with the County Recorders Office that any future purchaser of the property would be on notice that that accessory structure was not a building that was habitable. Commissioner Pruett stated he would like to see the covenant as a condition because it can become an issue when ownership changes. Mr. Sheatz said it could be done with this project and the covenant would be recorded such that the property would be used in conformance with this specific CUP number. Commissioner Pruett moved to adopt Resolution No. PC 37-05 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2538-05 with a covenant as described by the City Attorney, Commissioner Bilodeau seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED (9) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16880, AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2478-03, AND ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1723-03 - ALEXAN PACIFIC GROVE CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION (TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL) A request for approval of the conversion of 279 apartments to 278 condominiums and an expansion of the retail area from 4,200 square feet to 5,000 square feet. A Tentative Tract Map has been filed for the condominium units. The subject site is located at 3091 West Chapman Avenue. 10 Planning Commission August 8, 2005 NOTE: An assessment of the potential environmental impacts of Tentative Tract Map No. 16880 was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, in the form of an Addendum to Mitigated Negatiye Declaration (MND) No. 1723-03. Leslie Roseberry made a full reading of the staff report. She clarified that even though they were approved for 279 apartments units, they are only building 278 units. The original environmental work on the previously approyed project was looked at and it was found that the change from apartments to for-sale units was not an environmental issue as well as the increased retail- commercial area. Originally the project was to pay the affordable housing in-lieu fee, which they have done. The applicant has also agreed to set aside 14 units (5%) of the project as affordable housing. Commissioner Imboden wanted to clarify that there are no variances or administrative adjustments that have to be issued on the project. The public hearing was opened. Brad Perozzi, Trammel Crow Residential, applicant. The reason it changed from an apartment project to condominiums was because they have put a national wrap insurance policy on their company nationwide. This policy ensures them against construction defect and they won't be sued. They did reach an agreement with staff to provide some affordable housing in addition to the in-lieu fee they already paid, about $800,000. In order to get their tentative map on this project, they have agreed to provide some affordable housing on site. He clarified Item No. 10, regarding addressing of the project, that it's better for the project to be addressed on one street and so Chapman Avenue will be used. The retail square footage has been rounded to 5,000 but on a net basis it's closer to 4,400 sq. ft. There is one less unit because the one aboye the trash compactor has been eliminated. Commissioner Pruett was confused because the staff report indicates the retail area is expanding from 4,200 sq. ft. to 5,000 sq. ft. Mr. Perozzi stated they are not expanding the retail space from the original approved plans. Commissioner Pruett asked staff to clarify that on the condition. John Baker, 1051 Arbor Way. He asked if the City should be asking for the 10% affordable housing requirement which would be a total of28 units as opposed to 14 and refund the in-lieu fee. He felt these affordable units were needed for the people that rent in this City and work in the community. Mr. Perozzi indicated they have worked with staff and found a solution and left their in-lieu fees in the City rather than asking for them to be refunded. Commissioner Bonina asked what the price points for the units would be and Mr. Perozzi said on average it's about $400 per square foot. The public hearing was closed. 11 Planning Commission August 8, 2005 Commissioner Pruett thought in looking at the rental vs. ownership issue that there probably was more value with the ownership issue in terms of the housing in-lieu fees. Ms. Roseberry explained that the fee helps with the low and very low units and what is also necessary is to bring ownership on a moderate level into the City. Commissioner Imboden commented that it was great that the City staff has tried to balance out the affordable housing issue and bring more affordable housing into the City. He also praised the applicant for stepping up to the plate. Commissioner Pruett thought the current plans were asking for 5,000 sq. ft. of retail area and the action before them is asking for an increase to 5,000 sq. ft. from the original 4,200 sq. ft. Ms. Roseberry confirmed that the retail portion of the project was always 5,000 sq. ft. Mr. Sheatz said in this instance it would be appropriate to approve the tentative tract map. The conditional use permit would need to be amended because it speaks to the mixed use and it can include the 5,000 sq. ft. ofretail. Commissioner Pruett moved to adopt Resolution No. PC 39-05 recommending City Council approve Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1723-03, Tentative Tract Map No. 16880 and Amended Conditional Use Permit No. 2478-03, Commissioner Bilodeau seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED (10) SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.1 TO PINNACLE AT UPTOWN ORANGE SPECIFIC PLAN, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16851, AND ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1710-02 - BRE RENAISSANCE AT UPTOWN ORANGE A request for approval of the conversion of 122 apartments (out of a total of 460 apartment units) to condominiums. A Tentative Tract Map has been filed for the condominium units. The subject site is located at 3063 West Chapman Avenue. NOTE: An assessment of the potential environmental impacts of Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 to the Uptown at Orange Specific Plan, and Tentative Tract Map No. 16851, was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, in the form of an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 1710-02. Leslie Roseberry made a full reading of the staff report. She stated that this project was previously approved and they are coming back to the City asking for a tentative map to create condominiums for a portion of the residential area. Originally they were approved for 460 apartment units and they are now looking at creating 122 of those units as condominiums and splitting it into two lots. It's being looked at as a new entitlement and they are required to pay their affordable housing fees, 12 Planning Commission August 8, 2005 staff did look at getting 5% of the condominium portion of the project be set aside for affordable ownership units, totaling 6 units. The applicant has not agreed to that but it is still listed as a condition on the project. The environmental work submitted with the original application was reviewed and it was found that the conversion of 122 units would not have any environmental impact. The public hearing was opened. Dave Powers, BRE Properties, applicant. He stated that this project was originally before the Commission in November 2003. At the time the company went out to the market to get general contractor bids, they discovered the construction costs had gone up 15-20%. Since they are a public company, they were asked to go back and look at the project and see what could be done to mitigate the impacts of those construction cost increases. There was a natural split in the project and they only want to convert 25% of the units to condominiums. They are accepting all the conditions of approval except for Condition No.9, which they would like deleted. Chair Bonina asked of the 122 units what's the mix of bedrooms. Mr. Powers stated that it's about 45% one bedrooms and 55% two bedrooms. Commissioner Imboden wanted to know why they were not willing to offer any affordable housing. Mr. Powers stated that they have already paid their affordable housing in-lieu fees. If you look at the value as apartments and the full project as condos, there is quite a bit of difference. If they were selling the full projects as condos, the returns would allow them to provide additional affordable housing on this site. But they are only selling 25% and that's not enough just to mitigate the construction cost increases. It's not financially feasible for them right now to provide those extra units. Commissioner Bilodeau noted that BRE is only required to provide 5% of the units they are actually converting and not the whole project which Mr. Powers confirmed as correct. Commissioner Bilodeau also noted that condominiums actually generate less traffic than apartments. John Baker, 1051 Arbor Way. He asked that the Commission vote no on this project because the City needs to get as much affordable housing as possible. Commissioner Bilodeau questioned the issue of affordable housing, understanding that the City adopted an affordable housing element as part of the General Plan in 1994. Mr. Rick Otto from Economic Development explained that the only state law that applies to this project is the State Redevelopment law. This project is in a redevelopment project area and so State law requires the redevelopment agency to provide 15% affordably for all residential projects that are developed in a project area. The obligation is on the agency, not on the individual development. With that in mind, they negotiate with any residential development that comes in for approval in a project area. There is a housing element that guides them in addressing affordable housing issues in general. He further explained to Commissioner Bilodeau that when the three Uptown projects came before the staff, these were the first large scale residential proj ects that were in the redevelopment proj ect area. The agency sat down with the developers at the time and negotiated this in-lieu fee of$2,850 13 Planning Commission August 8, 2005 per unit to address affordable housing issues overall related to the agency obligation and not to the developer's obligation. The City does not have an inclusionary housing ordinance overall. Applicant returned for closing comments. Mr. Powers said on the issue of affordably it is his understanding that it is the goal of housing balance to provide a mix of housing that is affordable to different income levels. The project, if approved, would have for-sale units in the back and rental on the front. The 28% of the rental units would be affordable under the moderate-income limits. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bilodeau stated that on the 122 units being converted, $348,000 in lieu-fees have been paid. He wanted to know if the City was going to keep that money and impose 6 units. Chair Bonina said yes. Chair Bonina stated he was a little disappointed that BRE is actually requesting a for-sale component because they came to the Commission in November 2003 and indicated that they were long term holders of real estate which was a big selling point. He also understood the drivers of economics and the market so he supports the 122 units and converting them from apartments to condominiums. However, he would not approve this unless they do incorporate the affordable housing as was stated in the resolution, which includes 6 units (5%). Commissioner Imboden felt the same way. Commissioner Bonina moved to adopt Resolution No. PC 40-05 recommending City Council approve the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 1710-02, Specific Plan Amendment NO.1 to the Uptown at Orange Specific Plan, and Tentative Tract Map No. 16851, Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Pruett moved to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting of August 15, 2005. Commissioner Bonina seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. 14