2003 - October 20
(! ,If.::) tJ 6- .,/. .d
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
October 20, 2003
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Smith
Commissioner Pruett
Christopher Carnes, Acting Planning Manager/Secretary
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
INRE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
INRE:
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None
INRE:
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
INRE:
CONTINUED HEARINGS:
2. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 171S-03, VARIANCE NO. 2121-
03, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 268-03 AND- THE JENSEN BUILDING
A proposal to construct a new 2-story, 15,293 sq. ft office/retail building within Old Towne on a
portion of a lot that is currently developed with the 11,200 sq. ft. "Antique Station" building
(formerly "Satellite Market"), a parking lot, and an open-air retail "farmers' market" on
Thursdays. The property is located on the northwest comer of Glassell Street and Almond
Avenue (143 West Almond Avenue). This item was continued from the September 15, 2003
meeting.
NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1715-03 has been prepared for this project in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. PC 26-03 approving Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1715-03
and its associated Mitigation Monitoring Program, Variance No. 2121-03, Major Site
Plan Review No. 268-03.
Christopher Carnes, Acting Planning Manager, introduced the item. Since there was opposition
to the project, a full reading of the staff report was required.
Mario Chavez-Marquez, Assistant Planner, went over the additional information provided to the
Commission since the last hearing on this project. It included copies of the Design Review
Committee staff reports and minutes; in-lieu parking fee; Downtown Plaza Design Parking
Study; copy of the Design Collaborative booklet and its elevations; color renderings and possible
light fixtures. He discussed the various Variances the Planning Commission had problem with
at the last meeting and he provided an update. The applicant is proposing to provide 23 trees, 53
trees less than the requirement. A letter was received from Mr. Lance Miller in which he stated
that the 10' easement is not wide enough. The Commissioners had voiced concerns about the
leasing of parking spaces and a change will be proposed in which all required parking would be
available to all tenants at this location. The landscape planters' size remains the same but it was
Planning Commission
October 20, 2003
being proposed to add additional landscape planters. The height of the building would be 26',
which would be shorter than the Antique Station. The applicant is proposing to have four trash
bins and one larger trash enclosure with two pickups weekly by Waste Management.
Commission asked about the planters, size of trees, street trees and trash collection. Mr. Chavez-
Marquez explained they are asking that some additional landscape fingers be added within the
easement. He also explained that the tree deficiency is different from the landscape planter
issue and the addition of the 10' planter takes care of the landscape- to-parking ratio. He stated
that the applicant is trying to mitigate the required number of trees by increasing the tree sizes
from 15 gallon to 24" boxes. The number of required trash enclosures is six and the applicant is
proposing to build a larger trash enclosure with four trash bins with two trash pickups a week.
This would accommodate both the existing building and the proposed building. With this
proposal the requirement would be satisfied.
Commissioner Bonina asked if the building is converted to a market, how does that affect
parking requirements. Mr. Chavez-Marquez explained that any use would have the same
parking demand.
Commissioner Smith wanted to know if there had been any review of the lighting fixture plans.
Mr. Chavez-Marquez indicated the applicant has submitted different light fixtures. It is being
recommended that the historic preservation planner review the light fIXtures and a photometric
study of the parking lot will be requested.
Mr. Chavez-Mario explained that on Condition No. 6 staff review is recommending that the
applicant relocate the existing entrance of the Antique Station from Almond Avenue to Glassell
Street. This is a condition the applicant is not in favor of. Also the applicant would like to
continue operating the Farmers Market just before he starts construction on the new building.
Mr. Chavez-Mario stated the approval of the project is valid for two years with an option for a
one-year extension.
Commissioners Smith and Brandman were concerned that there were many conditions which
state "prior to doing this" and that details were not yet worked out. Mr. Chavez-Marquez
explained that these have all evolved through the process and they have asked the applicant to
make a lot of these a part of the project. They would like to condition them because they haven't
gotten to that point yet. Staff wants to see the plans before construction.
Mr. Chavez-Marquez explained to Commissioner Bonina that prior to the applicant coming in to
the building counter, staff would want to know what they are going to do with the entrance to the
Antique Station.
Commissioner Smith was wondering if the Historic Planner had reviewed this project and she
was told yes.
Commissioner Brandman, in regards to the final DRC staff report, was confused as to how it
stands now - has the DRC approved it. Mr. Chavez-Marquez explained that the DRC approved
it on August 6 and made recommendations to the Planning Commission. The DRC has reviewed
the project three times and ultimately two members of the DRC approved the project.
Commissioner Bonina confirmed he had received the in-lieu parking fee information he
requested. He asked questions regarding the motorcycle and bicycle parking area, whether the
2
Planning Commission
October 20, 2003
short-term parking strategies from April 1999 is to be updated periodically and whether it is the
right of the applicant to pay the fee.
Mr. Hohnbaum gave an explanation of the Downtown Plaza District Parking Study. Ms. Angus
confirmed that there is not a mandatory update of the Downtown Parking Study. She explained
that as of late, Council has made some changes in terms of both the fee for parking and also the
amount of time that someone can park in restricted areas. The Economic Development
Department has been looking at a Wayfinding program and the idea is to point people to where
the available parking is. The Zoning Code does say that the applicant may request and the
Community Development Director may grant in-lieu parking fees.
Commissioner Smith questioned the current selling of permits on the lot and the fact that all
those people will be displaced. Ms. Angus stated that was never accounted for in the parking
study so it may impact them but based upon the parking study, there is enough parking in the
Downtown area.
Mr. Hohnbaum explained that when the parking study was looking at demand and available
parking, it did not take into account this private lot. It applied the demand of the flats and the
other buildings that may have been using this to the existing public spaces.
Commissioner Brandman stated that there is a need for parking in the adjacent residential areas.
She asked if the ten-foot easement issue had been taken care of. Mr. Chavez-Marquez indicated
that the applicant has provided a ten-foot easement as stated in the title report. The adjacent
property owner would like to have a wider easement to accommodate vehicles. The property
owner will have 10' ingress and egress on the easement. The applicant is providing a driveway
to accommodate that ten-foot easement along Olive Street.
Commissioner Smith, for the record, wanted to know if the applicant was offering any
alternative designs for the comer element of the building. She was told the applicant would
discuss that issue.
Commissioner Bonina wanted to know in the overall site plan, is there a requirement between
buildings in terms of separation. Mr. Chavez-Marquez was not aware of the specific building
requirements but he understands the Building Official has looked at it and has met with the
applicant on the building separation. He also confirmed that there are some outside dining
opportunities between the two buildings and that would trigger some additional parking. He
also explained that the proposal maximizes the overall floor area ratio for the lot.
Commissioner Smith pointed out a typographical error on page 2-24 on Condition No. 56 in
which the word "stripping" should be "striping". She also wanted to know if it was conditioned
in that the property owner is not able to sell parking passes anymore and she is told yes.
Susan Secoy. 112 E. Chapman Avenue, architect for the proiect. She discussed the two major
issues from the last meeting, which included the Design Collaborative guidelines and the style of
the building.
Commissioner Smith was told the fayade on the Antique Station would change but it would
remain a single story structure. She also had a question on that building which staff seems to
feel the entrance should be modified now and the applicant feels they should wait until there is a
tenant for that building. Ms. Secoy explained that they cannot do the entire project at one time
3
Planning Commission
October 20, 2003
and there is a phasing that is involved in this project. One part needs to be operational in order
to build a second part.
Commissioner Bonina wanted to know with the relocation of the entrance to the back of the
building, would this new fayade occur at the same time? He is told yes but not at the same time
of the new building.
Commissioner Brandman asked if the Design Collaborative had any suggestions on what this
building should look like. Ms. Secoy said yes in terms of the height and they have followed the
Design Collaborative guidelines.
Commissioner Brandman felt that a lot of what they have done is charming and Old Towne
including the side stairway. She was having a very difficult time with the front entrance with the
glass. Ms. Secoy explained why she had chosen this style and the direction she has taken.
Commissioner Bonina stated that as you look at what was designed in the Collaborative, it
appears that there was some attempt in the study to allow for some relief off the comer. Ms.
Secoy explained that they have stepped back due to the monument sign. He wanted to know if
there was enough relief off of the comer to signal you've arrived in Old Towne and Ms. Secoy
felt there was.
Dan Jensen. 178 S. Glassell Street. property owner of the project. He felt the project was
consistent with the block and he was very pleased with the building. The only way he can make
this happen is to allow the Antique Station to continue to operate during the construction of the
comer and once that building is developed and they have a tenant for the building, then they can
begin to remodel the Antique Station.
Commissioner Smith hoped Mr. Jensen would understand their dilemma in that it's going to be a
beautiful project but he may decide to sell the property. She noted in Condition No.6 it deals
with relocating the entrance but she doesn't read it as calling for a complete remodel of the
building. She wanted to know if Mr. Jensen would consider putting the entrance on Glassell
Street. Mr. Jensen stated that ultimately that's where the entrance should be but he may find
they get a retailer, grocery in particular, that would want the entrance on the side.
Commissioner Bonina suggested setting a time frame, such as twelve months, from the time the
new building was constructed to when the remodel would begin.
Mr. Jensen said he'd be willing to look at that but twelve months might be a little minimal and
he'd be looking at two years.
Commissioner Smith stated that the reason this project is taking awhile to get approved is
because it is unique and a different type project with many elements of discussion including a
request for five variances. Mr. Jensen explained that there are some code requirements which
cannot be met due to the nature of the project and, therefore, it requires a variance.
Commissioner Smith was willing to split the difference on the tree requirement by requiring the
addition of just 27 more trees. Mr. Jensen indicated the only way to do that would be to put
smaller size trees in.
Commissioner Bonina thought maybe they should increase the size of the trees so the trees will
be significant in size and not wait 25 years to see significant growth. Regarding the issue of the
4
Planning Commission
October 20, 2003
time frame after the certificate of occupancy, he agreed it does take some time for a developer to
go through the jurisdictional process and lease negotiations and he thought an eighteen-month
time frame would be more than enough. He also felt if they are going to remodel the building
for a grocery store, he agreed that the entrance should be in the back where the parking is.
However, there should be some sort of smaller entrance off of Glassel1.
Mr. Sheatz expressed concerns with the language in Condition No.6
Mr. Sheatz would be satisfied with Condition NO.6 if the first sentence was to remain as written
with the other two sentences struck from the condition.
Mr. Jensen wanted to know if they did approve this project, would he be required to relocate the
entrance of the Antique Station. He is told yes.
Mr. Sheatz indicated that requiring a time frame for the relocation of the entrance is problematic
because the way the condition is written it states that "prior to applying for building permits" If
Mr. Jensen is looking to get sticks in the ground and get this thing built and it's a phasing and
timing issue, then it will have to be reworked again the way it's written. Commissioner Smith
asked if they changed that to say within 18 months of occupancy of the building, would that be
allowed. Mr. Sheatz replied yes. Mr. Jensen would like to see it get done when the corner is
finished because it needs to be done on his timeframe because he's the one paying the bills.
He'd like to remove Condition No.6.
The public hearing was opened.
Janet Crenshaw. 464 N. Shaffer. Orange, Chairman of the Old Towne Preservation Committee,
felt this building was a little too contemporary and the reason is the glass on the building. She
did like the staircase on the side.
John Baker. 1051 Arbor Way. Orange. stated he had a problem with the glass front, the roofline,
and the setback of the building should be back further because it creates a blind corner.
Dennis Caldwell. 201 E. Chapman Avenue. Orange, an elected board member of the Downtown
Orange Business and Professional Association, spoke on behalf of the organization who is 100%
behind the project because of the added diversity. They do like what they see.
Mr. Jensen was asked to return with closing remarks. He noted from the Design Review
Committee minutes that Janet Crenshaw spoke in favor of the project. From the beginning of
the project he did involve the Downtown merchants and residents.
Ms. Secoy responded to the design element on the corner, stating that they made so many studies
in the corner area and there are so many ways to solve an issue such as a gateway. They chose
this one based on their studies throughout Old Towne. There is nothing offensive in what they
are proposing. There is logic behind the design and it's something to be proud of.
Commissioner Brandman asked about a design element that had been brought forward by the
Design Collaborative and she thought she'd heard there were none in regard to a proposed
building on this corner. Ms. Secoy said no, it had not been studied in detail.
Commissioner Smith talked about the Farmers Market and the condition that states the Farmers
Market would cease. Mr. Jensen said as the condition is stated now, he could not operate the
5
Planning Commission
October 20, 2003
market next Thursday. He would like to see added language that states upon issuance of a
building permit, the CUP allowing the market would become null and void.
Commissioner Bonina questioned whether Mr. Jensen wanted to tie the end of the Farmers
Market into the issuance of the permit or to the actual start of the construction. Mr. Jensen
stated it could be upon groundbreaking.
Mr. Jensen explained that there were a couple of recommended conditions that were not good
ideas such as Condition No. 2 which would reduce vehicular traffic by the placement of the
planter and it would still require a Variance. He'd like a condition that in the event he is able to
procure some type of agreement on the easement with Mr. Miller, that he would be eligible for a
refund of the in-lieu parking fee if he is able to create additional parking spaces. Commissioner
Smith felt if this type of agreement could be reached, Mr. Jensen would get back 6 of the 17 in-
lieu parking spaces. The City would rather have the parking spaces than the money.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Smith wanted to know if staff wanted to comment now on Mr. Jensen's request
on an in-lieu parking fee refund. Ms. Angus didn't see anything that would preclude the City
from refunding that money and hopefully he'd be able to do that before he moves on to
construction and the fee is collected. She didn't feel it needed to be conditioned.
Commissioner Brandman stated she was grateful she saw the pictures of St. John's but there are
some element differences between St. John's and the comer element of the proposed building
such as the canopy treatment. Also she's concerned with the strong angles on the building
stating that it is too contemporary. She doesn't have a problem with Mr. Jensen operating the
market but she is concerned about leaving the situation with his neighbor open ended. She'd
like to condition having larger trees.
Commissioner Bonina didn't have a problem with the architecture of the proposed building. His
main concern with the building was how it projected to the comer without any kind of setback
but in looking at the building further with the see-through glass, there is a layering effect which
he liked. Also he didn't have a problem with the Variance to allow the taller building. The trash
enclosure is a non-issue. The landscape to parking ratio with the added planter he assumed took
care of that issue. The size of the planters is not ideal but given the nature of the area, he can
live with the size of the planters. The number of trees as proposed with 23 trees is far too few
and he'd like to see a compromise at 50% of the requirement, which would be 38 trees and
enhance the size of the trees. The in-lieu parking fee is odd but it is allowed. Condition No.6
should be kept with the modification to suggest that within 18 months of the certificate of
occupancy the applicant/contractor shall relocate the entrance of the Antique Station building
along the Glassell side as part of this project.
It appeared to Commissioner Smith that three of the Variances had been erased. Four trash
enclosures with pickup twice a week is equivalent to eight containers and cancels that Variance.
She agrees with requiring 38 trees on-site and the planters as conditioned. The building height at
30' is fine. She's doesn't like projects with deficient parking so she really wishes Mr. Jensen
will be able to solve the problem with the easement holder and add the parking spaces in the lot.
She was not wild about the building design but she's not going to oppose it because it's not a
terribly tall building. She felt the monument sign detracts from any building standing there. She
was OK with the revisions to Conditions 6 and 8 as previously mentioned.
6
Planning Commission
October 20, 2003
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to approve Variance
2121-03, Major Site Plan Review No. 268.03, and Mitigated Negative Declaration1715-03
which is draft Resolution No. PC 26-03. Approving all the conditions as listed with an
adjustment to Condition No.6 that within 18 months of the issue of the certificate of occupancy
the applicant shall relocate the entrance of the Antique Station building along the Glassell Street
side as part of this project. Condition No.8 would add that the Farmers Market would be
eliminated upon groundbreaking and the beginning of construction. Also an addition of two
conditions in which one would read that all required parking spaces shall not be independently
and individually leased to anyone and shall be made permanently available for automobile
parking not only for employees working at the location, but also for customers and guests having
lawful reason to be at the location and it should be numbered as appropriate and the other which
would state that the number of trees are to be increased from 23 to 38 on-site, which is 50% of
the required amount, with 36" boxes subject to discussion with the landscape coordinator to
ensure that the planters will be adequate to accommodate a 36" box.
Commissioner Smith stated that in the document there are several unresolved conditions which
state "prior to" and those are Condition No. 12, landscape plan; No. 14, photometric analyzes;
No. 18, refine the main entrance; No. 19, show the motorcycIe/bike rack plan; No. 20, the
lighting plan; No. 21, the landscape plan to add particular trees; No. 24, site and elevation plans,
trash, service, utility enclosures; No. 25, plan to enhance the rear west elevation; and No. 26, the
furnishings. She requires that these be done in a systemic way and that plans for completion of
all of those elements be put into place with the Planning staff and presented in an organized
packet so they will know what it is going to look like.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Smith
Commissioner Brandman
Commissioner Domer
Commissioner Pruett
MOTION CARRIED
Mr. Carnes explained the appeal process.
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS:
3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-004, ZONE CHANGE NO. 1217-02,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 1710-02, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN
REVIEW NO. 258-02 - BRE PROPERTIES
A request to develop a 460-unit luxury apartment complex on the 11.52-acre former Cinedome
movie theater site. The proposed development includes 256 one-bedroom apartments and 204
two-bedroom apartments ranging in size from 600 square feet to 1,050 square feet. The complex
includes a clubhouse with leasing and management offices, an activity room with a fully
equipped kitchen, business center, fitness center, and media room/theater, two pools, and
landscaped open space areas. The site plan also incorporates two access points to the adjacent
Santa Ana River Trail. The complex would consist of 338 apartments within a four-story
building fronting Chapman Avenue. These units would be "wrapped" around a 602-space five-
level parking structure. The remaining 122 apartments would be three-story "walk-up" units
served by individual garages, carports, and surface parking.
7
Planning Commission
October 20, 2003
Approval of a text amendment to the General Plan is requested to allow high-density residential
development in the General Commercial General Plan land use district. Approval of a Zone
Change from Limited Business (C-l) to Planned Community Specific Plan (PC (SP)) is
requested to allow a multi-family residential development on the site with development
standards appropriate to accommodate the proposed project.
NOTE: Environmental Impact Report No. 1710-02 was prepared for the project in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Environmental: Adopt Resolution No. PC 41-03 recommending City Council approval
of Environmental Impact Report No. 1710-02 as being prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
Project:
Adopt Resolution PC No. 41-03 recommending City Council approval
of General Plan Amendment No. 2002-0004, Zone Change No. 1217-
02, and Major Site Plan Review No. 258-02.
Adopt Resolution No. PC 26-03 approving Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1715-03 and its
associated Mitigation Monitoring Program, Variance No. 2121-03, Major Site Plan
Review No. 268-03.
Mr. Carnes introduced the project.
Anna Pehoushek, Acting Principal Planner, presented the project. Since there was opposition to
the project, a full and complete reading of the staff report was made. She then provided a
PowerPoint presentation showing the project site. The applicant has put together an application
and overall proposal that introduces multi-residential development at a density of 40 units per
acre. Access to the complex would be provided by three access points; two on Chapman, one
which is signalized; and one on Rampart Street via an existing easement. The project is in a
redevelopment area that does not incorporate any units that are designated for very low or low-
income households, so the applicant has included payment of an in-lieu affordable housing fee
for the creation of affordable housing elsewhere in the City. All the impacts on the
Environmental Impact Report has been mitigated to a level less than significant except for
operational air quality, cumulative air quality and cumulative noise impacts. If the project is
approved, a statement of overriding considerations would be necessary.
Ms. Pehoushek pointed out some adjustments to the conditions staff recommended. The
affordable housing in-lieu fee in the Specific Plan should be $2,850.00 per unit. The applicant
has also asked for some flexibility regarding Condition No.8 in which they would like the
ability to provide the storage either in the parking structure or somewhere else on the site. Staff
would suggest that the words "parking structure" be deleted from the first sentence of that
condition. Condition No. 44 and 47 are duplicates so staff recommends deleting Condition No.
47.
Commissioner Brandman asked if staff had any suggestions where storage could be provided on
the site. Ms. Pehoushek said there are various options, for example, there could be places in the
surface parking areas where storage lockers could be created.
8
Planning Commission
October 20, 2003
Commissioner Bonina asked about the long term constraints relative to this property and
developing the property as a viable commercial or mixed use property and he asked for more
detail and history on that. Ms. Pehoushek explained that the constraints apply primarily to the
larger Uptown area and the development of the Specific Plan for the whole area. The existing
mobile home park is a significant land use that occupies a large area of Uptown and the City
has recognized that as a long-term use. Existing infrastructure constraints on other properties
was also looked at as far as the feasibility of the Specific Plan was concerned.
Commissioner Smith wanted to know if the City prepared a financial analysis of this project
compared to the financial return of the existing General Plan designation. Ms. Angus first
answered Commissioner Bonina's question by stating that the City had a vision plan for this
larger Uptown area and there were some physical constraints. About two years ago Equity
Office was entitled for 1.2 million sq. ft. of office development. It was found that there really
wasn't a high market for more office space. The City also looked at high quality
retaillcommercial. Car Maxx came forward a couple years ago and City Council determined
that wasn't the type of use they were lookingfor and not high quality enough in terms of an entry
statement into Orange. However, there was interest in luxury high-density apartments and there
was a need for rental housing at the high end. In response to Commissioner Smith's question, in
terms of a fiscal study not directed to this site but another site in the Uptown area that through
Economic Development they had contracted for both land use and economic analysis and felt
that those findings would apply to this site as well. It looked at office, retail and luxury high-
density apartment developments. It projected that there would be a need for four hundred high
quality luxury apartments on an annual basis over an 8 year period.
Commissioner Brandman wanted to know if Orange Unified had responded in anyway. Ms.
Angus stated OUSD did make some comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP). These types
of units are not geared toward family housing since they are only one and two bedrooms. Ms.
Pehoushek explained that the school district did respond to the Notice of Preparation and
indicated that a total of 78 students would be generated by the project but they did not submit
any comment letter on the draft EIR.
Commissioner Bonina wanted to know how much it costs to develop an affordable housing unit.
Rick Otto, from Economic Development, stated that total cost would be $165,000 per unit minus
the land, which would make it about $120,000.
Commissioner Domer asked if other sites have been evaluated for affordable housing
opportunities. Mr. Otto stated they have not identified a site in the Uptown area. The 20% set
aside for affordable housing can be used anywhere in the City. Currently they are negotiating
with the Irvine Company to have an affordable housing site identified in the East Orange area.
Commissioner Brandrnan said in her opinion people that would need affordable housing in this
area may not be eager to go all the way to the east. She's concerned about the affordable
housing element. Mr. Otto explained that after the Car Maxx denial, the Council's direction
was that they wanted quality in the Uptown area. It is very difficult to have high quality
residential and to have affordable housing as part of that project.
Commissioner Brandman, for the record, stated that the Council might want to rethink and
review the luxury apartment issue. She felt there should be an affordable housing element in this
area in the future.
9
Planning Commission
October 20, 2003
Commissioner Domer stated that there are a lot of for-profit companies developing affordable
housing. People who need affordable housing need to be closer to their jobs. There should be a
percentage of affordable housing units provided.
Kent Marshall. 2020 Main Street. Irvine. Development Director for BRE. He provided an
overview of his company, an overview of the project and addressed the conditions of approval.
He explained they have met with the neighbors and they have attempted to address their
concerns. Their project team has prepared a very thorough and comprehensive EIR and Specific
Plan. He felt this project fills a void in the City for an extremely high quality project. The plan
meets or exceeds existing codes, such as parking and open space. The project is not designed for
families and the amenities are not there for families. It's geared more for urban professionals.
Regarding conditions of approval, they are in acceptance of the additional language in Condition
No. 8 for relocating additional storage. Condition No. 18 addressed the signal issue - they are
willing to accept the cost of signal installation but not the 75% maintenance cost. Also this
condition states that the signal shall be operational prior to the issuance of the building permits
and they would like to ask that the language be amended to the time of certificate of occupancy.
On Condition No. 19 they would like to ask for some assistance from the City by either adding
to the cost of that to reduce their cost or they would be willing to accept a credit on traffic fees as
a participant. On Conditions 29-31 they have worked very closely with the Police Department
and they would like to request the Crime Prevention Specialist they have worked with be the
individual to review and approve the plans as noted in those conditions. They have no problem
with deleting Condition No. 47, a duplicate of No. 44. Condition 92 refers back to the original
signal issue that he just spoke of in regard to the delivery of the signal.
Commissioner Domer asked what size water heaters are they proposing to put in and is told 40
gallons. He wondered with the storage space issue, had they thought about using a tankless
water heater system.
In response to Commissioner Bonina's question, Ms. Angus explained that in terms of the
Zoning Standards, they are looking at this as a Planned Community Zoned Specific Plan so they
are looking at creating their own set of zoning standards for this particular piece of property. In
terms of off-site improvements and specifically contribution to the traffic signal and the ongoing
operation, they have of late been requiring that but that does require a legal opinion to look at
that government code section and make a decision.
Commissioner Smith wanted to know what a luxury apartment was and Mr. Marshall had
explained that it's a resort style atmosphere. She was also told that the units would currently
rent from just over $1,000 to $2,400 for the largest unit.
The public hearing was opened.
Those speaking in opposition to the proieet:
Cindy Pelton, 300 N. Rampart, Orange
Kelly A. Nulph, 300 N. Rampart, Orange
R. Ottzen, 300 N. Rampart, Orange
Margarita Fleener, 300 N. Rampart, Orange
Debbie Schram, address on file
Lou Frisina, address on file
John Baker, 1051 Arbor Way, Orange
Lois Barke, address on file
10
Planning Commission
October 20, 2003
Kimberly Bottomley, 1005 Arbor Way, Orange
Gary Wade, 166 N. Eckhoff Street, Orange
. project doesn't fit in that area
. traffic problems
. no play area in complex for children to play
. not enough schools
. shopping is very limited, with one very small Ralph's. Stater Bros. Market would be ideal
for that location
. the projected total for the entire area would be 7,774 residents and that's a lot of people
. the school and traffic issues were not answered in the environmental impact report
. concern with the traffic created during games and this new project
. additional demand on parks and libraries in the area
. the projects will create overcrowding
. negative effect on the response time from the Police and Fire Departments
. additional gridlock on Chapman Avenue
. overcrowding creates a less desirable neighborhood
. everyone will be trying to get to work at the same
. limited gas stations in the area
. who is going to regulate the construction traffic
. questioned if this project is beneficial to the health, safety and welfare of the Orange City
residents; will the project conform to public necessity, public convenience and good land
practices; will it be compatible with the authorized usage of the Zoning District; how does
the project deal with the City's Housing Element; why not zone it R-3 which would equate
to less units and more open space; if rear exit is denied, how will the builder deal with the
dead-end at the rear of the property; three of the driveways do not comply 25' with the
inside corner and outside corner radius; how will the units accommodate the American
Disabilities Act
. adding hundreds of people to the Orange Crush
. keep property commercially zoned and provide a good tax base
. City will be receiving money for parks and recreation for these projects but there will be no
new parks in the west section of Orange
. no further mitigation in the EIR for all the traffic concerns and air quality impacts
. aesthetically the apartments would be better suited on the west side of the 57 Freeway
Mr. Marshall was asked to return for his closing remarks. He stated that they will be paying the
maximum number of fees as required to the schools as well as paying their full share of fees for
parks, amounting to $10,000 per unit. The EIR has fully addressed the traffic issues. This
project layout includes the finest planning practices. They will be providing two trail head
connections to the regional bike trai1. They are paying their full fair share of the affordable
housing in-lieu fees. Should they be forced to go back and include affordable housing units in
the project, they would have a complete redesign.
Ms. Pehoushek addressed the traffic, services and Zone Change issues. She stated adequate
services will be provided in terms of emergency services in the area. The Police and Fire
Departments will not be impacted in terms of their response time by this project. Air quality is
one area where they have acknowledged the fact that there would be a significant, unavoidable
impact. The Zone Change would ensure if the property were not developed by BRE, a future
developer would still be subject to developing a project that incorporated the same quality of
amenities identified in the Specific Plan.
11
Planning Commission
October 20, 2003
Commissioner Smith was told BRE does not own the property yet so all of this is contingent
upon their purchase of the property. Ms. Pehoushek explained that if ERE did not purchase the
property, the Zone Change and Specific Plan would remain intact. Commissioner Smith
clarified that the Zone Change and the designation goes with the land and not with the project.
Commissioner Brandman is grateful to hear that the City is acknowledging that there is an air
quality problem. She was curious where these people are going to shop and where are these
services going to come from in the future. Ms. Pehoushek stated that where people will go for
their day-to-day retail needs is beyond the scope of their analysis of this project and the
applicant would need to address this issue.
Commissioner Domer wanted to know if the CalTrans parcel has been bought yet and he is told
the applicant is in negotiation for that parcel. He also asked if there had been any traffic studies
showing residential use versus commercial use and were any measurements taken during the
game days and what does Orange PD do during those times. Ms. Pehoushek stated that Orange
PD does enforce the no parking areas.
Mr. Marshall addressed the issue of the easement in the rear of the property. They would like to
be in a situation where it could go either way in which they can use it or not use it and it would
be at the discretion of BRE. The Fire and Police Departments indicated they didn't need it in
terms of emergency access.
The public hearing was closed.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue this item
to the November 17,2003 Planning Commission meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Smith
None
None
Commissioner Pruett
MOTION CARRIED
List of items for the applicant and staff to come back with clarifications:
· architecture of the project
· traffic circulation, particularly the impact to the 22 Freeway and the Orange Crush
· comparison of the traffic circulation comparing residential versus commercial
· availability of services in the community for groceries, gas, car service, medical
treatment and services in general and is shopping at the Block adequate for everyday
living
· questions relating to the CalTrans parcel and its purchase
· resolution of any problems around the easement and the potential for acquisition
· traffic on game days at the stadium and the impact on the mobile home community and
this project
· hear more about the General Plan context of what it is changing from and changing to
· staff will need to address conditions previously mentioned by the applicant
· answer water heater question
· staff to look at other proposed uses such as the high end retail use versus the economics
of a grocery store chain
12
Planning Commission
October 20, 2003
· issue of parks and the park in-lieu fee and will all that go to west Orange
· issue of affordable housing and let them know what does a complete redesign mean
economically
· is this project family restricted
· like to understand ADA further
· like to be certain that there be no exclusivity or anti provisions on families
· concern about school's ability to handle the children and get some response from the
school district
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to adjourn to the
next regular Planning Commission meeting on Monday, November 3, 2003 at 6:30 p.m.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Smith
None
None
Commissioner Pruett
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 12:20 pm.
13