2001 - September 5
C,,/jotJ. G-j. J-
APPROVED C./
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
September 5,200]
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Smith
Commissioner Romero
<-,
t,--:,>
<.:':.;)
Karen Sully, Planning Manager,
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney,
Jerry Bailey, Design Manager - Public Works
E]aine Steinhardt, Recording Secretary
C::J
':.-)
..-1
r....)
-1:'-
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN
"'T)
=z:
~
w
00
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2346-00 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1645-00 -RALPH
SANDOVAL
A proposal to allow a second story addition and new wrap around covered front porch on a non-
contributing single-family residence.
NOTE:
Negative Declaration ]645-0] was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this
project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept withdrawal of application.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to accept withdrawal of
application.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
INRE:
Commissioner Carlton, Pruett, Smith
None
Commissioner Romero
CONSENT CALENDAR
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 20,
2001.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve the Minutes of
August 20, 200].
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Carlton, Pruett, Smith
None
Commissioner Romero
MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS - None
)
,.-;
,
-i--'"
,_-'C)
-:-"
"-'::0
;ll ::u
:::u?
..:',,~':::
C)
rrl
Planning Commission Minutes
September 5, 2001
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS
3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1653-00 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4-00 - CITY OF
ORANGE 2000-2005 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE.
The City of Orange Housing Element sets forth the City's strategy to preserve and enhance the
community's residential character, expand housing opportunities for all economic sectors, and provide
guidance and direction for local government decision-making in all matters related to housing.
NOTE:
Negative Declaration 1653-00 has been prepared for this project in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15070 et seq. The public review period for the Negative Declaration was
October 12 through November 12, 2000.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution PC-29-01 recommending that the City Council approve Negative
Declaration 1653-00 and General Plan Amendment 4-00.
Since no one was present in opposition to the application, Chair Smith waived full reading of the report.
Ms. Karen Sully, Planning Manager, briefly explained the document and the time line for approval of the
Housing Element Update that has occurred previous to the present meeting. She reviewed the notices and
dates of circulation for the Negative Declaration and asked Principal Planner Joan Wolff and Consultant
Karen Warner of Cotton Beland Associates (CBA) to elaborate on the update and to answer questions.
Ms. Wolff and Ms. Warner reviewed the information in the staff report pointing out that the last update of
the Housing Element occurred in 1993, although State law requires the Housing Element updated every 5
years, state budgetary constraints led to several time extensions.
Ms. Wolff indicated that the Draft Housing Element was reviewed by State Housing and Community
Development (HCD) for compliance with statutory requirements. HCD asked for several modifications
to the draft, and after working closely with the City, including a visit to Orange to meet with staff, the
City was able to revise the draft to the satisfaction of HCD. Attached to the staffreport is a letter from
HCD indicating that the City's Housing Element complies with all statutory requirements.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) was highlighted as an essential component of the Housing
Element and the housing allocations for the City of Orange were discussed. It was explained that the
RHNA figures for Orange required an additional 3205 units in the city, of which about 1,000 were
required to be very low- and low-income units.
Chair Smith opened the meeting for public comments.
Mr. Robert Nicolany, 1712 Sunview Drive, stated he thought the city needed more affordable middle
class housing. He commented that ifhe hadn't purchased his home many years ago, he could not afford
to live here now. He complained there was no lower or middle income housing in Orange.
Mr. Scott Mather, 180 South Cypress, representing Orange Cares, a not for profit organization, stated
there will be a critical need for housing in the future and he asked for policies that would ensure the city's
ability to meet those needs as they occur. He requested that a strong basis for affordable housing be built
now.
2
Planning Commission Minutes
September 5,2001
No one else wished to speak and Chair Smith closed the public hearing.
In response to Commissioner Pruett's inquiry, Ms Wolff explained that the unincorporated areas were not
included in the Housing Element, nor were county islands.
In a discussion concerning the discontinuance of Code Enforcement grants brought up by Commissioner
Carlton, Ms. Wolff explained that the grants appeared to benefit those people who violated the Code with
no help offered to people in compliance. She believed it was decided to disperse the grants on a more
equitable basis.
Karen Warner also offered an explanation, as a result of a question from Commissioner Carlton, that the
mobile home park's rental assistance was being phased out but that assistance to the existing 10 recipients
would continue until not needed. She explained no one would be forced out of the program but they are
phasing it out because it is deemed to be an inefficient use of money.
There was a discussion between Commissioner Carlton and Ms. Wolff concerning how the city could
realistically meet the RHNA goals since affordable land is so scarce and what were the consequences of
not meeting the goals. Ms. Wolff explained that through a variety of incentives there was the potential to
meet the goals. The city is required to demonstrate efforts toward meeting housing goals in the form of
providing assistance programs to encourage new affordable housing. She said there are no penalties for
not meeting the goals as long as the infrastructure is available.
In a discussion between Commissioners and staff, Commissioner Pruett suggested that City Council could
adopt a policy requiring affordable housing. Commissioner Carlton felt that the price of land quoted in
the documents was very low. An answer to her question as to the origin of the land price figures, Ms
Warner explained the technical report was written I Y, years ago and she would have to check where the
figures were drawn from. Commissioner Carlton remarked that she felt that updated figures were needed.
Chair Smith also pointed out that information on the homeless was based on old statistics.
Chair Smith announced the receipt of 3 letters relative to the Housing Element. They were sent by Scott
Mather of Orange Cares; Larry Ainsworth of St. Joseph's Hospital and Trinh LeCong of the Kennedy
Commission. Mr. Ainsworth requested that the goals on Page 5 and 6 of the Housing Element be
strengthened.
A discussion between Ms. Wolff and Chair Smith centered on Chair Smith's belief and desire that the
affordable housing part of the element needs a stronger approach because only 44 units designated low
income housing exists in the city and that is not acceptable. She stated she felt more units must be
provided and could be by employing any number of different incentives. Ms. Wolff explained the City
also has an Affordable Housing Plan that promotes the idea that 20% 'of new housing be affordable and
staff always tries to convince developers to include affordable housing, but there were no strict
requirements as part of the Housing Element.
Responding to Chair Smith's request for a method to incorporate stronger affordable housing language
into the document, Ms. Wolff suggested that the recommendation to City Council could include
additional language that asks for an inclusionary affordable housing policy. The Affordable Housing Plan
is a document that deals with housing policy implementation; it would be a logical place to incorporate
such a policy.
Commissioner Pruett expressed concern that increased density bonus incentives may cause less than
quality housing. He felt the issue needs work and cannot be resolved with a statement. Commissioner
Carlton believed the problem is based on economics. Commissioner Pruett agreed although he thought
there are other creative ways to approach the problem.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
September 5, 2001
Chair Smith called for affordable rental units for elderly, and physically and mentally disabled people.
She felt the community has a responsibility to speak for them and that other communities provide nice
facilities for the aforementioned section of society. She noted that most rentals are in multi-family
neighborhoods, of which there are not many in Orange. She suggested the newly developing eastern area
of the city as a logical location for additional affordable rental housing. She cited Goals 3 and 4 on Page
5 and 6 of the Housing Element. She suggested language promoting housing for the elderly in Policy 5.1
on Page 7 be strengthened to help avoid homelessness.
Chair Smith discussed city housing stock that is in disrepair; Ms. Wolff stated that Page 30-34 of the
Housing Element discusses rehabilitation possibilities and incentives. She also offered information on the
census statistics that Chair Smith felt needed updating, noting the 2000 Census statistics would not be
available until 2002. Ms. Warner noted that the Housing Element is a 5 year plan and that the data will
age over that time period.
Chair Smith had a number of questions and opinions relating to revenue bonds for affordable housing -
she felt they are good but too low; she asked about status of the Uptown Orange and West Chapman
Revitalization Plan; she questioned the fact that there is no suggestion that affordable housing could be
added in East Orange; she asked about the Orange Housing on La Veta; how the homeless program
mentioned on Page 40 is being supported because she felt money was available but wasn't being used.
She was in favor of backing up the policy.
Ms. Wolff and Ms. Warner responded that the Uptown Orange Revitalization Plan was being worked on
for the past 2 years but is not finished; La Veta housing was counted in the numbers for affordable
housing; and they did not have exact details on homeless programs but felt the program was supported by
the city through CDBG. Ms. Wolff indicated she would follow up on it.
Chair Smith was interested in setting policies for new development concerning the provision of more
affordable housing. Commissioner Pruett wanted the update to reflect stronger goals concerning
affordable housing.
MOTION I
Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton for adoption of Resolution PC
29-01 recommending that City Council approve Negative Declaration 1653-00 and General Plan
Amendment 4-00 pertaining to the City of Orange 2000-2005 Housing Element Update.
During the discussion before the vote, answering Commissioner Carlton's inquiry about updating the
Housing Element when new census figures were available, Ms. Wolff cited an effort by SCAG, on behalf
of the region, to postpone the Housing Element Update until new census figure became available, but that
the State required the update before then, understanding that current data would not be available.
Commissioner Carlton felt the update could be improved with the latest data.
Ms. Sully offered that a comprehensive General Plan Update would be completed within the next few
years and the new census figures will be looked at for consistency in that document.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Smith
None
Commissioner Romero
MOTION CARRIED
4
Planning Commission Minutes
September 5, 2001
MOTIONll
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Chair Smith to have the City's Affordable Housing Plan of
1994 updated as early as possible to reflect goals as proposed to the City Council and to include a
stronger policy for provision of affordable housing in new developments and in larger projects in East
Orange.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Smith
None
Commissioner Romero
Chair Smith called for a 5 minute recess to end at 8:20 p.m.
MOTION CARRIED
4. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1670-01, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16218,
VARIANCE 2098-01, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2372-01, - AND MAJOR SITE PLAN
REVIEW 185-01 - BRANDYWINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
A proposal to subdivide and develop approximately 5.4 acres ofland for a gated, 21-lot single-family
Planned Unit Development (PUD). On-site circulation consists of a private loop road. Common
open space for the project would be provided by four lots (total 1.63 acres). The proposal includes
the demolition of an existing single-family residence and assorted accessory structures, and removal
of certain existing vegetation.
Approval of a tentative tract map is necessary for the subdivision of the property. A conditional use
permit is required to develop the property as a Planned Unit Development. A variance is necessary to
allow a) the perimeter fence height along Sunview Drive to be six feet rather than the 42 inches
required by the Code and b) to allow building heights exceeding two stories. The site is located at
1740 Bolingridge Drive.
NOTE:
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1670-01 has been prepared for this project in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq. The public review period for the Mitigated
Negative Declaration is August 9 through August 28, 2001.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution PC-25-0I, recommending that the City Council approve Mitigated
Negative Declaration 1670-0 I, Tentative Tract Map 16218, Variance 2098-0 I,
Conditional Use Permit 2372-0 I. and Major Site Plan Review 185-0 I.
Because there was some opposition to the subject proposal, Chair Smith ordered a full reading of the
report.
Ms. Sully introduced the project as described in the staff report and recounted the existing condition of
the present development. She noted where various tanks and storage were located and enumerated the
necessary planning actions required to approve the project. Before she turned to Senior Planner Anna
Pehoushek. to complete staffs presentation of the project, Ms Sully announced that applicant and
Planning and Development Coordinator, Mr. Bob Mickelson and developer, Jim Barisic ofBrandvwine
Development, were present.
Ms. Pehoushek gave a more detailed presentation of the proposed development and she also reviewed the
entitlements needed to facilitate approval of the project. She explained that the Planned Unit
Development concept provided the flexibility the developer needed for clustering the units around a loop
road and to allow reduction in a few of the lot sizes that would otherwise be fixed under conventional
5
Planning Commission Minutes
September 5,2001
zoning. She pointed out that although some of the units are 3 story, they appear to be 2 story because of
the sloping lots and they do not exceed the city's 32 foot height limit. Plans for these particular units
were displayed in the chambers. She reported letters had been received from James and Joan Wright,
1811 East Sunview Drive; and Craig and Mary Briscoe, 1724 East Sunview Drive. She then gave a full
reading of the report.
After Chair Smith questioned deviating from required parking and noted 19 spaces were indicated on the
landscape plan while the site plan illustrated 18 parking spaces, Ms. Pehoushek thoroughly explained the
parking plan for the new community, pointing out that 18 parking spaces would be provided in addition to
the 63 covered garage spaces. She noted that only 42 garage spaces were required but the units would
have 3 garage spaces. The development will be 13 parking spaces short of what the code requires. She
also confirmed the plan would return to the Design Review Committee before final approval is given.
Ms. Sully informed the Commissioners that an additional suggested condition of approval could be added
requiring that the landscape plan be revised to be consistent with the site plan.
Responding to Chair Smith, Ms Pehoushek described the perimeter fence as tubular steel and noted the
fence detail is on the landscape plan.
Chair Smith announced she had visited the site and met with Mr. Mickelson. Commissioner Carlton said
she was familiar with the site, and Commissioner Pruett visited the site but neither of them had spoken to
Mr. Mickelson.
Mr. Jim Barisic, President Brandywine Development Corporation, 1801 E. Edinger Avenue, Santa Ana,
CA thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity to present Bolinger Estates. He described the
background of his company and their development experience. He indicated that the development has
been over nine (9) months in the making and has included numerous meetings with the neighbors and
City staff mernbers. Additionally, there have been two (2) fully noticed neighborhood meetings in which
all of the residents of the surrounding neighborhood have been invited to attend workshops for the
purpose of familiarizing the neighborhood with the proposed new development and to gain additional
information concerning what the neighborhood would like to see in the new development. He told of
having two Design Review Committee meetings in which architecture and plans were unanimously
approved with a few modifications which they have agreed to. He states that it is Brandywine's belief
that the modifications which have been made to the development plans, as a result of these numerous
meetings, have been significant and meaningful. In addition, he spoke of the detailed staff report and that
he was in agreement with, and accepted, all of the conditions of approval. Brandywine believes that the
Bolinger Estates Planned Residential Development represents a unique opportunity for the City of Orange
to add to the housing stock of its community an attractive and marketable new residential element and
hopes that the Commission concurs in this regard. He thanked the Commission for the high level of
professionalism which staff continually exhibited during the entire review and planning process.
Regardless of the final outcome concerning the Bolinger Estates development proposal, it has been a
pleasure working with the City.
Mr. Bob Mickelson, Post Office Box 932, Orange. renting a home at 1740 Bolingridge Drive, reviewed
the Design Review Committees' remarks and presented an exhibit illustrating the physical constraints of
the site. He explained it was their goal to do as little grading on the site as possible thereby preserving the
topography, vegetation and the views. He said they had considered many different configurations, met
with neighbors and staff and determined a Planned Unit Development subdivision would allow
development of streets with a single-family feel while retaining the topography with as little grading as
possible and preserving a significant number of trees. He stated a homeowners association would
maintain the slopes and CC&Rs would require that the garages be used for parking. He also believed
their plan would blend well with the existing surrounding homes because the new community would
6
.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 5, 2001
provide a 20-25 ft. setback from existing properties. He described a planned park-like area to run along
Sunview Drive that would maintain its current feeling. Mr. Mickelson believes only a Planned Unit
Development will provide all the opportunities he described.
While the traffic increase was being discussed, it was highlighted that the existing traffic is very low
volume and the new community would not change the traffic, allowing it to remain low volume. They
originally planned only one access to the community, to be situated on Sunview Drive, but an emergency
gate is required on Bolingridge and they have accepted that.
He also discussed the 13 parking space deficit in their plan and explained that although there is a deficit
he felt it would be overcome with the 3-car garages and driveways that could accommodate 2 or 3 parked
cars. He also explained their decision not to include sidewalks was based on their desire to grade the site
as little as possible. They felt a 3 foot sidewalk would cause excessive grading and he pointed out that
many of the immediate neighborhoods do not have sidewalks.
The Commissioners discussed the concerns with Mr. Mickelson who responded to Commissioner Carlton
by explaining the subject properly was in escrow conditioned on the city's approval ofthe development as
presented. He answered Commissioner Pruett's concerns about significant cut grading saying the
maximum cut would be 15 feet. Commissioner Pruett questioned the proposal's compatibility with the
neighborhood, wondering why it was proposed as a closed community without through streets.
Responding to Chair Smith, Mr. Mickelson explained the CC&Rs will prohibit parking boats and RVs in
the proposed development. Ms. Sully assured the Commissioners that the CC&Rs must have city
approval. Nothing included in the CC&Rs may be rescinded or modified without city review. She then
explained that recreational vehicle parking on Sunview Drive is not allowed by code and would be
addressed by Code Enforcement.
In an exchange with Mr. Mickelson, Chair Smith stated that there are sidewalks on the other Sunview and
Ila Drives. Mr. Mickelson acknowledged but believed that most neighborhood internal streets did not
have sidewalks. He explained why the inclusion of sidewalks would cause what he felt would be
excessive grading noting both up-slopes and down-slopes would be affected. He also assured Chair
Smith that the HOA would protect and nurture the sensitive oak grove.
Chair Smith pointed out that the large driveways will be capable of holding 3-4 cars.
Chair Smith opened the public hearing by suggesting those people in favor speak first.
J. Michael Vanderhoof, 1903 East Bolingridge Drive, Ahmed Abou-Abdon, 3146 North Westhaven,
Larry Brown, 3109 Hillview Drive, Richard Dyer, 1907 East Bolingridge Drive, Debbie Matthews, 1534
Ila Drive, Stephen Carter, 1838 Bolingridge Drive, and Ernie Bustamante, 1843 East Bolingridge Drive
all spoke in favor of the proposed development. They all agreed that although the present open space was
desirable, in recent years Chapman College had not maintained it and the properly had fallen into
disrepair, which was not desirable. Their favorable comments included: approval of the developer plan
to maintain the present topography as much as possible; replacing the trees in poor condition with large
box trees; the developer had improved other neighborhoods with their new developments and felt it would
benefit this neighborhood; proposed low density was welcomed; sidewalks will not be missed because
traffic is not a problem and allows walking in the street; and because the neighborhood will be gated, it
would be safe for children. Mr.Vanderhoot expressed his sympathy to those neighbors fronting on
Sunview Drive because their property would no longer face a park, albeit nonmaintained.
John Von Karvaly, 1527 East Sunview Drive, Del Gonzales, 1736 East Sunview Drive, Richard Polley,
3118 Westhaven Street, Robert Dickinson, 1821 East Sunview Drive, Charles Rupp, 1802 East Sunview
7
Planning Commission Minutes
September 5, 2001
Drive, Angela Hays, 1702 East Sunview Drive and Robert Nicolany, 1712 Sunview Drive all opposed the
proposed development, citing: incompatibility with the single story existing neighborhood; large existing
lots too contrasting with the relatively small 5,000+ square foot proposed lots; not in favor of the rear of
the proposed houses facing existing neighbors on Sunview Drive; appears too dense; the feeling that new
units will have excessive visibility into existing properties; concentrated traffic will impact neighbors on
Sunview Drive in proximity to planned gate; traffic emerging on Tustin Avenue will be dangerous; new
units will impact current problem parking on Sunview Drive; objectionable gate configuration. Some
people called for an entrance on the west side of the proposed community. Mr. Gonzales believes the
impact on his property would be the greatest in the area and Mr. Polley is convinced the proposed
development will dangerously increase the probability of storm damage to his property because there is
heavy runoff there now during stormy periods. He also feels an EIR is needed to adequately appraise
possible environmental impacts because he is of the opinion the area is already geologically unstable and
it will be exacerbated by the proposed development. Mr. Dickinson also voiced concern about soil
instability in the area. Mr. Polley voiced his concern for wildlife in the area, which was also worrying
Mr. Nicolany. Mr. Polley reported that large specimen trees were recently removed and he complained
that the tubular fencing will be a detraction in the backyards of existing homes. He also stated he was not
notified 3 weeks in advance of meetings. Ms. Hayes complained that a unit proposed directly across the
street from her property will loom 42 feet higher than her property. Several people did not like the
proposed contrasting architecture and would prefer single-story houses that would match that which is
existing. Mr. Nicolany was disappointed that the city did not take over the subject property and maintain
it in its current wild state because he had seen bald eagles there a few times.
Mr. Mickelson's summary statement emphasized the proposed PUD was the best project for the area and
it was his opinion that an extension of Bolingridge Drive into the project would force them to abandon the
oak grove plus they would need to grade down another 12 feet. He reiterated the projected traffic
numbers and again offered that the impact on traffic will be negligible. He did say a gate at Bolingridge
Drive would ease the traffic numbers somewhat. He defended the entrance on Sunview Drive eXplaining
that any other entrance explored would cause an even greater impact. Mr. Mickelson said the soil was
tested and there are no unstable soil areas in the neighborhood.
Jim Barisic' discussed his familiarity with environmental issues in the area explaining they are very
prudent builders and that their whole idea for the project maintains the stability. He said there were no
tests that proved building vibrations would destabilize the area. He noted that any development will
cause construction traffic but that is unavoidable. He feels the many conditions imposed on the project, to
which they agree, will work to protect the area.
He explained they did not intend to remove shrubs from major slopes and the hydrology analysis shows
the existing drains will take care of runoff. He said they will be removing diseased, dying and dead trees
and Chapman University had, in ignorance, sold large trees from the property before considering
Brandywine's project.
He addressed the compatibility complaint by pointing out there is no way to build homes now that will
look like those built earlier. He said 24 homes could be built on conventional lots but they would not
look like the existing homes. He emphasized the care they had taken in designing the proposed homes
and that the elevations planned were excellent, designed with expensive materials, such as wood shingle
and brick, to soften the facades.
Mr. Barisic also addressed concerns for wildlife by explaining that one of the reasons it has taken them so
long to bring the project forward was because they hired a licensed biologist and a licensed arborist. He
reported there had been a Red Tail Hawk and owls nesting in the park in the past, but not now. He had
not heard that Bald Eagles were in the vicinity.
8
Planning Commission Minutes
September 5, 2001
Responding to Chair Smith, Mr. Barisic discussed the pepper trees on the subject property explaining
there were 3 large California Pepper trees but the rest of the other pepper trees were not the same. They
plan to remove those and replace them with different kinds of trees. He noted that pepper trees tend to
crowd other trees. He pointed out that they could modify their plan but it must be reviewed by the Design
Review Committee. Chair Smith asked that the pepper trees be considered in a modified landscape plan
because she liked the vista of pepper trees along the road. They also discussed boxing the oaks for
replanting along with some Canary Island Palms.
Chair Smith said she was very interested in having sidewalks, especially for the safety of children, along
the longest length of road in the interior of the project but only on one side of the road, preferring
sidewalk similar to those along Sun view Drive, Santa Ana, Canyon View and Ila Drive. She asked to
discuss the sidewalks after the hearing closed. Mr. Barisic felt they could use the same 25 ft. roadway
and provide for vehicular and foot traffic.
The public hearing was closed and a 5 minute break was called with the meeting reconvening at 10:25
p.m.
Commissioner Carlton and Jerry Bailey, Design Manager-Public Services, discussed the proposed weight
limit for the project's street with Mr. Bailey noting it was designed to accept large vehicles including
trash trucks. Commissioner Carlton also discussed the legality of using shake roofs and shingle siding.
She was also interested in whether there were historic trees on the project site. Ms. Sully explained there
were no "historic" trees but they wanted to save the oaks.
Both Commissioner Carlton and Chair Smith responded to the information that the park area had not been
maintained in recent years. Ms. Carlton wondered if Chapman University had been cited by Code
Enforcement and Ms. Smith encouraged residents to enlist the assistance of the city by reporting
deteriorating sites to the city.
Commissioner Pruett and staff pursued a discussion concerning the second (emergency) entrance with
staff explaining it is requested by the Fire Department with agreement from the Police Department.
Chair Smith and Ms. Sully explored Mr. Richard Polley's assertion that he was not properly notified of
the proposed project, with Ms. Sully theorizing that perhaps Mr. Polley was outside of the legal 300 foot
notification (by mail) radius stating that 3 forms of noticing were conducted. The Negative Declaration
notification went out 20-25 days before the hearing and the meeting notice was sent 10 days in advance of
the hearing, in accordance with State law. The property was also posted.
In a discussion between Chair Smith, staff and the applicant, it was revealed that the Design Review
Committee had determined Sunview Drive to be a wide enough street to accommodate the proposed gated
area and that the gate met all requirements.
Ms Sully, responding to Chair Smith's inquiry concerning the project's need for an EIR, explained that
only when impacts cannot be mitigated to an insignificant level is an EIR called for. Mr. Bailey told
Chair Smith he was familiar with the storm drain Mr. Polley spoke of and that he would research the
problem. Chair Smith asked that particular attention be paid to Mr. Polley's property. Ms. Sully assured
the Commissioners that construction haul routes had been established according to standards set by Public
Works Department and conditions in the resolution addressed the requirements.
9
Planning Commission Minutes
September 5, 2001
The Commissioners then voiced their opinions concerning the proposed project:
Commissioner Carlton said this was the only proposal she was aware of and if others were rejected, she
was interested in why. Noting that the topography was difficult, she listed her ideas on the positive
aspects of the proposal such as: preservation of 45 trees; enhanced home elevations and entrances; the
existence of a homeowners association; extensive open space; and she felt the homes would increase the
value of the neighborhood.
The negative aspects she listed as: variances needing justification; homes too large to be compatible with
the existing neighborhood; would preference for single-story houses to be built on those lots affecting
existing homes; not in favor of 5,000 sq. ft. lots with large homes on them; lack of usable backyards;
parking deficit, one entrance on Sunview Drive; 4 houses in center of the community will suffer from too
much exposure; storm drain problem not thoroughly investigated; too much earth will be moved from the
site. She announced she would like to see another plan for the site because she was not convinced it was
the best plan and she would not vote in favor of it.
Commissioner Pruett said he was trying to deal with issues relative to the existing community and he was
concerned about the Planned Unit Development concept, disliking the reduction in lot sizes it allows. He
wasn't convinced the preservation of vegetation created the need for a PUD. He also was concerned with
the height variance saying that although the rooflines are softened, the height is unacceptable because the
backsides, in some cases, are over 40 feet high. He enumerated further concerns: height of fence
unacceptable; character of proposed project not in keeping with existing homes; streets in PUD do not
meet city standards as far as width; Sunview Drive not most appropriate street for only entrance, preferred
Bolingridge Drive; trees planned for entrance not in keeping with existing community. He reminded all
that the 3 car garages encompassed the use of tandem parking, and therefore, most likely would be used
as 2 car garages with parking spilling over onto Sunview Drive. He felt the project created a different
dynamic from what exists and he also was not convinced it was the best plan for the area. He was
interested in having Bolingridge Drive a through street.
Chair Smith liked the proposal. She liked the design, architecture and open space, but she was very
interested in the inclusion of sidewalks and she was upset that so many trees would be removed. She
noted the variances and asked that the 18 guest parking spaces be reserved for guests only. She repeated
her desire that more pepper trees be included in the landscape plan. She was not in favor of Bolingridge
Drive as a through street because the oak grove would be sacrificed. She felt the topography is unusual,
which makes it a special area and she was in favor of approving the proposal with the inclusion of
sidewalks. She also noted that Commissioner Pruett brought up a good point when he cited that under the
current zoning, all lots would be required to be at least 7,000 sq. ft. She agreed the planned homes were
large for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Carlton and Chair Smith discussed the possibility of relocating the oak grove with Chair
Smith preferring it to remain in its natural habitat.
All the Commissioners discussed the gated community concept with Commissioner Pruett not in favor of
the gate, feeling it is not a good thing to keep the rest of the community out.
It was observed that those residents who attended the meeting and spoke for and against the project were
fairly evenly divided, with Chair Smith noting that those in favor lived on Bolingridge Drive and those
against were generally from Sunview Drive.
10
Planning Commission Minutes
September 5, 2001
The possibility of a number of commissioners, the applicant, and staff participating in a subcommittee to
work on solving the proposed plan's design issues was discussed but there was a question concerning the
Jack of a full Commission, which appeared to interfere with the idea. Chair Smith felt it could be that the
applicant was unaware of the important concerns expressed at this hearing because she believed the
applicant presented what he thought was desired. Mr. Pruett's opinion differed pointing out that he had
voiced his concerns in study sessions.
Ms. Sully, with confirmation from Mr. Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney, informed the Commissioners that
they may vote not to recommend approval and the item would move forward to the City Council with the
Commission's negative recommendation.
Chair Smith asked that the public hearing be reopened to get the applicant's thoughts on modifying their
proposal.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to reopen the public hearing.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Smith
None
Commissioner Romero
MOTION CARRIED
Mr. Barisic said he appreciated the subcommittee suggestion but it was their decision to present what they
felt was the best plan for the site and it would not be possible to satisfy everyone. He thanked the
Planning Commission for their consideration. Mr. Barisic mentioned his unwillingness to build "cookie
cutter" houses that had been mentioned as favored by neighbors a number of times. He also noted that a
non-gated community would mean an altemate design and they were not prepared to do that.
Chair Smith reminded Mr. Barisic that the Commission had never asked for a "cookie cutter" project.
The pubic hearing was closed.
Commissioner Pruett outlined his concerns about the project, pointing out that some issues would not
require total project revamping but just some rethinking. He believes the City Council should understand
the issues that need addressing and how the new community must weave into the existing community.
He feels the proposed layout will not fit into the existing residential area. He announced his intention to
vote for a recommendation of denial.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to make a negative
recommendation to City Council concerning Mitigated Negative Declaration 1670-01, Tentative Tract
Map 16218, Variance 2098-01, Conditional Use Permit 2372-01. and Major Site Plan Review 185-01.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett
Commissioner Smith
Commissioner Romero
MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Carlton added the project needs to be totally redone and that slight revisions would not
suffice. Commissioner Pruett felt that although there were major issues, a compromise may be possible.
Chair Smith repeated her desire that sidewalks be included and asked that the minimum lot size be
revisited because the lots as proposed would not be big enough for large homes.
11
Planning Commission Minutes
September 5,2001
Chair Smith called for public comment pertaining to non-agenda matters, but there was none.
IN RE: ADJOURMENT
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to adjourn to the next meeting
scheduled on Monday, October I, 200 I.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Smith
None
Commissioner Romero
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at II :30 p.m.
12