2011 - October 17Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 2011
APPROVED Page 1 of 11
Minutes
PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, Grangoff, and Steiner
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
STAFF
PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION
Chair Steiner opened the Administration Session of the Planning Commission Meeting at
6:55 p.m.
Chair Steiner stated there was a modification to the language on 2 conditions on the first
item, for a Conditional Use Permit for AMC. Assistant Community Development
Director Ed Knight stated both Staff and the applicant agreed to the minor changes in the
language that would allow AMC to operate within the parameters that they required. The
City of Orange Police Department and City Staff were ok with the changes. Associate
Planner Robert Garcia stated he would speak about the changes in his presentation of the
item.
Chair Steiner stated all Commissioners present would be able to vote on the minutes.
Commissioner Gladson stated she had a change to page 10 of the Planning Commission
meeting minutes from October 3, 2011. She requested that the second sentence of her
comments be omitted from the minutes. The correction was noted.
Chair Steiner asked if there had been any written opposition received for the two agenda
items. Mr. Garcia stated he had not received anything back. Associate Planner Doris
Nguyen stated she had not received anything back.
Chair Steiner asked if there was anything further to discuss. Assistant City Attorney
Gary Sheatz stated he had a few reminders; first he wanted to remind the Commissioners
that the microphones were hot and to be mindful of comments made. The second note
was on any changes to the minutes that were made during the Administrative Session of
the meeting; to actually state the changes on the dais and not just refer to changes that
had been noted during the Administrative Session of the meeting. Third, to avoid
predetermination of an outcome on proposed projects being presented as there had been
some comments received regarding the Chapman University project. The concerns were
in regards to comments about how wonderful the Chapman projects were and also for the
Commissioners to not delve into future projects that were not being considered.
Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 2011
Page 2 of 11
Commissioner Buttress stated she had asked a question in regard to whether or not a
variance would be required on Chapman University's next proposal, and she asked if that
had been inappropriate? Mr. Sheatz stated that had given Chapman the door to open up
on a future project. Chair Steiner stated his comment was referencing that it had been 17
years since he had last served on the City Council and he had been pleased that the OTPA
and Chapman University had worked out their differences, and how refreshing that was;
as it had been more of a war when he had previously served on the City Council.
Mr. Sheatz stated his last issue was in regards to the appeal process and it would be
helpful on those items that were being approved for the Commission Chair to read
through the appeal procedure after the action was made. He had discussed this with Mr.
Knight and it would be added to the agenda script. It would be typed out and be available
for reading at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Chair Steiner asked if there was any information coming down from City Council in
regard to a temporary replacement for Commissioner Merino? Mr. Knight stated he had
not heard anything.
Administrative Session adjourned @ 7:02 p.m.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Chair Steiner stated he had several cards for the Verizon Wireless item that had been
heard on October 3, 2011. It had seemed appropriate to allow for Public Comment; he
asked Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz if that would be appropriate?
Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct.
Chair Steiner invited the speakers to address the Commission.
Carlos Loaiza, address on file, stated he had recently learned about the proposed Verizon
wireless facility, literally yesterday. He thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity
to allow him to express his thoughts on the proposal. His concerns were health related
and particularly to the school that was adjacent to the property as well as his own children
and he lived about a block away from the proposed facility. He would appreciate the
opportunity to have more information on the proposed facility and the size of the facility.
He requested more time to learn about the facility. He was concerned also about impacts
on property values.
Stacey Frayne, address on file, stated she was directly across from the church and the
school used the church property with a nursery next door. The area where the proposed
cell tower would be was directly across from her son's classroom. It was adjacent to the
classroom and next to the playground. It was a concern for the children being so close to
the cell tower. In addition, the concern was for the property values. There would be
other parents concerned as well and would probably be pulling their kids out of the
Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 2011
Page 3of11
school. It was a very small private school. She had a comment from another neighbor
and they were both so close, 100 feet away.
Kenneth Lee, address on file, stated he was present to address the recent decision to
approve the cell tower. The site was on the grounds of the Orange Hills Baptist Church
which was the campus of Camelot Academy, a private school, servicing Kindergarten
through 6 th grade. He was aware that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 limited the
Commission's purview regarding the environmental and health factors regarding the
placement of cell towers, however, as a retired school teacher from the Saddleback
School District and as a resident living within sight of the tower, he had become aware of
studies on the extreme health risk that were present in the area of the fixed cell site
especially for young children who were still developing. The students, as well as
residents in the area, would be constantly exposed to the constant radio frequencies and
radiation emitted from the tower. The citing of towers and the corresponding dangers
were being challenged throughout the United States. Recent battles had been fought in
local communities, such as Tustin, Huntington Beach, Mission Viejo and Burbank to
name just a few. His community had been given minimal notice regarding the proposal
and subsequent vote on the tower. They would have been present at the last meeting to
voice their concerns, but would not have been given the opportunity because the tower
vote was on the agenda. He was present to ask that the approval of the cell tower be
rescinded until a meeting with the church officials and citizens could occur.
Nina Lee, address on file, stated during the 1990's she had taught Kindergarten and
music at the Carden Heights Elementary School that had used the same facility as the
Camelot Facility. She had taught in an upstairs classroom that opened directly onto the
proposed cell phone tower site. She was familiar with the location of classrooms and the
playground in conjunction to the position of the proposed cell tower. There was strong
evidence that electromagnetic radiation from cell phone towers was damaging to human
health, and especially to young children. Over 100 scientists at Boston College and
Harvard University had called cell phone towers a radiation hazard. Studies had been
done in European countries that had shown increased occurrence of disease and health
problems in individuals living within close proximity to cell towers. The European
countries had developed the "Precautionary Principle "; the principal stated that when an
activity raised threat to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should
be taken. Those with a prudent approach to cell towers urged that cell towers be placed a
reasonable distance from schools, people's homes, and work places or wherever people
congregate. She urged the Commission to apply the precautionary principle to the cell
tower.
Clive Brooks, address on file, stated he had done some limited research on cell towers
and he was not entirely convinced of the health risks. He was convinced of how it looked
and the notice he received stated that it would be 51' high with cinder block housing that
held a generator and other things in it. He was concerned on how it would affect property
values, as they had taken a pretty big hit over the last couple of years with the economy
and everything; they did not need anything else.
Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 2011
Page 4 of 11
Terrance Cheung, address on file, stated last year they had adopted Carden school into
their school system. It was a system that had developed over 10 years. The little campus
last year was on the verge of closure; they took it over and it was a thriving community.
They were never notified by the church that the cell site was being installed and now the
student community was very concerned. The location not only served the student body
on the campus, but also served as a center of service for the surrounding public schools.
With outreach services, they provided services to many schools and it was a surprise that
the cell site was being installed and he was unprepared to re- locate and he thought the
school would not survive.
Chair Steiner stated that Mr. & Mrs. Lee had indicated that they had been notified of the
hearing, he asked Mr. Garcia what the noticing parameters were.
Mr. Garcia stated noticing would be within a 300' radius of the proposed project.
Commissioner Grangoff asked how many days in advance were notices sent out.
Mr. Garcia stated 10 days prior to the hearing along with on site postings.
Chair Steiner stated at the hearing for the Agenda item the speakers had referenced there
had not been any negative issues raised at that time. The recommendation was for
approval, now after the approval was made there were concerns being brought forth. He
stated there was an appeal process that would need to occur within 15 days, which he
believed would be October 18, 2011 and he asked for clarification?
Assistant Community Development Director Ed Knight stated that was correct. The
appeal period would end on October 18, 2011 at 5:30 p.m.
Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz stated given the fact that the item was not on the
current agenda, it might be more appropriate if the Staff Planner would be available to
speak with the members of the public if they chose to remain after the current meeting to
gain clarification on the appeal process. He had not wanted the meeting to get too far off
track as the item was not currently on the agenda.
Chair Steiner stated he had wanted to provide each speak with consideration for their
comments that had been brought forth; there were two agenda items to be heard and he
expected those to go rather quickly. Mr. Garcia would be available to speak with those
present and to answer their questions and to provide the appeal process information
which would be appealed at the City Council level and not to the Planning Commission.
An additional written comment was received from Bert and Yolanda Garcia. Copies of
those comments were on file.
Planning Commission Meeting
REGULAR SESSION
Consent Calendar:
October 17, 2011
Page 5of11
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED
MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2011
Commissioner Gladson made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular scheduled
Planning Commission Meeting of October 3, 2011 with a modification to page 10 in the
first paragraph of the page, she proposed that the second sentence of her comments
beginning with the word "she" be stricken, as the comment was not germane to her
discussion of the item.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 2011
Page 6 of 11
NEW HEARING:
(2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2820-11-AMC THEATRES
The applicant is requesting an Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Type 47 (On -Sale
General — Eating Place) License to have on -site consumption of alcohol for the movie
guests at the theater at The Outlets at Orange.
LOCATION: 20 City Boulevard West
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities)
because the project consists of the operation and licensing of an
existing private structure.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 23 -11 approving a Type
47 ABC License for movie guests at the theaters at The Outlets at
Orange.
Associate Planner Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Victor De La Cruz, address on file, thanked the City Staff and the Orange Police
Department for working with them to obtain their application. There were Conditions of
Approval that would promote public safety and also allow AMC to successfully operate
an exciting new concept that they would be bringing to Orange. AMC was applying for a
CUP to sell alcoholic beverages for on site consumption in 13 of the 30 auditoriums at
the Outlets at Orange theatres. The CUP was an integral part of the new concept for
movie going with the in- theatre dining concept. The concept was an opportunity to enjoy
food and beverage that would be served seat side at the touch of a button, while enjoying
new release films. The auditoriums would be reconfigured and would be a cross between
a restaurant and movie auditorium and they would be set up for waiters to be able to
move about the auditorium without interruption of their movie watching. It was a new
and exciting concept. AMC would also have an updated concession stand for movie
goers and offer them a full dining experience before or after they have seen a film. It was
the first of its kind in Orange County. The movie business was very competitive and the
Orange location had lost quite a bit of business to theatres in other cities in Orange
County. They wanted to change that by offering a unique movie and dining experience
with a new design and they were hoping to encourage residents of Orange and those
visiting Orange to keep their tax dollars in the City for their entertainment. The in- theatre
Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 2011
Page 7 of 11
dining concept had been very successful nationwide and they had recently established a
site in Marina Del Rey where construction would begin in a few months. He hoped that
the Commissioners would agree that the application before them was very straight
forward in terms of what they wanted to do and it would impact less then half of the
existing business. The proposal would actually result in a significant reduction in the
total number of available theatre seats. They would not be adding any square footage,
but in order to accommodate waiters moving about and to provide in- theatre dining, 2007
seats would be removed from 13 auditoriums and after renovation there would be 791
larger more comfortable seats to replace the seats removed. It was over a 60% reduction.
Alcohol sales would be an incidental part of what they wanted to do; it would be a
compliment to food service. Other AMC locations that had incorporated the in- theatre
dining concept had only 10 -12% of the sales accounted for in alcohol sales. AMC
understood the responsibility to the community regarding the safe sale of alcohol. AMC
worked hard to ensure the well being of its patrons and was proud of its safety history. In
City after City and having applied for alcohol permits, Police Departments and City Staff
had been agreeable to the applications submitted. AMC took their responsibilities
seriously and understood if they wanted to continue to market the dining concept
nationwide, they needed to keep up their good record.
He reviewed the Conditions of Approval and stated there would be a check of patrons
ID's at 2 points. There was another layer of protection through a request by the Orange
Police Department through monitoring of patrons ID's at the in- theatre dining areas.
Staffing and lighting was also a consideration and there would be noticeable differences
in drink containers to allow servers to identify alcohol purchasing patrons. AMC would
also employ uniformed security guards. Mr. De La Cruz stated given the track record of
AMC and the recommendations by City Staff, the project would provide more revenue
and jobs for the City of Orange and he was seeking approval of the proposed project. He
was available for questions.
Chair Steiner asked if the applicant was agreeable to all 46 Conditions of Approval.
Mr. De La Cruz stated yes.
Chair Steiner stated that the applicant mentioned the AMC Orange location would be the
first in- theatre dining experience in Orange County, and he asked if the Garden Walk at
Downtown Disney had in theatre dining?
Mr. De La Cruz stated that location sold alcohol which had required a CUP; what they
had was a restaurant built into the theatre, there was not service in a theatre where a
movie was being viewed.
Chair Steiner asked if there were any questions for the applicant. There were none.
Chair Steiner closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for
further discussion or action.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 2011
Page 8 of 11
Commissioner Grangoff made a motion to adopt PC Resolution 23 -11, approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 2820 -AMC Theatres, subject to the conditions contained in
the Staff Report and noting that the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 2011
Page 9of11
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2833 -11 - MANSION RISTORANTE
The applicant proposes to establish an Italian restaurant in a new 2,785 square foot space
with a 300 square foot outdoor patio. The applicant is requesting an Alcohol Beverage
Control Type 47 (On -Sale General for a Bona Fide Public Eating Place) license and live
entertainment.
LOCATION: 3070 West Chapman
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities) because
the project consists of the operation and licensing of an existing
private structure.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 22 -11 allowing the
construction of a 2,785 square foot restaurant with a 300 square
foot patio to service beer, wine and distilled spirits under an ABC
Type 47 license and to have live entertainment.
Associate Planner Doris Nguyen presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing to any questions for Staff. There was none.
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Michael Sanchez, address on file, stated the concept was a very basic Italian Restaurant,
his experience came from Orange Hill, Downtown Disney and he encouraged the family
members of the business to open the restaurant. The business owners had ABC training
and they wanted to have a very nice family restaurant; it would be a very calm and quiet
environment, it would be very mellow.
Chair Steiner asked Staff if the live entertainment that was proposed would take place
inside the restaurant.
Ms. Nguyen stated that was correct.
Chair Steiner closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for
further discussion or action?
Commissioner Buttress made a motion to adopt PC Resolution No. 22 -11- Mansion
Ristorante, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and noting the item was
categorically exempt from CEQA.
Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 2011
Page 10 of 11
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 2011
Page 11 of 11
(4) ADJOURNMENT:
Adjournment to the next regular Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Monday
November 7, 2011.
Commissioner Gladson made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled
meeting of the Planning Commission on November 7, 2011.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Meeting Adjourned @ 7:35 p.m.