2011 - February 23Planning Commission Meeting APPROVED February 23, 2011
Page 1 of 21
Minutes
City of Orange
Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Cunningham, Merino and Steiner
ABSENT: None
STAFF
PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director
Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner
Jennifer Le, Senior Planner
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION
Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session at 6:48 p.m. with a review of the
agenda. He asked if there would be any questions on the agenda items.
Assistant Community Development Director Ed Knight stated there had been an
additional handout in the Commissioner's files and Principal Planner Anna Pehoushek
could go through that with them.
Ms. Pehoushek stated the additional handout was in reference to the Mixed Use
Ordinance that was on the agenda. After reviewing the packet, it had been realized that
there was a typo in the amendment description. It had been typed as a General Plan
Amendment and had been corrected to read Ordinance Amendment. There had also been
a few pages left out and those had been added to the packet.
Commissioner Merino stated he had reviewed the DVD from the previous meeting and
he would state that during the public session.
Chair Steiner asked if the motion would be based on the Resolution as listed on the
agenda. Ms. Pehoushek stated yes.
Commissioner Merino asked if the concerns raised during the previous meeting on
January 17, 2011 had been addressed and were those changes included in the Resolution.
Ms. Pehoushek stated all of the concerns had been addressed in the Staff Report and also
included in the Ordinance page and recitals; the remainder of the document was fine.
Chair Steiner stated for agenda Item No. 2, he understood that it was a procedural matter
and the Commissioners would vote to recommend the item to the City Council.
Mr. Knight stated it was a report to the State and it included all the information contained
Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2011
Page 2 of 21
in the General Plan Update. Mr. Sheatz stated, as a matter of record, the item would be
received and filed.
Commissioner Merino stated from the previous presentation of Item No. 3, the Mixed
Use Zone Amendment, he asked if they would be focusing their discussion on the
concerns that had been brought up and would those be addressed?
Chair Steiner stated there were 5 areas that concerns had been brought forth on and those
had been resolved through the Resolution that they would be hearing. The Public
Hearing had been closed at the January 17, 2011 presentation.
Mr. Knight stated he was not certain if there would be anyone present that would want to
speak and the hearing could be re- opened.
Commissioner Buttress stated she would have a few questions on the item.
Senior Planner Chad Ortlieb stated on Item No. 5, Shakey's, there was additional
information contained in the Commissioner's hotfile from the applicant and he would
clarify those during his presentation.
Chair Steiner asked if that would clarify the hours of operation.
Mr. Ortlieb stated yes and information related to the game room.
There was no further discussion.
Administrative Session adjourned @ 6:56 p.m.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None
REGULAR SESSION
Consent Calendar:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 7, 2011.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of
the Planning Commission on February 7, 2011, as written.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES:
Commissioners Buttress, Cunningham, Merino and Steiner
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
Commission Business:
February 23, 2011
Page 3 of 21
(2) GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT TO THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
California Government Code Section 65400 requires that cities submit an annual report
on the status of their General Plan and progress in its implementation to the Governor's
Office of Planning and Research and Department of Housing and Community
Development by April 1" of each year.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive and file 2010 General Plan Annual Progress Report for final
acceptance by the City Council.
Principal Planner Anna Pehoushek presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item to any questions for Staff. There were none.
Chair Steiner stated it was a very timely report regarding the 16 crossings in the City and
the information he had heard on the radio announcing that Orange County Transportation
Authority along with the City of Orange would have quiet zones in the City and he knew
the residents would appreciate that very much.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to receive and accept, General Plan Annual
Progress Report to the State of California, recommending approval to the City Council.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cunningham, Merino and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2011
Page 4 of 21
(3) ZONE CHANGE NO. 1258 -10 — MIXED USE ZONE STANDARDS
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Continued from Planning Commission meetings of January 17, 2011, October 4, 2010
and September 20, 2010. The Land Use Element establishes new mixed use land use
designations in four areas of the City. The supporting General Plan Implementation Plan
identifies the need for the City to establish zoning and development standards to be
consistent with, and implement, the mixed use land use designations. Therefore, the City
has developed new Mixed Use Zoning Standards for these areas. The subject General
Plan amendment represents implementation of the General Plan and associated
Implementation Program I -1. The subject Ordinance Amendment adds a new Chapter
17.19 to Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code, as well as new definitions to Chapter
17.04 of the OMC.
LOCATION: City Wide
NOTE: Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1815 -09
for the Comprehensive General Plan Update was certified on
March 9, 2010 and prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. The proposed activity is within the
scope of the previously approved General Plan and is adequately
described in the previously certified General Plan Program EIR for
purposes of CEQA.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 33 -10
recommending City Council approval of an Ordinance
Amendment adding new Mixed Use Zoning Standards and
definitions to Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code to implement
the new Mixed Use Land Use designations of the 2010 General
Plan.
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 34 -10 recommending City
Council approval of Zone Change 1258 -10 establishing
consistency between General Plan Land Use designations and
Zoning classifications in accordance with State law.
Chair Steiner stated a Public Hearing was held for the item on January 17, 2011 and there
were a number of issues that had been shared with the Commissioners and City Staff
from residents. Staff had been working on resolving a number of the concerns addressed
and those issues would be addressed during Staff's presentation.
Commissioner Merino stated he had reviewed the DVD from the January 17, 2011
presentation, as he had been absent. He was aware of the concerns brought forth.
Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2011
Page 5 of 21
Principal Planner Anna Pehoushek presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item to any questions for Staff.
Commissioner Merino stated he had a question regarding the density bonus and he
understood why the recommendation from Staff was at 35 %. He asked Ms. Pehoushek if
she could elaborate why 50% was not acceptable.
Ms. Pehoushek stated with the proposed 35% density bonus, they would be starting with
a base density of 15 units per acre in that particular zoning district. The 35% bonus
brought the density level up to 20 units per acre. If the 50% was applied, that would
bring the density over 23 units per acre and 1 unit less than the 24 units per acre Old
Towne Mixed Use designation that the City Council and the community had not desired
during the General Plan Update process. With a 50% increase, that would have required
an update to the General Plan and that would have created a much more extensive
process. In an effort to respect the wishes of the City Council and the community in
terms of what everyone was comfortable with for Old Towne density, Staff had not felt
50% was appropriate.
Commissioner Merino asked if an individual wished to challenge the Planning
Commission's decision; would their decision be moving up to the City Council and could
further discussion take place at that time?
Ms. Pehoushek stated the City Council was the final authority for action on the
Ordinance Amendment.
Commissioner Merino stated the general public would have another opportunity to re-
visit that issue if they so chose to.
Ms. Pehoushek stated that was correct.
Commissioner Merino stated on the street frontage, again it was interesting as that was
also 50% and he asked why 50% was the right number.
Ms. Pehoushek stated she would attempt to answer that to some extent. The City's
consultant, Ron Pflugrath, was also available to answer questions. They were attempting
to strike a better balance along the street frontage in different areas of the City in the
perception of parking lot and buildings and to develop a better sense of pedestrian
oriented developments. There were areas in the City that people currently walked around
a lot and those areas were South Main, around The Block and West Katella that had
further changes to be made. Those areas had concentrations of employment and goods &
services that people tended to walk to. The objective with 50% was to create a better
balance. The idea was to not have pedestrians walking across parking lots to arrive at the
uses they wanted to use as pedestrians. As far as the 50% standard, it was the standard
that had been proven to be the effective threshold for transitioning an area into a more
Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2011
Page 6 of 21
pedestrian friendly atmosphere.
Planning Consultant, Ron Pflugrath, address on file, stated he had not believed there was
a magic number, it could be 49% or 55 %, but they were seeking a transition and
ultimately they would like a higher number in some areas and in many downtown areas
they would get 100% and it was written into their ordinances. Through his experience, in
areas of transition, 50% was a number that many communities felt comfortable with.
Commissioner Merino stated the 50% number was a number that worked in other
jurisdictions.
Mr. Pflugrath stated yes, and to provide an example, on Washington Blvd. in Culver City,
which was similar to Katella; the area was transitioning from an almost industrial area to
a more pedestrian oriented area and 50% was the number they used. They had seen that
in a number of corridor type situations in transition areas. In some cases 100% had been
required in certain nodes of street intersections to get to the Urban Design concept of
getting street closure and street walls to give a more comfortable atmosphere, instead of
spreading parking in front of buildings. According to the General Plan, the Mixed Use
areas were becoming more pedestrian oriented environments.
Commissioner Merino stated being in the architecture business and reviewing projects on
Katella, it would be difficult as the area was a vehicular oriented street and on that street
to achieve a transition would be difficult. California was a vehicle oriented society and
he felt it might prove to be a difficult percentage to reach.
Mr. Pflugrath stated Katella was a challenge as opposed to some of the others. The
direction was taken from the General Plan and what was envisioned in that area was to
create a Mixed Use pedestrian oriented area.
Commissioner Merino asked if that was based on the input from the advisory committee
that was received through that process.
Mr. Pflugrath stated he believed that to be the case.
Ms. Pehoushek stated in terms of the General Plan designation along Katella; during the
Public Hearing process there was a lot of discussion regarding the Mixed Use district and
where those were and there were certain areas that had been eliminated. During the
evolution of the General Plan through the advisory committee and through public input, it
was adopted less than a year ago for that use.
Commissioner Merino stated the 50% was what it could come down to and he wanted to
ensure that they were meeting the public's desire.
Chair Steiner stated in re- visiting the density bonus in the packing house; he asked for
further clarification as to why Staff was asking that the 35% be within the envelope of the
historic building?
Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2011
Page 7 of 21
Ms. Pehoushek stated due to the sensitivity of Old Towne and the public's desire of what
was viewed in Old Towne were for things to remain the same and also to recognize that
there were buildings that no longer housed specific uses. Staff wanted to provide an
opportunity for new life to be brought to those structures, but without a physical
perception to the community that some intensification of activity had occurred on those
properties. In the case of the packing house structures, as they were so large, by
including the provision that the density bonus needed to be contained within the envelope
of the historic structure. For example under the base zoning, 15 units could be
developed at that site and with the density bonus, 18 -20 units could be developed in that
building, but to the outside world whether it was 15 units or 20 units, it would not be
perceptible.
Commissioner Cunningham stated on the adaptive reuse; at the January 17, 2011
Planning Commission meeting Mr. Shelton and Mr. Ham had raised the issue of the
desired 50% density bonus, he asked if there had been subsequent conversations with
those individuals and if so what were their feelings on the 35% density bonus?
Ms. Pehoushek stated the information had been relayed to those individuals and she had
contact with both of them that they were in receipt of the information, however, had not
had direction discussions with them.
Chair Steiner re- opened the hearing for Public Comment; which had been closed on
Janary 17, 2011, to allow further testimony.
Lyle Shelton, address on file, stated he appreciated the opportunity to speak and he
thanked the Commission's commitment to the project and thanked Staff for their time
and effort regarding their issue. The site was unique to Orange and he had closed escrow
on it in 1960 and had run several successful businesses there and he believed that the
property had benefited the people of the City for a long time. He was looking for a
quality product to end up on the site. He wanted to ensure that whoever ended up with
the property would do a job they could all be proud of and in preservation of what it was.
It had to be economically feasible for someone to step up and put up the time, effort,
energy and finances into a project. The proposed 35% density bonus was not exactly
what he had asked for, but they very seldom got exactly what they asked for. The
situation that he was discussing only involved one property in Orange, there were 3
packing houses, and one was around the corner owned by the Babcocks' and their
building encompassed the largest portion of their property. His property had a 70,000
square foot building and there was over an acre of property left over and he wondered if
there was language that could be adopted that would allow the proposed density bonus of
35% to not be restricted just to the interior of the packing house, but to be used for the
remainder of the property.
Jim Potter, address on file, stated it seemed as if they were rushing to encompass a lot of
different areas and he wanted to speak on the Mixed Use area of Katella. Between the
50% average for store frontage and the minimum FAR, properties would be forced to be
multi -story along with multi -story parking structures and he was not certain the area
Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2011
Page 8 of 21
would be feasible for consumers and the people that wanted to rent there. From an
economical basis for redevelopment to build parking structures along with three -story
buildings, he felt it was not a viable development. With Katella being a super street
many years ago they were pushing super streets and now they were planning a walking
street. He was not certain that bouncing back and forth was the right thing to do. There
had been a lot of effort put into the General Plan, but that the Katella area was driven
more by State Code than just purely development and what Katella should be. With a
minimum FAR of 1.5, a three —story limitation would make it an unbuildable site, with an
80,000 square foot site and to put a 120,000 square foot building on it with three- stories,
it would not fit. There had been a lot of work done, but to have that set of guidelines on
properties would make them almost an unbuildable site and certainly economically
unbuildable. Sites, such as Katella Grill, if it was changed and modernized, could not be
built back as a restaurant and the area demanded more of that type of use than multi -story
residential uses. He was not sure those types of uses had been successful in neighboring
cities.
Steve Prothero, address on file, stated he had a few additional comments reflected by Mr.
Potter. He felt they were stuck with the General Plan's Urban Mixed Use designation for
a pedestrian environment. He was not certain if they would ever reach that, or if they
reached it in 20 years his concern was the interim use. The whole block between Main
and Katella and the north side were in a position where there were industrial buildings
that needed to be updated. With the restrictions on the current code, and although there
were provisions for existing uses to continue; it would still be tough for in -fill projects to
meet the 50% requirement for street frontage and it was the 20 -30 years out that he was
concerned about. They had been pushing and shoving with the Planning Department; as
they had given up some, he felt they would not have the flexibility they desired.
Athina Singer, address on file, stated they appreciated the changes that had been made
and the clarification on the 40,000 square foot minimum lot was extremely helpful to
them as retail developers. From an economic and site layout as a retail and medical
developer, the 50% requirement on the street would make building on those sites very
difficult. From a tenant attraction standpoint, from a lender standpoint and all the things
that needed to come together to build, those things constrained them to future
developments in the City.
Robert Atkinson, address on file, representing the Stadium Promenade development,
stated he had the opportunity to work with the Planning Department for over a year now
on the Mixed Use Zoning Standards and there was flexibility. He had spent the last 5
years redeveloping the center and they were now at 10 restaurants and a theatre, the 10th
restaurant would actually go before the Commission. They recognized that long term
there would be an opportunity for a Mixed Use component on their site and he could not
predict it would be during his career. He was in support of the zoning element with the
changes that had been made to provide for flexibility, in terms of existing uses. Due to
their proximity to some of the sport complexes, he viewed the Mixed Use Zoning as an
opportunity for future developments.
Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2011
Page 9 of 21
Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for
further discussion and asked Staff for their response to the comments heard.
Ms. Pehoushek stated the concerns Mr. Potter had discussed were correct. Depending on
the size and context of a parcel, certain properties might be in a situation where the
redevelopment option was in a multi -story format with a parking structure. That was
correct and a concept that was in the realm of what City Staff had envisioned happening
as part of the mixed us transition. In terms of the frontage requirement, she would defer
to Mr. Pflugrath. In response to the comment that multi -story residential might or might
not be feasible in that particular area, in the process of the General Plan development and
reviewing the fiscal and marketing studies that had been completed as part of the
background for the different land use alternatives; there was consideration given in
looking at long term demands for different types of land use throughout the City and the
county. It was common knowledge that there was a saturation of retail space in the
county and long term given what was known and the proximity to athletic facilities in
Anaheim and the potential for the train station relocation closer to Katella, given the
aging nature of properties on Katella and looking to the future, it seemed that residential
development was in the realm of possibilities and a demand in the future for that type of
use. At the time that the General Plan was being developed, the economy had been
much stronger and the City had received regular inquiries about properties on the Katella
corridor and the potential for residential developments. During the current economic
time, it was not so successful for real estate or housing; but again the General Plan took
them out to 2030 and it was a long term plan.
Ms. Pehoushek stated in terms of what could be done with an existing industrial property.
At the time of the General Plan adoption there was an ordinance amendment adopted that
involved legal non - conforming provisions and it was carefully crafted to address
properties that would be made legal non - conforming by the changes brought about by the
General Plan. The provisions of the ordinance amendment provided for quite a lot of
flexibility for continuation of non - conforming sites, expansion of uses and in the case of
the Katella corridor, there had been provisions provided in the code for a commercial
recreation zone. The Mixed Use Zoning would replace the commercial recreation and
allowed for projects in that area to fall under the Industrial Development Standards. For
that particular area of the Katella corridor, there would be a greater amount of flexibility
in terms of what could be done with existing non - conforming uses and properties in
general. The City's intent was to attempt to accommodate and maintain the livelihood of
the various properties on Katella and at a time when a property owner decided that they
were ready to do something different, that framework was in place to provide for other
options.
Commissioner Merino stated what he was hearing was that there was some trepidation
between now and the time that a new property owner would make a significant change
and he asked what alternatives a property owner had if they had not had the means to
complete the changes that Staff was envisioning, and what happened in that interim
period? He asked if there were opportunities or language within the ordinance that she
could direct them to for the property owners that fell into that gray zone.
Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2011
Page 10 of 21
Ms. Pehoushek stated there were a menu of uses listed in the permitted use table and that
was something that was available to property owners. What had not been included in the
packet were the legal non - conforming provisions of the code that allowed a greater
amount of flexibility. For example, with an industrial property on Katella, a property
whose owner wanted to continue to operate as an industrial property or to expand space
for an industrial use, a property owner had that option through the legal non - conforming
provisions of the code.
Commissioner Merino stated the 50% frontage provision would kick in and would an
applicant need to apply for a variance or what could a property owner do if they were not
ready to go to a 50% frontage because they felt trapped by the provision and what was
the alternative?
Ms. Pehoushek stated the 50% frontage requirement fit in with redevelopment of a site or
new development on a site. For a property owner that was currently under the 50%
frontage, there was no compliance issue, they could continue to operate as they were.
Commissioner Merino stated had she envisioned problems with a property owner that
wanted to add space having an issue with the 50% frontage requirement?
Ms. Pehoushek stated in the case of an existing property where there was an in -fill for the
site, Staff would be looking at how the in -fill could bring the overall site into closer
conformance with the code.
Mr. Pflugrath stated he wanted to offer up a suggestion in terms of reviewing different
size sites; one of the speakers had mentioned that on an 80,000 square foot lot something
might not be feasible, but on a larger lot it could be feasible; maybe the City needed to
work in language that would offer up some additional flexibility where 50% was not a
hard number to allow property owners to go as low as 30% or the reviewing body could
offer up to 70% for those larger properties.
Commissioner Cunningham asked if he was suggesting a sliding scale.
Mr. Pflugrath stated having said that, he was not certain how review bodies would handle
that and it could be a variance type situation. They all liked flexibility, but there needed
to also be the requirement piece.
Chair Steiner stated with too much flexibility they could lose the concept for that area.
Ms. Pehoushek stated there was one issue she had failed to address and that was the FAR
issue and what to do with an existing site. Similar to the property frontage issue, Staff
would review the in -fill on the site to bring a site into closer conformance with the
established FAR range. An in -fill project would not require that the entire site be brought
into conformance.
Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2011
Page 11 of 21
Chair Steiner stated although they could not take any action on the letter submitted by
Leason Pomeroy, it would appear to him that conceptually those areas identified in the
letter were in the spirit of Mixed Use.
Ms. Pehoushek stated she agreed that the areas addressed in the letter were consistent
with what was identified in the proposed standards, the exception would be to look at the
interpretation of a storage component and it was an option to look to the legal non-
conforming standards. Until they had an application before them, they could not get into
too much discussion.
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action.
Commissioner Cunningham stated with regard to concerns brought up during Public
Comment and a suggestion presented by the City's consultant; he had not heard an
alternate number that would be more acceptable than the 50% proposed?
Commissioner Merino stated he concurred with Commissioner Cunningham and he liked
the idea of more flexibility of a sliding scale and what that could provide. It would not
exclude anyone coming in with a variance if a sliding scale would not provide what they
needed. The more flexibility the City could provide to property owners the better it
would be and why hem in a property owner when they had the opportunity to provide for
some flexibility. An applicant could come forward with their design options and how to
address that based on the requirements and the property size.
Chair Steiner asked, as the item would move to City Council, would there be
opportunities for further changes to the ordinance?
Ms. Pehoushek stated the item was a recommendation to the City Council and with a full
discussion of the issues presented as a part of the packet to the Council members, it
would be left to their discretion to provide input on what they felt was appropriate.
Commissioner Merino stated he would suggest that one of their recommendations could
be included in a motion that a sliding scale be provided in response to property size be
included in the resolution that would be acted on by the City Council.
Chair Steiner stated a record of the discussion and the public's input could be conveyed
to the City Council and they would need to review whether a sliding scale would be
appropriate. He was not prepared to support an actual recommendation for a sliding
scale; it was important input and he would prefer that an action be taken to move the item
forward as written with the full discussion provided to the City Council to allow them to
review that with Staff.
Commissioner Merino stated he was understood that Chair Steiner would prefer to allow
the record of their discussion move forward with an action that was recommended by
Staff and to allow the City Council to make a determination or any changes.
Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2011
Page 12 of 21
Ms. Pehoushek stated that was a topic that between now and the time it would be
presented before the City Council that Staff could work with, along with the input from
their consultant and present options to the City Council on what the implications of a
sliding scale could present.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he was feeling a bit torn on the issue. Staff had put a
lot of work into the ordinance and they were back another time on it and a part of him
wanted to send it back for more work and on the other hand he had not wanted that. City
Council relied on the Planning Commission to do the heavy lifting and sorting and had
not wanted them to punt to them. He recalled during the General Plan Amendment
process when it came to those areas that the emphasis was on flexibility and providing
maximum running room for property owners to encourage economic vitality and growth.
He understood where Staff was coming from in the frontage requirement; wanting to
create a certain environment in that area, but hearing from the property owner
themselves, he was not getting the sense that it was the vision they had. He hesitated to
go on record as supporting the 50% requirement. He felt that the growth would be driven
by projects in Anaheim and if that was what the market wanted, building frontage of 50%
that the market would drive that, he would want to hear how the other Commissioners felt
on the issue.
Commissioner Merino stated he had been absent from the previous presentation and had
reviewed the DVD, and he asked if there was a critical element that would not allow
them one more meeting to address Commissioner Cunningham's concern and his own
concurrence to be addressed? Could they have one more meeting to make it just right
before the item moved up to the City Council? He agreed with Commission Cunningham
that the City Council relied on the Planning Commission to do the heavy lifting and not
necessarily push the item up to them because they could not come up with a concrete
recommendation.
Ms. Pehoushek stated Staff could certainly go back and work on the issues presented and
come back to a future meeting.
Chair Steiner stated on page 7 regarding the building frontage; could the language be
changed from "must be occupied" to a softer language or to provide for flexibility
through a language change?
Ms. Pehoushek stated if the language was softened and stated they encouraged 50% the
development community would state that they understood the goal was for 50 %, but what
was the real requirement. Based on experience, developers wanted to know what the
standard was and build to the standard; not to say that there should not be a flexibility
mechanism.
Chair Steiner stated he understood that Staff was willing to go back and provide for that
particular accommodation and to bring it back at a future date for final action.
Ms. Pehoushek stated yes.
Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2011
Page 13 of 21
Chair Steiner stated the item could come back at a future meeting in March. He was
concerned with a new Commissioner being appointed and the heavy lifting that had
already been completed and the history on the item. He was prepared to continue the
item.
Commissioner Buttress stated after hearing Commissioner Merino and Commissioner
Cunningham's concern, she supported some further work on the issues presented. The
public had spoken about the need for flexibility and if Staff could go back and work on
those issues and bring it back; it was their job to work those things out before moving the
item on to the City Council.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he understood that there needed to be a number that
met both purposes or a scale.
Commissioner Buttress stated the idea brought forth by the City's consultant to add a
sliding scale was an idea that Staff could incorporate and allow for greater flexibility. It
might not be a 30% to 70 %, but something that could be looked at and incorporated into
the ordinance.
Chair Steiner stated, in terms of the other areas that had been addressed by Staff and the
community and the accommodations for density bonuses, they had come a long way in
being able to recommend to the City Council.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to continue Zone Change No. 1258 -10 -Mixed Use
Zone Standards Ordinance Amendment, to a date certain of March 21, 2011 to allow
Staff to address issues presented during the discussion of February 23, 2011.
Chair Steiner stated they were just focusing on the one issue regarding the 50% frontage
requirement.
Commissioner Buttress stated she agreed with that
Commissioner Merino stated he would not want Staff to be limited in the event there
were other issues that they came upon during their review.
Ms. Pehoushek stated she would focus on the frontage issue.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cunningham, Merino and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2011
Page 14 of 21
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2807-10 — WALGREENS
A proposal for an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 20 (Off -Sale Beer and Wine)
License and a Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity for an existing 15,000 square
foot 24 -hour retail store.
LOCATION: 1538 W. Chapman
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities) because
the project consists of the licensing of an existing retail store.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 04 -11 approving an
Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 20 (Off -Sale Beer and Wine)
License and make a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity.
Associate Planner Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff; there were none
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Jennifer Chavez, address on file, stated she was a legal consultant for the applicant. She
stated the local store manager and the community leader from Walgreens were also
present for any questions they might have. She thanked Staff for their professionalism.
Walgreens was asking for approval to sell beer and wine. It was a corporate level
decision. In the past Walgreens had not sold alcohol at its stores in California, however,
there was now a strong customer demand for one stop shopping. Walgreens had made
the decision to seek approval to sell beer and wine at all their California stores.
Customers wanted the convenience to pick up a prescription, bag of chips, a gallon of
milk and a bottle of wine on their way home or on their way to a barbeque. Selling beer
and wine also helped Walgreens remain competitive in the community with other
retailers, with Rite Aid and CVS that already sold alcohol. There was a Rite Aid directly
across the street from Walgreens that sold a large volume of alcohol. Walgreens was a
national retailer and had a national reputation to uphold and they worked hard to protect
their reputation and they had a lot of experience with regulated products such as tobacco
and pharmaceuticals and they would bring that experience to their alcohol sales program.
Walgreens had a number of policies and procedures in place and would ensure that the
addition of alcohol sales to their store would not have an adverse affect on the
community. Walgreens had a comprehensive training program in place that all employees
would go through. She was available for questions.
Chair Steiner asked if there were any questions for the applicant. There were none.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 23, 2011
Page 15 of 21
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action.
Commissioner Cunningham stated on Condition No. 11, there shall be no exterior
advertising of any kind or type; he asked if there was already a condition regarding
exterior advertising?
Mr. Garcia stated he believed a condition existed.
Commissioner Cunningham asked if Condition No. 11 referred to alcohol advertisement
only.
Mr. Garcia stated yes.
Commissioner Cunningham stated the language might need clarification as not to ban all
exterior advertising.
Mr. Garcia stated a modification to that language could be made.
Commissioner Merino stated when Walgreens initially came before the Planning
Commission they were extremely cooperative and a great corporate citizen when they
moved into the City and he was assured they would be just as responsible with the
addition of alcohol sales.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt PC No. 04 -11, approving CUP No. 2807 -
10-Walgreens, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, with the change in
language to Condition No. 11 to modify the exterior signage requirement to specifically
alcohol sales, noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cunningham, Merino and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2011
Page 16 of 21
(5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2812-10 — SHAKEY'S PIZZA
A proposal to establish a restaurant (Shakey's) in an existing 6,892 square foot building
with a 774 square foot patio and to provide an amusement arcade room for accessory
amusement devices. This CUP is required to replace and void existing CUP 2585 -06 due
to outdated conditions pertaining to the service of beer, wine, and distilled spirits under
an alcoholic beverage type 47 license (On -Sale General for Bona Fide Public Eating
Place). The City is authorized to void prior CUP 2585 -06 due to the applicant's request
to establish a game arcade in association with alcoholic beverage sales. The game arcade
component of the request requires approval of CUP 2821 -11.
LOCATION: 1625 W. Katella
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines 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 No. 03 -11 voiding CUP
2585 -06 for the purpose of approving CUP 2812 -10 and 2821 -11
to allow a 6,892 square foot restaurant with a 774 square foot patio
to continue to serve beer, wine, and distilled spirits under an
Alcoholic Beverage Type 47 License (On -Sale General for Bona
Fide Public Eating Place) and to provide an amusement arcade in
the subject building.
Senior Planner Chad Ortlieb presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff.
Commissioner Merino stated for clarification on page 9 of 12, Condition No. 14 was
where there would be a limit to the hours of operation of the arcade /amusement area but
not the restaurant use and he asked if that was correct?
Mr. Ortlieb stated that was correct.
Commissioner Merino stated he wanted to be clear as it read: when a restaurant was the
permanent use in the building, the amusement arcade shall be the same as the restaurant.
It would not work backwards, in that if the hours of operation was set for an arcade, the
restaurant would be limited to those same hours.
Mr. Ortlieb stated that was not the intent and if there was clarification needed that could
certainly be taken care of. He reviewed the information Commissioner Merino was
Planning Commission Meeting
February 23, 2011
Page 17 of 21
referring to. After reviewing, Mr. Ortlieb stated that he felt it worked the way it was
written.
Commissioner Merino stated a comment was made that patrons could seat themselves in
the outdoor area. Regarding the alcohol service, would a patron be able to go and
purchase a beer and then take it out onto the patio? Typically it was required that alcohol
service on a patio would require a server to deliver the alcoholic beverage; for some
sense of alcohol control. If a patron was able to take a beer directly onto the patio
without any seating control was that situation addressed?
Mr. Ortlieb stated the condition for that type of scenario had been taken out. Generally
that was a condition that was in place.
Commissioner Merino stated he was concerned with that and he would want to hear
further on how that would work from the applicant.
Chair Steiner asked Police Department Representative, Sergeant Peterson, if he had
anything to share? He had no additional information.
Commissioner Cunningham stated on the Type 47 ABC License would that cover the
entire restaurant and arcade?
Mr. Ortlieb stated a Type 47 ABC License would be governed by the ABC Licensing
bureau, but they had conditioned the application so that alcohol could not be served or
consumed in the arcade /game area room.
Commissioner Cunningham asked if at a future date the arcade area went away, would
the applicant need to return to add the arcade area into the alcohol permitted area?
Mr. Ortlieb stated no the applicant would not be required to return.
Commissioner Cunningham stated regarding the comment made concerning certain
conditions of the CUP based on State Law, how would that affect an existing CUP?
Mr. Ortlieb deferred that question to Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz.
Mr. Sheatz stated if there were conditions that had been inadvertently included and they
were pre - empted by the State; the City would not be able to enforce those conditions.
There existed old CUP's in early 2000 that hours of alcohol sales had been regulated
through conditions and based on ABC Licensing, it had been determined that ABC
regulated the sales, service and consumption and that condition had been dropped from
subsequent CUP's and was no longer enforceable by the City.
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Robert Atkinson, address on file, stated Stadium Promenade had gone through a lot of
Planning Commission Meeting
February 23, 2011
Page IS of 21
changes over the last 5 years and he was fortunate to be involved in all of them. He was
very pleased to welcome Shakey's to the center and they would add a nice family
component to the center. It had been challenging at times to attempt to slice the pie in
order to find a food group that would not conflict with others that existed. The building
they would occupy had been labeled Italian, and Italian food was pizza and he believed it
was going to be a great use. He had seen some of the drawings and it was not the
Shakey's that he remembered from college, they had made great strides. He had written
a letter to Mr. Ortlieb, and he had been wonderful to work with, there were a couple of
comments and one was that it was not the intent for the business to operate solely as an
arcade and he understood there was a quirk in the zoning code that required two CUPs.
Their lease with the tenant was for a restaurant with an accessory use, interesting enough
the zoning code update recognized accessory uses for the site. Although ABC allowed
the off sale of alcohol, their leases would not permit that. Any tenant, with the exception
of the wine bar at Prime Cuts had that restriction. They had not wanted to be a liquor
store and wanted to be an asset to the community. They spoke of the seating on the patio
and he had the opportunity to speak with the applicant and they had a suggestion. He
also would want a condition placed on the hours of operation. The last item was that the
applicant had requested a Type 47 ABC License and not a Type 41. The intent was for
the applicant to sell beer and wine with the allowance to have that CUP in place if there
was a change in the operator.
Robert Martinez, address on file, stated he was the architect on the project. He stated
first and foremost he wanted to thank Staff for their assistance that they had provided
since the DRC process and they had been an asset to the project. As Mr. Atkinson had
stated, they were in agreement with the hours of operation and what he suggested was for
Monday through Saturday the hours of operation to be from 10:00 a.m. to midnight and
on Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. It was important to note that Shakey's was a family
restaurant and the children's game area was an associative use of the restaurant and only
occupied on 6.6% of the building area. It was not the intent to be an arcade by definition.
In regard to the alcoholic beverages and the patio area, in concurring with the business
operators, what they confirmed was that a customer would seat themselves and a server
would take their order on the patio and deliver a beverage to them directly. There was
not a problem with having that conditioned. The remainder of the conditions were
agreeable as written. There were several other Shakey's representatives in the audience if
they had further questions.
Chair Steiner asked if there were any questions for the applicant. There were none.
Gary Kanter, address on file, stated he was with Shake It Up and appreciated the City's
support and Staff had been very professional and helpful during the process. Beer and
wine sales historically with Shakey's had an average of 7% of sales, which was not very
high, and was a way to get dad to a family restaurant. That was the history of Shakey's
7 %. The one thing he wanted to mention, and there was a touch of ambiguity, it would
be helpful with the buffet service to allow a patron to get his beer and take it back to his
table. There was already a restriction for no alcohol in the game area and it would be
helpful, especially when someone was attempting to corral 3 to 4 kids in that
Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2011
Page 19 of 21
environment. The patio was an area that would be a preference for him to be seated as it
would be quieter and it would allow him to keep his eye on the front door and he could
zone out for an hour. He was available for any further questions.
Commissioner Cunningham asked what specific change was he looking for.
Mr. Kanter stated that in the normal process with a buffet format that patrons would be
allowed to purchase a beer and take it to their table.
Commissioner Merino stated he had an issue with allowing alcohol to be brought out to
the patio area. The concern was that the alcohol could be given to someone outside the
patio, especially in an environment that there would be teenage children hanging around.
The center attracted that age group.
Mr. Kanter stated he was open to suggestions, but in looking at the Shakey's
environment, it was so non -teen driven.
Commissioner Merino stated it was not the teens that would be at the restaurant, but the
teens that would be at the movie theatre and some of the other places.
Sgt. Peterson stated he agreed that there should be some form of condition regarding the
alcohol service on the patio.
Commissioner Cunningham asked if there was a condition such as that on the Auld
Irisher restaurant as there was alcohol consumed out on the patio.
Commissioner Merino stated he was on the Commission when that CUP came through
and there had been conditions on the service to the patio area.
Chair Steiner stated the applicant had agreed that alcohol would be served on the patio by
a staff member. He asked if they wanted the flexibility in the restaurant and not on the
patio.
Mr. Kanter stated maybe he was not clear; they would take orders for alcohol on the
patio; he just wanted the option available for the buffet line or alcohol consumption in the
restaurant.
Chair Steiner asked if he was referring to both alcohol in the restaurant and on the patio?
Mr. Kanter stated yes. The patio had very little separation and was very small. It was not
like the patio that was at Lazy Dog.
Commissioner Merino stated if the person who purchased beer or alcohol could go out to
the patio, however, any individuals that went out to the patio, sat themselves out there
and they wished to have a beer they could not just go get a beer; so that a subsequent
patio purchase of alcohol would need to be done through staff; or a control whereby a
Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2011
Page 20 of 21
staff member would monitor the alcohol going out to the patio. There needed to be some
methodology to supervision.
Randy Hill, address on file, stated he was a Board Member of Shakey's and he would
address the beer on the patio issue. The program that existed at all Shakey's restaurants
for the past few years was that when food was purchased a patron's alcoholic beverage
that was ordered was also received. That was taken to a patron's table. If someone
wanted a refill, in the newer stores, there would be a staff person assigned to the floor
refilling soft drinks and taking alcoholic beverage orders. It would be the initial purchase
that would allow a patron the freedom of moving from the dining area to the patio area.
The patio area would be licensed as part of the premises and subject to the rules and
regulations imposed on the rest of the restaurant. They wanted to be good citizens and
obey the law. The managers were required to touch the tables and that was to ensure
guest safety and satisfaction and to also monitor compliance with health, safety and ABC
rules.
Sgt. Peterson stated he liked that concept.
Mr. Hill stated they were particularly aware of the alcohol consumption as they were a
family oriented business.
Chair Steiner closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for
discussion or action.
Commissioner Merino stated with a few modifications to the conditions presented he was
very much in favor of the project and he had thought Shakey's had disappeared off of the
planet and he was pleased to see that they had not. He remembered growing up as a kid
and going to Shakey's and he was glad to see that they were still around and coming to
Orange.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he was very supportive as well; and he was psyched to
bring his kids to Shakey's and good to see Shakey's in Orange. He felt the alcohol
service would be managed and was pleased with the applicant's suggestions.
Commissioner Buttress stated she was supportive of the project and it was a good thing
and pleased to see Shakey's coming back.
Chair Steiner stated he had lived in Orange for 43 years and he was very pleased to see
how things had developed at the Promenade; it was a great trend and there was much to
be proud of. His 5 children and 14 grandchildren had made the arcade the cost center for
his family and Shakey's had made most of their money from his family.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adopt PC No. 03 -41, approving CUP No.
2812 -10 and CUP 2812 -11- Shakey's Pizza, subject to the conditions contained in the
Staff Report and with a modification to the hours of operation and the maximum size of
the arcade area, noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 23, 2011
Page 21 of 21
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cunningham, Merino and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
(4) ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION CARRIED
Adjournment to the next regular Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Monday,
March 7, 2011.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting
of the Planning Commission on Monday, March 7, 2011.
Commissioner Merino stated that much to his chagrin, it was Commissioner
Cunningham's last meeting and he was sorry to see him go and he looked forward to
working with him in other ways in the future.
Chair Steiner stated it had been great to work with Commissioner Cunningham during the
last few months.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES:
Commissioners Buttress, Cunningham, Merino and Steiner
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
MOTION CARRIED
Meeting Adjourned @ 8:46 p.m.