2010 - January 4Planning Commission Minutes
Minutes
January 4, 2010
1 of 13
Planning Commission January 4, 2010
City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, and Steiner
ABSENT: Commissioners Merino and Whitaker
STAFF
PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director
Jennifer Le, Senior Planner
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION:
Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:47 p.m. with a review of the
Agenda.
Item No. 1, Minutes from the regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 2,
2009. No changes or corrections noted.
Item No. 2, Minutes from the regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 16,
2009. Chair Steiner noted corrections to pages 17 & 25 of the minutes
Item No. 3, Minutes from the Administrative Session, for the Planning Commission
Meeting of December 7, 2009. No changes or corrections noted.
Item No. 4, City of Orange Capital Improvement Project and Zone Change. Chair
Steiner stated he would move the item to the last item on the Agenda and he would have
a question regarding noise of the project. Senior Planner, Jennifer Le, would be
presenting the item.
Item No. 5, Trillium Telecom CUP and MSPR. Chair Steiner asked if the application
was for a co-location and as he understood the proposed project, flush mounting was not
an option? Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, stated he was correct the proposed project was
an application for co-location. Chair Steiner asked if a representative from SCE would
be present and if the easement access had been resolved? Mr. Ortlieb stated an SCE
representative would be present and he was not certain regarding the easement access
situation.
Item No. 6, Target CUP. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, would be presenting the item.
She stated Sergeant Peterson would not be attending the meeting due to another
obligation. Chair Steiner stated the Orange Police Department had no opposition to the
application. Ms. Thakur stated that was correct. Chair Steiner stated there were some
inconsistencies between the square footage in the call log and the Staff Report. Ms.
Page 1 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2010
2of13
Thakur stated Staff used the square footage from the actual application. Chair Steiner
stated the Staff Report also noted that the Target location was currently undergoing
remodeling. Ms. Thakur stated the remodel had been completed. She stated that the
applicant had wanted to be moved up in the Agenda in order to make an airline flight and
Chair Steiner had already addressed that. Chair Steiner asked if there was any data
available that showed the number of Target stores that sold alcoholic beverages. Ms.
Thakur stated she was not certain of that number.
There was no further discussion.
Administrative Session closed at 6:52 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 2, 2009.
(2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 16, 2009.
(3) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES (ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION ONLY)
FROM THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2009.
Chair Steiner made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meetings of
November 2, November 16 and December 7, 2009, with the changes to the minutes of
November 16 as noted during the Administrative Session of the meeting and minutes
from the November 2 and December 7 approved as written.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Merino and Whitaker
MOTION CARRIED.
Chair Steiner stated there would be some moving around of the Agenda Items to
accommodate a scheduling issue. Item No. 6, CUP 2755-09 Target would be heard
initially.
New Hearin~s•
(4) CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 8935 & 8119; ZONE
CHANGE NO. 1253-09; SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0593-09; LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT LL-2009-01; AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
Page 2 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2010
3of13
DECLARATION NO. 1816-09 -WATER WAREHOUSE RENOVATION
AND WELL 27 CONSTRUCTION
A proposal to renovate an existing vacant warehouse to accommodate warehouse, office,
office support areas and a drinking water laboratory for existing City Water Division staff
and operations. The project includes demolition of a portion of the existing warehouse
building and construction of a new City water well, support piping, structures and
equipment in the area of the demolished building. To accommodate the warehouse
renovation, a lot line adjustment is proposed to merge the Water Warehouse lot (145
South Water Street) with the adjacent Water Yard/Headquarters lot (189 South Water
Street). To accommodate the Lot Line Adjustment, a Zone Change is proposed changing
the Water Warehouse lot from R-1-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot
minimum lot size) to PI (Public Institution).
LOCATION: 145 & 189 Water Street
NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1816-09 was prepared to
evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in
conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in
conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. The Mitigated Negative
Declaration finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to
the environment, with the implementation of standard conditions and
mitigation measures. The 30-day public review period was initiated .on
November 3, 2009 ending on December 2, 2009.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 46-09 recommending that the
City Council approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1816-09 and Zone
Change 1253-09 to reclassify the city-owned property at 145 Water Street
from (Single Family Residential) to PI (Public Institution), and a Lot Line
Adjustment consolidating the two properties and approve the renovation
of the water warehouse and construction of a City water well and support
facilities.
Senior Planner, Jennifer Le, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff.
Chair Steiner stated his questions related to noise. There was reference in the Staff
Report regarding efforts to control noise during construction. During the 14 day drilling
operation, he asked if the water facility would be noisy once it was established?
Associate Civil Engineer, Water Division, Tuan Cao, stated he was not working with the
City when they drilled well No. 25, but based on the records, there was no excessive
noise during constriction.
Page 3 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2010
4of13
Chair Steiner asked about the noise after construction was completed?
Mr. Cao stated when the drilling was completed there should not be any noise. Once in
operation, there would be a sound enclosure around the well to keep the noise level down
to acceptable levels.
Chair Steiner stated once everything was complete and the on switch was flipped, he had
seen them around the City, and he asked what sound would be generated by the facility.
Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight stated he and Ms. Le had a
conversation about the noise factor and she would be able to provide some technical
information as well as the mitigation measures to mitigate any sound from the pumps.
Ms. Le stated there was a noise measurement completed at Well No. 25 which was the
closest well to the project site to get an idea of how noisy the well would be. It was read
at 52 decibels at 10 feet from the well and that well had a sound attenuating enclosure
around it and that was what could be anticipated on the proposed project. The system ran
at a constant speed, it would be a constant hum rather than a variable speed and there
would be no on and off.
Chair Steiner asked would the well be in continuous operation.
Ms. Le stated that was correct it would be in continuous operation.
Chair Steiner asked, in reviewing the site map, how would Ms. Le describe the site area
where the well was proposed?
Ms. Le stated the proposed well location would be closer to the Jameson Street side of
the property, which would be 10' to 15' from the property line with Jameson Street
having a 40' width. The residential uses were located all along Jameson Street on the
opposite side. The City was mindful of those residential uses and they had taken a good
look at the noise levels that were being generated by Well No. 25 to ensure the issue was
addressed.
Chair Steiner stated the decibels levels she had referenced earlier were at 10'.
Ms. Le stated yes, at 10'. As an industry standard, there would be a 6 decibel level drop
off rate for noise per doubling of distance and the residences were located over 50' from
the well location. There would be a drop off such that noise would be substantially less
than 50 decibels.
Chair Steiner stated all the affected residences were noticed of the proposed project.
Ms. Le stated that was correct and they had not received any response to those notices.
Mr. Knight stated normally in a residential area during the day, on the average, and it was
not for that specific street but for a street of similar makeup, there would be 60 to 65
decibels of noise during the course of a day, dropping down to 50 to 55 during the
Page 4 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2010
Sof13
evening hours and seldom going below that. Avery quiet residential area might drop
down to 45. Generally speaking the residents would not hear anything from the well
while they would be in their homes. Residents would need to walk across the street to
hear the hum from the well.
Chair Steiner stated the homes he referenced were in immediate proximity to Chapman
Avenue.
Mr. Knight stated correct and there would be a lot of noise from Chapman.
Chair Steiner stated he was curious, he had seen the wells, but was not aware of the
sound that came from them.
Ms. Le stated without the noise attenuating enclosure there would be noticeable noise,
but with the sound enclosure, they found that to be very effective in lowering the noise
levels.
Chair Steiner stated there would be a 6 decibel drop off rate per doubling of distance,
which was interesting to note.
Commissioner Imboden stated going back to noticing, he assumed neighboring property
owners were noticed both during the Environmental Review process and for the Planning
Commission Meeting.
Ms. Le stated yes, they were noticed both times.
Chair Steiner made a motion to adopt PC 46-09, recommending approval to the City
Council of City Capital Improvement Project No. 8935 & 8119; Zone Change No. 1253-
09; Site Plan Review No. 0593-09; Lot Line Adjustment LL-2009-01; and Mitigated
Negative Declaration No. 1816-09 - Water Warehouse Renovation and Well 27
Construction, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and noting
compliance with CEQA.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Tinboden, and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Merino and Whitaker
MOTION CARRIED.
(5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2730-08; DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE N0.4385-08; AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 0574-
08 -TRILLIUM TELECOM (AT&T WIRELESS)
A proposal to place nine (9) panel antennas on the north, east, and south elevations of a
Southern California Edison (SCE) power line tower with equipment to support the
antennas located inside an equipment enclosure located directly under the center of the
tower base.
Page 5 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2010
6of13
LOCATION: East of Feather Hill Drive and North of Meats Avenue
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303
(Class 3 -New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because
the project involves a new equipment enclosure and antennas on an
existing power line tower.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 47-09 approving the
establishment of a wireless facility on a SCE power line tower.
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item to any questions for Staff.
Chair Steiner stated in regard to the flush mounting Mr. Ortlieb had given one reason
why the applicant had indicated it was not a viable option, but in fact, there were two
reasons the applicant was choosing not to provide flush mounting; and he read from the
Staff Report: the applicant was not willing to make the discriminatory judgment as to
which service to eliminate.
Mr. Ortlieb stated it was his limited understanding that there were multiple types of
antennas and for the particular type involved for the type of wireless service, the
applicant indicated that the antennas could not be flush mounted whereby another type
could be.
Chair Steiner asked if that was the type the applicant was willing to install?
1VIr. Ortlieb stated that was correct.
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Tian Miller, representing AT&T, address on file, stated the Staff Report was well stated.
He would address the conditions and the antennas. The type of antemlas that were
proposed were flat paneled antennas that needed to be down-tilted to pick up the
coverage for the area that required a limited space, otherwise the signal would go in all
directions and interfere with other sites. The signal needed to be contained. On a lattice
tower with tapered legs, if the antennas were to be flush mounted, the signal would be
going up into the air and not down to the coverage objectives.
Chair Steiner stated, as he understood it, there was no such thing as flush mounting on
lattice towers.
Mr. Miller stated that was correct, he had never flush mounted on a lattice tower and SCE
would not allow flush mounting as the installation was done off of a leg of the tower.
Flush mounting could be done on a pole, such as a flag pole. As for the rumble strips,
Page 6 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2010
7of13
they had come into some issues with what would be allowed based on SCE Guidelines.
As far as installing the strips on a private area in order to stop gravel or mud from going
onto the road, they had run into some issues. With service vehicles coming onto the site
for the SCE towers; there needed to be a weight limit and there was a liability that came
into play with vehicles crossing the strips. He saw validity in using the rumble strips as a
temporary measure while the tower was under construction. Once construction was
complete, their equipment would be serviced approximately once a month; therefore,
they would not anticipate a lot of vehicular traffic at the site. That was one of the issues
they had been working on. AT&T had already made contact with the private property
owner; speaking with them to gain access to the site and for compensation. It was in the
works. They were agreeable to all other conditions. They were having some difficulty
with the rumble strip request.
Commissioner Cumungham asked if the applicant was requesting that Condition No. 5 be
removed or modified.
Mr. Miller stated they could modify that condition. Without the access from the private
property, they would not be able to access the antennas and it would be worthless to
move forward with the project. The rumble strips were the issue and if the Condition
could be revised, those rumble strips would be required only during construction.
Commissioner Cunningham asked how often vehicles would be traveling to and from the
site during construction?
Mr. Miller stated he was not certain and was not familiar with all the construction that
was necessary on an SCE tower.
Chair Steiner stated it was a sufficient number that the applicant was agreeable to the
installation of rumble strips.
Mr. Miller stated that was the initial concern, the number of vehicular trips to the site.
When they spoke about AT&T servicing the site, it would be approximately once a
month.
Chair Steiner stated it appeared that there was another member of the applicant's team
that might be able to answer their questions.
Jacqueline Murray, address on file, representing Southern California Edison, stated
during the construction it was a 3 to 4 week process to get the cell site built. There would
be flatbed trucks delivering the equipment cabinets and aman-lift would be brought out
to access the antennas. There would be tower crews and delivery trucks on site at least
once a day, along with crew trucks and the man-lift truck that would be out there for
stringing of the coaxial antennas. Fora 3 week period, there would be a significant
amount of activity. Once the construction was completed and the antennas were up and
functioning, the site would only be visited by the applicant approximately once a month.
There would be very limited activity once the site was built. She had spent quite a bit of
time on the Internet attempting to find some type of specification for rumble strips that
was required by SCE; she spent at least half a day on googhe and various web sites trying
Page 7 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2010
8of13
to find different types of rumble strips. The only type she found had been a temporary
construction trough that was used as a wash rack for trucks to be washed off as a
temporary construction measure. In speaking with their Operations Department, they
were not very excited about having an open pit with water and all types of debris that
would need to be cleared out and maintained. Unless she was able to come up with some
type of specifications, she would accept a recommendation from the City for a rumble
strip scenario.
Chair Steiner stated he was certain Staff would not have recommended rumble strips if
they had not had an idea of what they looked like and he would get an answer from Staff
of their expectations.
Commissioner Imboden stated the Commission had heard that the site would be accessed
approximately once a month; there were other communication devices at the site and he
assumed Edison would visit the site as well. He wanted to get what the total number of
ins and outs at the site would be over the course of a month.
Mr. Miller stated, as far as the AT&T technicians and other carriers, it was approximately
once a month. They would go out to ensure that everything was calibrated correctly and
running properly.
Commissioner hnboden asked how often would SCE personnel visit the site?
Ms. Murray stated there were patrolmen that patrolled the right-of--way and she would
need to find out how often the site was visited. She would need to know whether the site
had a graffiti or vandalism problem which would require a more frequent patrol.
Commissioner Imboden stated that was probably not the case with the proposed site and
he was attempting to gain information on the proposed project before them.
Ms. Murray stated she had been to the site and had not observed any graffiti or any
vandalism, possibly they would visit the site once a month or as needed. If a resident
called to complain of a situation, there would be a patrol sent out. It would not be as
frequent as the cell sites.
Commissioner Imboden stated probably or maybe, he asked if she could give him a better
idea of the number of visits.
Ms. Murray stated once a month maybe.
Chair Steiner asked what the number of current users was at the proposed location.
Ms. Murray stated two; AT&T would be the third.
Chair Steiner stated, speaking to Mr. Miller, in the event that the applicant was unable to
secure an agreement from the private property owner, would the proposed project be in
peril, irrespective of whether the Planning Commission approved it.
Page 8 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
Mr. Miller stated he understood that.
January 4, 2010
9of13
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for any further questions or
discussion.
Commissioner Imboden asked if Staff had any further input regarding the rumble strips
for the applicant. He was not asking Staff for specifications as that was not Staff's
responsibility, but wanted to know if Staff had any further comment.
Mr. Ortlieb stated Staff had not wanted to dictate what type of rumble strips the applicant
could use, as long as the applicant could demonstrate the effectiveness of the strips to
knock mud off of vehicle tires in a rainy scenario and as long as they were secured in
some type of permanent basis, if that was the Commissions' request. The type of strips
that he had seen were wide enough to accommodate a vehicle moving over a steel strip
base with a plate that would stick up perpendicular to it; that continued on and knocked
the mud off of a vehicle tire.
Chair Steiner stated with the google search notwithstanding, it sounded as if there was a
common understanding as to what a rumble strip would entail; and whether the request
would be for a permanent situation or just during construction, that was to be determined.
It appeared that there was a general understanding of what had been contemplated by
Staff in making a recommendation that seemed reasonable enough.
Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight stated Mr. Ortlieb's description
was accurate, he wanted to add that what the SCE representative had described was a
situation that existed and generally used at construction sites. It was a type of cleaning
pit that had rumble strips on the bottom and typically used when dirt was being moved on
or off of a site. An eighteen wheeler would be cleaned off before it left the site so it
would not carry off any mud; they were not speaking of that type of situation as a
condition for the proposed project.
Chair Steiner stated what he was describing would be a much different situation.
Mr. Knight stated that was correct, it was a more elaborate one that was generally used
with earth moving equipment.
Chair Steiner stated it sounded like it would probably be a type of measure that would be
implicated by a Mitigated Negative Declaration or something along those lines.
Mr. Knight stated there would be an Enviromnental Document and what was known as a
SWIF, which was a water quality permit, construction permit that was issued by local
water quality management agency.
Chair Steiner stated what Staff had recommended in reference to rumble strips, whether
permanent or as a temporary measure during construction, were not along those lines.
Mr. Knight stated not even close.
Page 9 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2010
10 of 13
Connnissioner Imboden stated he was hoping to get a specific answer in regard to the
number of vehicular trips coming in and out of the site. His interpretation of what was
presented was that the number was not even known and he had a bit of difficulty with an
applicant asking to have a condition removed on the basis that it was not necessary where
there was not a full understanding of the impact. In reference to the specifications for the
rumble strips, he had not accepted that half a day spent on google would not allow the
condition to happen, certainly rumble strips were frequently used.
As far as weight limit was concerned and Mr. Knight had stated, large earth moving
equipment could be brought over them. They were used on interstate highways and it
was not an argument he was convinced with. He was willing to support the project;
however, he would not be willing to change the condition. He felt Staff and the Design
Review Committee had evaluated the conditions and had put them in place and that they
should stay there.
Chair Steiner stated changes to conditions or a change to Condition No. 5?
Commissioner Imboden stated it was just Condition No. 5.
Commissioner Cunningham stated regarding Condition No. 5, he thought it would be
reasonable to modify the condition to have rumble strips as a temporary measure. Unless
anyone had presented evidence to the contrary, he had not heard that mud was a problem
at the site on a year round basis and he felt it would only be necessary temporarily during
the construction phase. It was reasonable to amend the condition; otherwise, it would be
making one carrier fully responsible for keeping mud off the site, when there were other
carriers that had equipment at the site. He would support adding to Condition No. 5 that
they could be removed after the construction phase.
Connnissioner Imboden stated he wanted to get clarification from Staff. It wasn't his
impression that there was a concern only during the construction phase.
Commissioner Cunningham asked if there was mud currently.
Mr. Ortlieb stated City Public Works and Community Service's Staff had observed where
there was a lot of mud carried onto City streets from the vehicle tires during the rainy
season..
Commissioner Cunningham asked if that was a situation that occurred in general or was it
specific to the site for the proposed project.
Mr. Ortlieb stated in general.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he understood, in general, but they were speaking to a
specific site. He had not known what the cost involved was, but he had a concern in
having one company pay the entire cost of mitigating every company's mud and what
they were asking the applicant to do. AT&T would not be the only company accessing
the site, there would be other carriers also accessing the site that were not being asked to
mitigate the cost of removing mud on their tires when exiting the site. Unless they could
Page 10 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2010
11 of 13
find a way to split the bill, he thought it would be reasonable to have the condition
modified as a temporary measure during construction of the cell site. He would be
willing to approve the project with that change to Condition No. 5.
Chair Steiner stated his take on the issue was that the proposed use by the applicant
would be once a month and it had not seem reasonable to impose the installation of
permanent rumble strips for such a diminutive use. He would be inclined to agree with
Commissioner Cunningham based on what he was hearing regarding the level of traffic
during the construction period. It seemed perfectly rational to require the installation of
rumble strips. Based on the level of use that was contemplated after construction would
be completed, it had not seemed perfectly rational to require the installation of rumble
strips. He could support the installation of rumble strips on a permanent basis for some
sites; however, in the absence of any direct evidence that it was an issue at the proposed
project location, he would not be inclined to mandate that request on the proposed
application. It appeared that, would be the split and he asked if there was any further
discussion. There was not.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adopt PC 47-09, approving CUP No.
2730-08; Design Review Committee No. 4385-08; and Minor Site Plan Review No.
0574-08 -Trillium Telecom (AT&T Wireless), subject to the conditions contained in the
Staff Report and with the revision to Condition No. 5 that the rumble strips to be
removed after construction of the site was completed, and noting the item was
categorically exempt from CEQA.
Chair Steiner stated in reference to the rumble strips, he would ask the applicant to work
with Staff to determine the adequacy of rumble strips as there appeared to be an
impression of what would be acceptable and he took it that there would not be any
opposition from the applicant as it related to the rumble strips.
Mr. Miller stated that was fine, he noticed that Condition No. 4 had a mention of the
rumble strips and asked if that condition would be amended as well.
Chair Steiner stated Condition No. 4 was not in reference to rumble strips.
Ms. Murray stated the document Mr. Miller was reviewing may have been from the
previously cancelled meeting.
Chair Steiner read Condition No. 5 from his Staff Report, and asked if that was what Mr.
Miller was seeing as Condition No. 4.
Mr. Miller stated yes that was correct.
Chair Steiner stated whether or not Commissioner Cunningham made reference to
Condition No. 5 or 4 as it related to rumble strips, the motion made was for installation
during construction and he asked the applicant if he was comfortable with that.
Mr. Miller stated yes.
Page 11 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2010
12 of 13
Chair Steiner stated he would second the motion and allow Staff to clarify whether it was
Condition No. 4 or 5; it was the Condition that pertained to rumble strips.
SECOND: Commission Steiner
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham and Steiner
NOES: Commissioner Imboden
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Merino and Whitaker
MOTION CARRIED.
(6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2755-09-TARGET
A proposal to modify CUP 2457-03 in order to upgrade an existing Type 20 (Off Sale
Beer and Wine, Package Store) ABC License to a Type 21 (Off Sale General, Package
Store) ABC License.
LOCATION: 2191 North Tustin Street
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
proposes to modify an existing ABC license to permit the sale of distilled
spirits in addition to beer and wine for off-site consumption.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 43-09 to permit the general
off-site sale of alcohol (Type 21 ABC License).
This item was moved up in the Agenda and heard as the first Agenda item.
Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. There were none. He invited
the applicant to address the Commission.
Beth Aboulafia, address on file, thanked the Chair for taking her item out of order from
the Agenda. The Staff Report explained the request. Target had an existing CUP which
had been approved in 2003 that allowed the sale of beer and wine at the Target store for
off site consumption and they were requesting a modification to upgrade the ABC
License to allow the sale of distilled spirits. The request was being made in conjunction
with the expansion of the market section at the site. The expansion provided a broader
range of grocery items and along with the market section, Target wanted to offer a full
range of alcohol products. Staff was supportive as well as the Orange Police Department
and there had not been any opposition from any of the neighbors. She had no objections
to the proposed conditions and asked the Planning Commission to follow Staff's
recommendation to approve the modification of the CUP.
Page 12 of 13 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2010
13 of 13
Chair Steiner stated some Target stores had the expanded grocery sections and some had
not. He asked if it was customary for those stores with the expanded grocery sections to
offer distilled spirits not unlike customary grocery stores.
Ms. Aboulafia stated the expanded grocery section was something that was relatively
new and there were many Target stores that were scheduled for that type of expansion in
2010. In conjunction with the expansions, those stores would be applying for the
upgraded licensing. There were currently 40-45 stores that were in the process of
upgrading their licenses.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adopt PC-43-09, approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2755-09-Target, modifying CUP 2457-03 upgrading an existing Type.20
ABC License to a Type 21 ABC License, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff
Report and noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Merino and Whitaker
MOTION CARRIED.
(7) ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Steiner made a motion. to adjourn to the next regular meeting scheduled for
Monday, January 18, 2010.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Merino and Whitaker
MOTION CARRIED.
Page 13 of 13 Pages