2009 - May 4
Planning Commission Minutes
May 4, 2009
1 of 11
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
APPROVED
May 4, 2009
Monday-7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
STAFF
PRESENT:
Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION:
Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:52 p.m. with a review of the
Agenda.
Item No.1, Wise Guys Pizzeria CUP. Item continued from April 20, 2009 Planning
Commission Meeting. Commissioner Cunningham asked if the request was for a new
CUP or a current license being extended to the additional square footage? Assistant
Planner, Sonal Thakur, stated it was an existing license being modified. There was a
request for a modification of Condition No. 22 from the previous meeting; all other
conditions remained the same. Commissioner Whitaker stated he would have questions.
Item No.2 Verizon CUP. Chair Steiner asked who would be presenting the item?
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, stated he would be presenting the item. Chair Steiner
stated he was aware that letters had been received and had Mr. Garcia anticipated any
public input? Mr. Garcia stated he had not anticipated any Public Comment. Assistant
Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated there was a couple asking where
the meeting would be held and they could be present for the item. Commissioner Merino
stated, from the content of the letters, it appeared that there might be a misunderstanding
that new towers were being installed and he asked for confirmation that the tower was an
existing tower? Mr. Garcia stated that was correct, the tower was an existing tower.
Commissioner Merino stated they had heard testimony that with co-location of antenna
equipment there were instances that co-location was not viable due to interference from
the communication devices and they had heard information that it could be done, and had
there been any information regarding possible conflicts with multiple carriers?
Mr. Garcia stated no there had not been.
Item No.3 Verizon CUP. Chair Steiner asked ifthere had been any public input received
on the item. Mr. Garcia stated he had received one phone call.
Mr. Knight stated that Commissioner Cunningham had not been present at the previous
Planning Commission Meeting and he had not reviewed the tapes from that meeting in
Page 1 of 11 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 2009
2 of 11
regards to the continued Item No.1 Wise Guys Pizzeria. Assistant City Attorney, Gary
Sheatz, stated the Chair would want to advise the applicant that Commissioner
Cunningham had not been present and that he had not reviewed the meeting tapes. There
had not been an action taken or any testimony taken and he could ask the applicant if he
had an issue with Commissioner Cunningham being present for the hearing of the Item,
in order to keep everything on the up and up. Mr. Knight stated that when a
Commissioner was not present for a meeting it was helpful to review the tapes in order to
familiarize himself with the item being presented.
Chair Steiner asked Commissioner Merino when he was being deployed? Commissioner
Merino stated it would be at the end of July. He would be stationed at Port Hueneme and
he planned on commuting to Orange for the Planning Commission Meetings.
Administrative Session closed at 7:00 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Continued Hearing:
(1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2742-09 - WISE GUYS PIZZERIA
Continued from the April 20, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting. A proposal to serve
beer and wine within a new eating establishment. The applicant requests the Planning
Commission make a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity to allow a Type 41 (On-
Sale Beer and Wine for a Bona Fide Public Eating Place) ABC License.
LOCATION:
7604 & 7606 E. 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
operation and licensing of an existing structure
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 16-09 approving the
modification of CUP 2669-07 for a Type 41 (On-Sale Beer
and Wine - Eating Establishment) to include the new 1,150
square feet of expanded restaurant.
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to step forward to address the Commission. Chair
Steiner stated that Commissioner Cunningham was not present at the last Planning
Commission Meeting. Commissioner Cunningham had an opportunity to review the
Staff Report and he was familiar with the issues. Chair Steiner asked the applicant if it
Page 2 of 11 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 2009
3 of 11
was alright if Commissioner Cunningham was present for the hearing and he would be
present to cast a vote?
Applicant, Michael Ernst, address on file, stated absolutely.
Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report. Ms. Thakur stated Sergeant Lopez was also present for any questions the
Commissioners might have.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff.
Commissioner Whitaker stated the municipal code allowed for 3 or fewer amusement
devices, and he was attempting to get a handle on why Staff was going beyond the code
and maybe micromanaging what types of those 3 that the applicant could have. They
could not have two pool tables and he asked for an explanation and the rationale used for
not allowing up to the number that was allowed per the code?
Ms. Thakur stated that condition was formulated by the Police Department and she
deferred that question to Sergeant Lopez.
Sergeant Lopez stated the reason that condition was written so technical was that they
were trying to avoid having the establishment turned into a pool hall. The conditions
would pass from one owner to the next. The issue the Police Department initially had
with minimizing the number of pool or shuffleboard tables was that in the event the
business was sold and the new owners decided they would not want to run a Pizzeria
anymore, patrons would be able to go into the establishment to play pool and consume
alcohol and they would not necessarily need to order food. When the Police Department
reviewed the condition, they took into consideration the longstanding relationship the
business had with the community, being in good-standing in such a low crime area and
having under-concentration of licenses, the Police Department felt it was a small
concession. In speaking with the City Attorney's office, they felt it prudent to put into
place, not necessarily for the applicant, but for any future owners, to not allow
substitution of a Pac Man machine and replace it with a second or third pool table.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he was not clear on the language. The way he read the
second sentence in Condition No. 22, no single game can be substituted for a second
billiards table or second shuffleboard table at any given time. It sounded to him that it
was presumed that there was the presence of a second billiard or shuffleboard table.
Would the condition limit the games to only one of each type, for a total of three?
Sergeant Lopez stated that was correct. What they were trying to avoid was having the
applicant or any future owners of the business decide they had not wanted an arcade
game and add another pool or shuffleboard table. The condition stated that the business
could have 1 of each type of game; however, they would not be able to substitute the
games for a second pool or shuffleboard table.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he had not felt the condition stated that, at least
grammatically and he stated to correct him if he was wrong. He thought it would make
Page 3 of 11 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 2009
4 of 11
more sense if the condition read: no more than one game of each of the three types. It
would take care of the problem.
Commissioner Whitaker stated the only problem he had with that wording was if the
applicant or business owner wanted to take away a shuffleboard table and add another
coin operated game. The condition was written to avoid having multiple free-standing
table games.
Sergeant Lopez stated most of the free-standing tables were not coin operated and
generally a driver's license was given as a security deposit for the pool cues and balls and
that was the reason the condition was written in that manner. They were not worried
about a Galactica Game, as that type of machine was primarily for kids to enjoy when
they came in for a slice of pizza so they would have something to do.
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to step forward for any further questions or
information he wanted to offer.
Mr. Ernst stated that after the process they had been through he wanted to personally
thank Sergeant Lopez for going above and beyond the initial rules the City had in
allowing them to have the games in their establishment and a thank you to Sonal Thakur
for pushing it through.
Chair Steiner asked the applicant if he felt comfortable with the conditions and
recommendations.
Mr. Ernst stated he was okay with it.
Chair Steiner stated there were no other speaker cards on the item and he brought the
item back to the Commission for further discussion.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt PC 16-09, approving Conditional Use
Permit No. 2742-09 Wise Guys Pizzeria, for a Type 41 On-Sale Beer and Wine License,
subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and noting that the project was
categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Whitaker
Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
NEW HEARINGS:
(2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2627-06; DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE NO. 4181-07 & ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO.
1812-08 - VERIZON WIRELESS FACILITY
Page 4 of 11 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 2009
5 of 11
A proposal to install a four (4) foot diameter parabolic antenna, a global positioning
system (GPS) antenna, and 12 directional antennas mounted on a Southern California
Edison (SCE) lattice tower.
LOCATION:
South Via Esco1a & West of Cannon Street
NOTE:
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1812-08 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
(MND) finds that the project will have less than significant
impact to the environment
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-09 to allow
twelve directional antennas and one parabolic antenna to
collocate on an existing SCE tower with associated equipment
cabinets.
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff.
Commissioner Merino stated in reviewing the letters that were submitted by the members
of the Public on the item, it appeared that there had been a reoccurring theme that perhaps
it was not clear that the application was on an existing SCE tower. He asked if Mr.
Garcia had provided any of the folks who had written a letter, an explanation that would
have changed their opinion?
Mr. Garcia stated Staff had not received any further feedback.
Commissioner Merino stated for the record, the project had not proposed a new tower,
but was for additional equipment on an existing high tension tower.
Mr. Garcia stated that was correct.
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to step forward and address the Commission.
Applicant, Paul Scotemaker, address on file, thanked Mr. Garcia for the presentation and
he felt he had done a good job in explaining what they intended to do. There would be no
new tower, the scope of work would include attaching antennas to an existing SCE
transmission tower and associated equipment at the base of the existing tower. There was
no new tower proposed. He had a few comments on a few of the conditions, nothing
major; he had previously spoken to Mr. Garcia about the changes. On Condition No.2
he wanted to remove the cashier's check requirement and add a regular check. He had
Page 5 of 11 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 4, 2009
6 of 11
already cleared that through the County and through Mr. Garcia.
Chair Steiner asked Mr. Garcia if that was his understanding and if he had any opposition
to the word cashier's check being deleted?
Mr. Garcia stated that was his understanding and he had no objection to the change.
Mr. Scotemaker stated on Condition No.3, to remove the second sentence as he felt there
was some misunderstanding about the equipment. They were fine with the wording all
accessory equipment associated with the operation of the wireless facility shall be
enclosed in an approved fenced enclosure and he wanted to add with earth tone slats, as
that was what the DRC had recommended. He wanted the second sentence removed; the
one that spoke about the equipment structure which stated it shall be made of galvanized
metal. If that was referring to the equipment cabinets, they were prefabricated outdoor
cabinets. They had a tan or gray color to them and they were weather proofed and
screened behind a fence. He suggested eliminating the second sentence.
Mr. Garcia stated he would concur with the applicant's suggestion and felt the language
had been picked up from a previous resolution.
Chair Steiner stated the applicant had stated with earth tone slats and he asked for
clarification?
Mr. Scotemaker stated there would be slats that went through the fencing material.
Chair Steiner asked Mr. Garcia if that was agreeable?
Mr. Garcia stated that would be documented on the plans and the environmental
document.
Mr. Scotemaker stated on Condition No. 7 which spoke to graffiti removal. He wanted
the Condition re-worded; to read any graffiti shall be removed in no less than 72 hours
from the time Verizon Wireless had received notification. This would be as opposed to
72 hours from the time of vandalism. They requested the change as the tower was an
unoccupied facility and Verizon personnel would visit the site monthly for routine
maintenance and Verizon would have no way of knowing when graffiti had occurred
until notified.
Mr. Garcia stated Staff had no objection to that change.
Chair Steiner asked for the applicants proposed modification to Condition No. 7?
Mr. Scotemaker stated it should read: from the time notice of graffiti was received from
the City.
Chair Steiner asked the applicant if he agreed on the wording: Any graffiti shall be
removed in no less than 72 hours from the time of notification?
Page 6 of 11 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 4, 2009
7 of 11
Mr. Scotemaker stated he agreed with that language.
Chair Steiner asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners for the
applicant? There were none.
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion.
Commissioner Whitaker stated in understanding that the existing facility had little or no
impact and was within the guidelines of the Federal Government's requirement for cell
phone access, the application presented the best case scenario and he supported the
application.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt PC 17-09, Conditional Use Permit No.
2627-06; Design Review Committee No. 4184-07 and Environmental Review No. 1812-
08- V erizon Wireless Facility, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and
with the modifications to Conditions 2,3 and 7.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2737-08 AND DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE NO. 4399-08 - VERIZON WIRELESS
A proposal involving installation of eight (8) panel antennas and one (1) microwave
antenna located on a Southern California Edison (SCE) lattice tower.
LOCATION:
San Onofre & Serrano
NOTE:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 - (Class 3 - New
Construction), because the project consists of eight (8) panel
antennas, one (1) microwave antenna and four (4) associated
cabinets to be located on a Southern California Edison (SCE)
lattice tower.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 21-09 for approval
of installation of eight (8) panel antennas and one (1)
microwave antenna located on a SCE lattice tower.
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, stated the applicant was not present and perhaps he had
been detained.
Page 7 of 11 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 2009
8 of 11
Chair Steiner asked the Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, for his recommendation on
proceeding with the hearing?
Mr. Sheatz stated it had not happened very often.
Chair Steiner stated if it had not been for the presence of the members of the public, he
would have been inclined to take the matter off calendar and move on from there.
Mr. Sheatz stated that would be an option. As members of the public had taken the time
to be present, the Chair could open the Public Hearing and accept the testimony from the
members of the public and then continue the item to have the applicant present. The
problem with that suggestion would be that the public would not have the opportunity to
comment on the applicant's comments should they desire to do so and that presented an
issue.
Commissioner Whitaker stated the members of the public had a right to an
applicant/public debate and in taking the public's testimony without having the applicant
present would be out of order as there would not be an opportunity for the public
speakers to rebuttal the applicant's testimony.
Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct. The comments that would be heard with the applicant
absent would be limited to what had been reviewed in the Staff Report or their
knowledge of the project might not be everything they relied on the applicant's input for.
Commissioner Whitaker framed it correctly that the public comment could be less than
meaningful as the applicant had not presented their case.
Chair Steiner stated there were two members of the public who had taken time to be
present and the Commission was not pleased when an applicant failed to appear at their
own hearing and certainly there was an explanation. He addressed the members of the
public and stated they had heard the information given by Commission Whitaker and if
they wished to speak and have their comments heard without having to return to a
subsequent meeting, that was an option. Alternatively if the public speakers wished to
return to the next Planning Commission Meeting, with regard to the application, and he
asked the public speakers to signify with a nod of the head whether they wanted to speak
or wait until another meeting?
Mr. Sheatz stated they could take a 20 second time out to attempt to reach the applicant
by phone.
Chair Steiner spoke with a woman in the audience. She indicated the applicant was on
his way and Chair Steiner suspended the meeting for a brief recess, returning at 7:30 p.m.
to allow the applicant to be present.
Chair Steiner re-opened the meeting and informed the applicant that the Planning
Commission Meetings started at 7:00 p.m. and he encouraged applicants to be present at
7:00 p.m.
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Page 8 of 11 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 4, 2009
9 of 11
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. There were none.
Chair Steiner invited the applicant to step forward to address the Commission.
Applicant, Eric Meur, address on file, offered his apologies for his tardiness and he
thought that the item heard before his application would be controversial and he felt he
had more time.
Chair Steiner stated the Planning Commission operated at the height of efficiency.
Mr. Meur stated he had been present shortly before the holidays and it had been the
shortest hearing he had ever been to as it had only lasted 7 minutes. He appreciated that,
and he apologized. He thanked Mr. Garcia for his time and effort. He stated they had no
problem with any of the conditions, with the exception of Condition No.8, which was the
graffiti condition. The applicant would not have a problem with cleaning up the graffiti,
he just wanted some clarification on the time. The current condition stated that the
graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours of the vandalism and as the facility was
unmanned.
Chair Steiner stated he wanted to stop the applicant there and it was another reason for a
timely appearance; the previous applicant had a concern with the same type of condition
and the condition had been modified to state: any graffiti shall be removed in no less
than 72 hours from the time of notification. He asked the applicant if that was
satisfactory?
Mr. Meur stated it was and he had no further issues.
Commissioner Merino stated as a matter of record and for clarification, on the photo
simulation on attachment No. 3 which showed the proposed antennas and their
appearance at the existing SCE tower - would the applicant state that was a fair portrayal
of what the final condition would be after final construction?
Mr. Meur stated it was.
Chair Steiner opened the meeting for Public Comment.
Mark Mina, address on file, stated he resided directly across from where the proposed
tower was. He and his wife opposed the application, primarily as they had purchased the
property 4 years ago and had paid a premium price for a view. Their concerns were
obstruction of their view and the tower being an eyesore. It would affect future sale of
their property and would affect a lot of properties in the area.
Chair Steiner asked Mr. Mina ifhe had a chance to review the photo simulation?
Mr. Mina stated he had not.
Page 9 of 11 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 2009
10 of 11
Chair Steiner handed a photo to Mr. Mina for his review and stated it was a simulation of
what the antenna would look like after installation. He asked if after reviewing the photo
it had any impact on his opinion?
Mr. Mina stated no, he had the same opinion.
Portia Mina, address on file, stated she had spoken with Mr. Garcia earlier and the tower
was directly across from their backyard and she asked if the tower would be visible from
their view? Mr. Garcia had stated several of them would be visible from her property. It
was not a small little obstacle of construction.
Chair Steiner asked Ms. Mina if she would review the photo simulation and asked her if
that had any impact on her opinion.
Ms. Mina stated the photo had been taken from down on the hill.
Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for
discussion.
Commissioner Whitaker stated although he was sensitive to obstruction of views and the
opinion that the equipment created an eyesore, when he reviewed the photos he felt the
eyesore in the area was the 70' Edison towers. The proposed antennas would be flush
mounted and the equipment box enclosed. The Federal Government set limits on what
the Commission could and could not do; there were basic limitations that in an area of
necessity the cell phone carrier had a right to co-locate.
Chair Steiner stated the Commission was substantially constrained by Federal and State
Law when it pertained to cell phone communication towers; such that, as Commissioner
Whitaker had observed, where coverage deficiencies existed. The Commission's ability
to deny or refuse cell phone operator's requests was rather substantially constricted and it
was important to know. He felt an unfortunate alternative would be the addition of
another cell phone tower and it would have an impact on the visual easement.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt PC 21-09, approving Conditional Use
Permit No. 2737-08 and Design Review Committee No. 4399-08-Verizon Wireless,
subject to the conditions contained in the Staff report' and with modification to the
language of Condition No.8.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Cunningham
Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 10 of 11 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 4, 2009
11 of 11
(4) ADJOURNMENT
Chair Steiner made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on Monday, May 18, 2009.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 7:40 P.M.
Page 11 of 11 Pages