Loading...
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