2007 - July 16
~a506.G.;J.3
Final Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
16 July 2007
Monday -7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Imboden, Whitaker, Steiner, Bonina, Merino
STAFF
PRESENT:
Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Jacqueline Bateman, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session:
IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public
to address the Commission on matters not listed on the agenda.
Cheryl Hansmann. 446 S. Tustin - Val Verde Estates Mobile Home Park.
I moved to Val Verde Estates in January 2004 with my very disabled husband. I
had spent quite a bit of time looking around Orange County for affordable so that I
could take care of him properly. A year ago he passed away in March, six months
later we were approached as a group of people from Val Verde Estates by Mr. Long
who stated that he wanted to develop the park and what this meant was that all the
people living there would be displaced. He then shared with us through the group
that he hired, that there would be no compensation for us and that all the homes
that could be moved would be moved.
This morning he presented to the City Council that he wanted to develop the park.
They have a great deal of concern about that because we've been told by the group
that Mr. Long hired that they have no recourse. There have been attempts by Mr.
Long to arrange for sewer lines to go through the properties behind the park and
offers to buyout some of the residents to disadvantage us as residents.
Additionally, he has given false information. He put a traffic monitor in our park
and he did a double line so that the figures would look inflated.
Mr. Long has no intention to compensate any of us for the market value of our
homes or to help us.
Chair Imboden asks the audience for a show of hands of how many people are
present regarding this item? He states that there is quite a large number and asks
Ms. Hansmann if she is the only spokesperson speaking on everyone's behalf? Ms.
Hansmann answers yes and Chair Imboden gives her a couple of more minutes to
conclude her comments and then the Commission will have a response.
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
Ms. Hansmann goes on to say that she's been a resident of the City of Orange for 25
years and I concert that this city is not like other cities. This city is very community
minded and that people from Southern California come to Orange say what a
beautiful City this is. I would like to make an appeal to the City by the residents of
Val Verde Estates to fully support us in this.
Chair Imboden states that he believes that this project was initially submitted today
and asks Mr. Knight to comment on this. He wants Mr. Knight to explain to the
people in the audience how they can be noticed and is in the loop as far as what's
going on and follows the project through.
Mr. Knight states that Chair Imboden is correct. An application was submitted
today. It's for a variety of actions that are being contemplated including a general
plan amendment, a zone change, a tentative tract map, major site plan review and a
conditional use permit. All these actions will be bunched together into a public
hearing that will occur before the Planning Commission and the City Council before
that can be considered fully completed by the City. Our Design Review Committee
will also have a say so in regards to the major site plan review. An environmental
determination will have to be made on the project and either a mitigated negative
declaration or an environmental impact report would be needed in order to be able
to address those. Absent that I really can't give you too many details. Our Senior
Planner Chad Ortlieb is the planner that will be working on this. Any of you can
either e-mail him or give him a call and find out where the project is in the system.
It will take a while for all these items to be taken care of and it makes it's way to the
public hearing bodies. How much time, I really can't say, it depends a lot on the
nature of the impacts and how much information will be needed by the staff in
order to be able to study them.
Chair Imboden states that he thinks it would be appropriate if one of the staff
members here this evening can pass a contact sheet to those people that are here this
evening regarding this item that we at least have that list. That any pertinent
information can be put out to you as far as noticing goes on this project. Just to
second what Mr. Knight has said, please understand that the proposal as it has
come forward and staff has not reviewed the project in full yet. There will be a
number of public hearings for this project where you will all have the opportunity
to come forward and speak on that item both at this level and we anticipate also at
the Council level. There will be a series as Mr. Knight has said. The project will
probably take a little while, but certainly there will be opportunity for you to
become involved in the process as it moves forward.
Chair Imboden thanks the group for coming forward and bringing it to their
attention.
INRE:
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
Page 2 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
JUNE 4, 2007.
Commissioner Merino motioned to approve minutes as written.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioners Bonina, Merino, Imboden, Whitaker
None
Commissioner Steiner
None
MOTION CARRIED.
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS:
(2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2621-06 - ROYAL STREET
COMMUNICATIONS.
A proposal to co-locate and operate a wireless telecommunications antenna facility on a
non-stealth existing monopole and associated equipment cabinets on a property owned by
Southern California Edison (SCE). Item was continued from April 16, 2007, Planning
Commission meeting.
LOCATION:
4725 E. Chapman Avenue
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution PC 20-07 approving Conditional Use
Permit No. 2621-06.
Associate Planner Robert Garcia provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Commissioner Steiner states that he noticed that one of the conditions in the Conditions
of Approval specifically referencing Section 6 says that the antennas shall be flush
mounted to the existing pole. In the same report that the staff has drafted, there is
reference to the fact that the applicant has indicated that antennas can't be flush mounted
at this location due to the shape. Have you confronted the applicant with this
inconsistency?
Mr. Garcia responds yes we have spoken to the applicant. The applicant has indicated
that because the pole is at an angle, they are not able to flush mount. Staff is of the
opinion that we may still address that. There may be a bracket system that would allow
for the antennas to still be flush mounted. Commissioner Steiner asks ifit's Mr. Garcia's
position that this indication that it can't be flush mounted may not be the end of the story.
Mr. Garcia answers correct. We've also asked for the flush mounting to be at two other
previous locations although the pole may not be exactly the same configuration as this
one, so it's been done in the past. Commissioner Steiner asks in those previous locations
where you have requested flush mounting, we you told in those instances that it weren't
possible? Mr. Knight answers, he doesn't believe so, not specifically.
Page 3 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
Commissioner Bonina asks if the set of plans are the same set of plans from their prior
submittal where we continued the application? Mr. Garcia states that these plans were
resubmitted as new plans from the previous plans. Commissioner Bonina reiterates that
this set of plans is different from the plans of two months ago? Mr. Garcia states correct.
Commissioner Bonina states that Mr. Garcia had mentioned that the Planning
Commission had asked for some information from SCE and what was the reasoning that
they provided you that they wouldn't give you an operation or safety guideline booklet. I
assume they have some sort of code structure. Mr. Garcia states that it SCE looks at
these on a case-by-case basis depending on the size of the facility and therefore applies
their guidelines justly, but I believe there is a representative from SCE here who can
address that.
Commissioner Bonina states that he gathers from that there are no safety guidelines that
they follow. Is that what I'm understanding? Mr. Garcia states that they do have
guidelines, they just aren't willing to share them with us.
Commissioner Merino asks the previous set of drawings from the previous submittal was
for a monopine, essentially a non-stealth monopine placed inside this enclosure. The
whole issue was the branches falling off in a strong wind, wasn't that what we saw? I
believe that's the case. Chair Imboden states that we were questioning the possibility of
that, but that wasn't what was proposed. Mr. Garcia states that this has always been a
non-stealth location and the Commission was requesting additional information on
possibly requiring this to be a stealth location. Commissioner Merino asks has Edison
validated that this is the only way we could go? We couldn't get a stealth assembly. Mr.
Garcia responds correct, that's the information we received from SCE because of the size
of the plant, there is not a lot of room. They were afraid if they did go to stealth facility,
a branch could break off and cause a power outage.
Chair Imboden asks looking at Sheet A-3 of Exhibit A, I see there is a proposal for an 8'
fence. My recollection not that long ago with another Royal Street application we
debated for quite some time that our Ordinance would actually only allow a 6' fence and
that anything over that would require an administrative adjustment or some kind of
variance. I would assume that the same Ordinance would apply in this instance? Mr.
Garcia responds that he's not sure if the previous location was in a residence district.
This is in a commercial district. Mr. Knight asks if this location is commercially zoned.
Mr. Garcia responds correct. Mr. Knight states that it would have the same standards so
the drawings would not be correct, it would be limited to 6'. Chair Imboden states that
they will have to discuss that as well.
Commissioner Whitaker states that the issue with the previous one was that there was a
taller existing fence or barrier there and the requirement was that they take it back down
to the code or they would have to seek a variance. Here, it looks like the current chain
link fence is higher than 6'. Are we going to have to make them take that back down to
6'? Mr. Knight responds no. Commissioner Whitaker asks what is the difference
between the other one and this one? Mr. Knight responds that the existing fence is
around the entire site. They're not touching that existing fence. The issue with the
commercial site was they would have to remove the fence. Commissioner Whitaker
Page 4 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
states that they might be putting green slats in it. Mr. Knight responds that was their
proposal, but there's no impact. Ifthere were a perimeter fence around that other side we
were discussing, where there was an 8' block wall fence, we wouldn't ask them to knock
that down to 6'. It was outside the area of impact and there was no recommendation or
reason to impact it. So the only reason we were considering that is because it was
impacting that particular fence at that location.
Commissioner Merino states that one of the conditions of approval in this case #7
regarding the arborist, has that been agreed to or discussed with the applicant and are they
in agreement with that or that is another issue? Mr. Garcia responds that he believes SCE
will address that issue and I don't think they're in agreement with that. They are not in
agreement with any additional landscaping. Commissioner Merino asks so they don't
even want to discuss the arborist to determine if we could find a suitable plant material?
Mr. Garcia states that is his understanding the SCE will address that issue.
Chair Imboden asks ifthere is anything for Planning Staff at this point?
Chair Imboden opens the public hearing and asks the applicant to come forward. We've
already expressed a lot of questions to our City Staff so I'll be looking in your
presentation to respond to some of those. I'm going to run through my list of things that
have come up that I feel are appropriate for you to respond to.
First, the SCE Guidelines that have been requested both by this body as well as the City
Staff that have not been delivered to us yet. In our last meeting there was a discussion of
alternative sites and there was a request that that list of alternative sites that had been
researched be brought to this body before this evening and I don't have that as well. The
flush mount antennas or transmitters, that still remains to be an outstanding item as that
remains a condition, but yet we're being told that isn't agreeable on your end and then the
situation with the arborist. Go ahead and make whatever comments you want, but I
would like for you to try and address those in your comments.
Jane Norine, 350 Commerce Drive #200, Irvine, California. I would like to thank staff
and Robert Garcia. I have brought two employees from SCE to answer your questions.
Mr. Llorens and Mr. Landrith. As to item condition #6, with the flush mounting we have
brought the antennas in as close to the pole as we possibly can. There are RF issues in
the sense that if I make them too close but also there's climbing pegs that may interfere
with the bracket. I can flush mount, but would rather not for safety reasons. I will let
representatives from SCE address condition #7. As to a list, I didn't realize you needed a
list of alternative sites. In a previous Planning Commission meeting, Ryan Hammersmith
did address the alternative sites and were available and were not available and it was
determined that this was the only possible site. The shopping center to the west was
considered, but the landlord was not interested and farther to the east, the only site was a
hillside that gets close to other facilities.
We have a list of facilities that the Planning Commission has approved some of which.
We are a brand new wireless carrier and hopefully launching September 15th. Time is of
the essence to get these sites build and on the air that's why we're pushing to get
approval of our sites within the Southern California area.
Page 5 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
We are a low cost provider; there are no contracts, a month-to-month basis, and $35 a
month. You can have a cell phone without having to deal with two-year or one-year
contracts, so we are providing a service to the public to make it less expensive and that's
why MetroPCS is coming in full-force.
Chair Imboden states that we need to have some discussion with the landscaping so I
don't know if you're able to speak to that or if Edison wishes to speak to that. I will look
to the Commission to see if you have questions for the applicant?
Commissioner Whitaker states that it was previously represented to us that the issue with
flush mounting dealt with the angle of the pole whereas other Royal Street co-locations
on cell phone towers had agreed to flush mounting. Ms. Norine states that it does depend
on the pole and in this particular instance; it is the pole with climbing pegs. I'm putting
up 5' antennas and I've got climbing pegs that I'm not going to be able to climb from a 6'
difference or maybe more.
Commissioner Whitaker states that every pole would have climbing pegs though. Ms.
Norine states no, some poles don't. She states that it can be done, you can bring in the
machine, you can schedule it, they can climb up and do it otherwise they use the climbing
pegs. I'm leaving it at your discretion.
Commissioner Merino asks if Ms. Norine is actually with MetroPCS? She answers
correct. You're not a contracting working for MetroPCS, you're actually a MetroPCS
person? She answers yes. I would like to say thank you for having you here at the
Commission hearing because up to now we haven't seen an actual person, so thank you
very much for coming.
The question I have for you is if Edison were to allow some of these conditions to move
forward, would MetroPCS be willing to comply with them assuming that Edison doesn't
have an issue with them? Ms. Norine states that in regards to landscaping, it depends on
the project and the amount of landscaping. As I have just concluded saying what we are,
we're competing with other wireless carriers; we're a low cost provider so cost comes
into playa lot with MetroPCS. Co-location on rooftops or other poles are out primary
way we're going to go about business because it's the cheapest way to get things built
and on air besides building our own poles. We don't want to build our own poles or our
own trees, they are too costly to do and so if we can co-locate, that's what we want. If
we can build on rooftops, that's our primary.
Commissioner Merino states that while we greatly understand your desire to be
competitive, you must also understand that, as Planning Commissioners, we're
responsible to maintain the quality of life and certain Planning standards within the City
so it's a balancing that we're trying to achieve. Commissioner Merino continues so there
is some room for you to look at that, assuming that Edison is agreeable to it, you are also
as MetroPCS. Ms. Norine states it depends on the extensive amount of landscaping.
Commissioner Merino reiterates, so the answer is yes, but it depends.
Chair Imboden asks for the Edison representatives to come forward and state their name
Page 6 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
and address for the record and if you have comments go ahead and if not, we'll just throw
questions at you.
Alan Llorens, 4900 Rivergrade, Irwindale is my office. I'll just let you ask the questions.
I do have a colleague with me, Ken Landrith. He's from our technical group.
Ken Landrith, 4900 Rivergrade, Irwindale.
Commissioner Merino states that we are concerned with the appearance up against your
actual facility and while the MetroPCS is one aspect of it, it sort of opens the door for us
to take a look at the best way to screen this entire project. Is Edison willing to look at the
landscaping issues that come along with this project?
Mr. Llorens states based on what Metro provided us about a week ago, we checked in
with our substation management and the initial request would be to deny any additional
new landscaping along the perimeter of the fence. All four of the sides of the fence have
landscaping today. Commissioner Merino states that he understands but what they're
looking for is that the existing landscaping, at least in the pictures and documents that
were provided, aren't really effective at screening the facility or the base part of the
antenna that we're now adding. What is the issue with the landscaping that is preventing
us from improving the situation? Was Edison proposing the slats solution or is that
coming from MetroPCS because in the package we now have, we have a proposal for
adding slats to the chain link that's out there now.
Mr. Llorens states that Edison across our service area has about 575 sites probably 10%
of those are within substations and on a lot of occasions we have allowed slats to be put
into the chain link fence so I'm not sure if that was a proposal from Metro or not, but we
would be okay with additional slats within the fence. Commissioner Merino states that
the reason he asked that is that it's not a security issue if the slats go in, and then
obviously you are obscuring the area behind the fencing so it's not necessarily a visual
issue. If the landscaping becomes the point of discussion that we'd like to see some
improvements in that landscaping along the fence line, you're not saying no based on
visual access. In other words, you want to have security the ability to see through the
fence into your facility for security reasons. If you are allowing slats, that's obviously
not a concern? Mr. Llorens states that's correct.
Commissioner Merino states that what the City is asking that MetroPCS and SCE
consider, as part of one of these conditions, bring an arborist to take a look at the plants
that are out there right now that apparently aren't doing a very good job of screening and
perhaps come up with a solution that's a win-win. Mr. Llorens answers that based on
their initial request, it was for additional landscaping and leaving what's there today, in
addition to what's there today and our substation division will not allow that. Another
plan, we don't have that in front of us so it's hard for me to give you an opinion about an
additional plan without seeing that plan, but right now if it was just additional cover in
the same space where the eucalyptus or whatever trees they are, we'd have to deny it
based on that.
Commissioner Merino asks is it a security issue that's the basis for the denial? Mr.
Page 7 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
Landrith responds that number one is the safe, reliable transmission of electricity. That's
our number one business. It's a very small substation and it is up to that substation chief
to make these determinations. The current standards today for landscaping, if there were
none there, would be 5' away from the fence and a 5' separation. You also have to keep
in mind that there's overhead lines right there so the height is an issue. We don't want to
have to trim trees. They get up in the lines and causing fires and outages. There are a
number of issues with landscaping. Also, we've had issues with people getting into
substations cutting copper grounds, that's a safety issue for the public, it's also a problem
with our substation and sometimes they tend to do this by the surrounding landscaping.
The people that do this type of activity use the environment, they don't carry around
ladders. Again without having a specific proposal in front of us, there's nothing we can
take to the substation group and say is this okay. What's there today is in excess of what
we would allow based on our current standards and our current environment. So their
position is no new additional landscaping. I don't think we proposed the green slats, but
it is something we've allowed on other sites if you look at the west side, there is slats
there now and they seem to provide the additional screening and you can see there's not
those other issues I spoke of. They're not going to get up into the lines, they don't grow,
the branches don't fall on the substation, they actually would restrict climbing as opposed
to allow it. So those are just some of the issues that we look at with landscaping.
Commissioner Bonina thanks the representatives from SCE for attending the meeting and
states that they've long awaited their visit. Mr. Llorens states that they apologize for not
being here sooner. Had we been asked to come, we would have gladly been here, so
we're glad to be here. We have over 500 sites across our service area. It's not a core
business of Edison, but it is a win-win in terms of existing facilities. We want to support
to deployment effort. Commissioner Bonina states that he assumes that it provides
additional revenues for SCE? Mr. Llorens answers right, but it's really not about the
revenue for Edison.
Commissioner Bonina asks with 575 locations, are those just in California or those
throughout the West Coast? Mr. Llorens answers we service only Southern California
down to the San Diego Gas and Electric border and up to almost Bakersfield, so it's
about 55,000 square miles within Southern California.
Commissioner Bonina asks Mr. Landrith about current standards not allowing for certain
things and that's where we're trying to get to attain some guidelines from you as to what
your standards are. We're being told that we can't get those standards or they don't exist
but then you reference that there are current standards that don't allow you to do certain
things. Mr. Landrith states that with respect to the siding of cell sites within substations
and that is very site specific. We don't allow cell sites in some substations. It's up to
that station chief s call based on a very conservative estimate. If it can be done safety, if
it can be accommodated in that substation you look at things like circuit growth. You
may look at a substation and say you have a square mile, but they may be for future
Edison equipment. We do have standards if we decide to site a facility there that govern
how that site is constructed. Commissioner Bonina asks a facility as a substation or a cell
site. Mr. Landrith states that if we commissioned a cell site within a substation then there
are standards like the 8' fence that you were questioning. I believe they are putting that
interior to the substation to house their equipment. That interior fence now becomes our
Page 8 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
exterior substation fence so it has to be built to our exterior substation standards.
Commissioner Bonina asks so that siding effort, you do in fact have standards for that
and guidelines that you follow? Mr. Landrith answers we have if it is agreed that a site
will be allowed based on the substation deciding that it's okay and the security saying
that it's okay. Commissioner Bonina states that assuming you get through your internal
people, and then you would have some guidelines? Mr. Landrith states correct.
Commissioner Bonina asks if those guidelines are documents you can share with the City
of Orange because it would be interesting to understand your thought process and your
guidelines when you look at a site so that we can better make a decision. What we don't
want to do is get outlandish here. We don't want to propose something that would be
offensive to you in terms of doing something so if we had those guidelines, we could at
least be within some parameter of reasonableness, at least from your prospective. Mr.
Landrith states that the only public document that he is familiar with is G095, and I don't
think that addresses adequately our standards. I could check our technical design centers
and see if we could provide them publicly, but I think it was a no before but I will go
ahead and check. Mr. Landrith explains that G095 standards for General Order 95. You
can get it on the Edison website. That's a state requirement for clearances, safety and so
forth but it's really a minimum standard and Edison standards tend to exceed the
minimum standards. Commissioner Bonina asks so these are general standards that most
companies utilize? Mr. Landrith states yes. They use them as well. They are for safety
of clearance for electrical workers, clearance from electric lines and clearance from
conductors to other structures. Again, that is broad to all electric and telecom work.
Commissioner Bonina states that in spending some time at the site, he would expect that
the eucalyptus trees were originally put in place as wind barriers. That's a very common
practice to help with the wind factor in most areas and over time these trees have grown
and you've cut them down and they've continued to grow and what we see,
unfortunately, as just trunks coming out and it doesn't provide the visual relief that one
would want to find in a urbanized area such as this. My fellow Commissioners have
spoken to the landscaping issue. As I see it, the landscape issue is frankly a very
important component of this and I appreciate Metro's need to keep the costs low, but to
keep your costs low is one thing, at the expense of the community and the overall City is
another and I think we have to get beyond that. It's one thing, in my opinion, we need to
get a reasonable landscape plan both from the City and then in back of the site you have
residents. Again, all you have are these eucalyptus trees that overtime, all you see is the
trunks and I think the only effort from SCE are the eucalyptus trees and as I look at the
side perimeter, it would seem that the shopping center to the left as I'm looking from
Chapman to the substation, provided the low growing landscaping other than the
eucalyptus trees and then Bank of America provided for everything else on the right side
looking from Chapman to the substation.
Commissioner Bonina states that it sounds like SCE is very open to it but they haven't
had something to look at or consider. Is that something that Metro would bring to your
attention? Is that something that Metro, as a construction manager; are they the entity
that would bring forth a comprehensive landscape plan for us to review, for you to review
so that we can collectively make some sort of decision on this? How do you see that
working in your world?
Page 9 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
Mr. Landrith states that typically these issues are worked out in advance of the zoning
process. We go through what will and will not be allowed and come to agreement on a
set of approved zoning drawings. Quite frankly, our directive from transmission
management doesn't want any landscaping anywhere. Their objective is to clear our
right a ways because of the infrastructure growth we have to do. They are coming from a
position of no and we have to negotiate from there. Typically it's worked out in the
zoning process pretty far in advance. We come to some sort of agreement, it's put on the
zoning drawings and we move forward. Commissioner Bonina asks who develops the
zoning drawings? Mr. Landrith answers the applicant (Metro). Commissioner Bonina
asks ifthere is anything that they've seen in that regard. Mr. Landrith answers no.
Commissioner Bonina asks Metro what their position in this whole thing? It indicates
that you're a construction manager. Ms. Norine states no. I'm a project manager and I
handle over 240 sites for Metro. Commissioner Bonina states not you specifically, your
company. In this structure are you a construction manager firm? Ms. Norine states no,
Royal Street Communications is the FCC license and Royal Street has contracted
basically as a DBA MetroPCS to build out the Southern California market.
Commissioner Bonina states that you're a DBA, a part of Royal? Ms. Norine states that
the way she understands it, the way I think about it, is that MetroPCS is the marketing
name and Royal Street Communications is the owner. Commissioner Bonina asks that
essentially you're Royal essentially, you represent the lessee of this proposed structure.
Ms. Norine answers yes, that's correct. Are there any other players involved here other
than SCE? Architect, Engineer or those types of things? Ms. Norine states that SCE is
their landlord.
Commissioner Whitaker states that there are really two landlords. There is SCE that
owns the land and Sprint owns the tower. Ms. Norine states correct, we'll be paying rent
to Sprint and SCE.
Commissioner Bonina asks if Sprint is providing any feedback? If they are leasing the
ground from SCE and they built the pole and then you're going and leasing space from
the pole, are there any issues that Sprint has provided or surfaced at this juncture? Ms.
Norine states that initially when we go into a project and we're co-locating, yes we have
to provide Sprint with the same information we provide SCE. They need to approve
whether we can co-locate on their pole or not. They tell us yes or no. In this instance,
yes we can co-locate. It's structurally sound to be able to handle our antennas so we can
build on it. Commissioner Bonina asks so you've gotten past that? Ms. Norine states
correct. Commissioner Bonina states that you've gotten your deal structured with Sprint?
Ms. Norine states yes. Commissioner Bonina asks and SCE is okay with it? Mr. Llorens
states absolutely. We promote co-locate when feasible. Commissioner Bonina states that
we are now working through the details. Ms. Norine states correct.
Ms. Norine states that she's done a lot of SCE sites and everyone of the sites are
different. None of them are cookie cutters; they're not the same so I have to go through
all the different standards. Cities want landscaping and groundcover. I have Santa Ana
that doesn't want the groundcover because the homeless people sitting behind there and
making their homes back there so they'd rather have the mature trees such as in this
instance where you have mature landscaping surrounding this property. Commissioner
Page 10 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
Bonina states that he thinks they're going to find that challenge in any kind of property
you're going to develop or redevelop on the West Coast but you're absolutely right it is
very challenging. Ms. Norine states that every site is different.
Commissioner Merino states that there is an existing tower in the Edison yard, that's
correct, yes. You're requesting to co-locate and we've established a set of Conditions of
Approval in the Staff Report that we're going to vote on. Ms. Norine responds correct.
Commissioner Merino asks are you willing to accept those conditions or not? Ms.
Norine states that she is not willing to accept Condition 7 on behalf of Southern
California Edison. Commissioner Merino states that's a showstopper. Ms. Norine
answers correct.
Chair Imboden asks if the wires in the pole are internal? Ms. Norine answers yes. Chair
Imboden states that the application is asking for one microwave dish but he doesn't see
any indication to the size of that dish or it's location because it's not shown on the plans?
Ms. Norine answers 2' diameter. Chair Imboden asks where would it be located and
what height? I'm just asking approximate, above the transmitters, or below? Ms. Norine
answers below. Somewhere below our antennas, it has to have line of sight to another
microwave facility and I don't see it on here. Commissioner Whitaker states that the
actual drawings at A4 and then our various illustrations or views are all inaccurate
because the microwave dish is not on them. Is that the case? Ms. Norine states that she
always likes them to zone for a microwave in case we need that. In this particular
instance I don't know if they've taken this off and that they don't need the microwave
dish, but I do know that current policy with Royal Street is to always keep the microwave
there for our redundant situation in case we need it for a future site, so I don't know why
it's not on these drawings now. Chair Imboden asks but it is part of your application so
I'd assume you'd want to keep that since it's general process for you. Ms. Norine states I
do, especially for redundant emergency situations.
Commissioner Bonina asks if that is typically located above the antennas or below? Ms.
Norine states it depends on where they need. In this particular instance I believe it would
have to be below where our antennas are in the sense that we have Sprint above us
directly so there has to be certain clearances.
Mr. Knight states that Robert Garcia just shared the SRC plans that showed the
microwave dish on it. These plans do not. I would have to say it was a conscious
decision on the part of MetroPCS or Royal Street not to have it.
Commissioner Steiner asks Ms. Norine if she has a problem with Condition 7? Ms.
Norine states the landscaping. Commissioner Steiner states that Condition 7 as he reads
it requires that an arborist be hired to determine if groundcover should be placed and I
understand that you indicated that you objected to it on behalf of Southern California
Edison, those are the words you used right? Ms. Norine states correct. I believe
Southern California Edison's position as stated by Mr. Llorens and Mr. Landrith was that
at this particular location that they would not want additional landscaping.
Commissioner Steiner states that Condition 7 as he sees it does not require landscaping.
Doesn't it indicate that you're required to hire an arborist to determine if groundcover
should be placed? Ms. Norine states that could be. We can amend the Condition. I'm
Page 11 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
agreeable to amending the condition in the sense that if an arborist determines that we
cannot or we can, that's fine, but I would also like the condition to state that if Southern
California Edison determines that they won't allow it, then this condition goes away too
because it is a Southern California Edison decision that they're making here on this
particular site and this particular location.
Chair Imboden states if he could just interject a comment here for myself, if this item
were to move forward tonight, I don't know how the other Commissioners feel, I'm
already going to ask that Condition 7 be amended because I feel that it's in here for us to
approve a project based on the mitigation that this landscape would provide, however, the
way that this is stated, this would only be considered prior to the issuance of the building
permits, after the decision has already been rendered. So I'm already going to through
this Condition out and ask that it be recrafted if we're moving forward anyway so go
ahead with the questions if you want but if I'm going to be looking to move this forward
tonight, I'm not going to accept the condition the way it is anyway.
Commissioner Steiner states that all he was trying to determine was why the applicant
was opposed to Condition 7, but apparently the applicant is opposed to it under any
circumstances even the bare requirement of consulting with an arborist. Ms. Norine
states that she has no problem with consulting with an arborist. That's not what I'm
saying. I'm just saying and making the point for Southern California Edison that in this
particular instance they won't allow additional groundcover, but be that as it may, let's
amend the condition however that it can meet this situation.
Commissioner Merino states that you have to decide. Edison is right here, if I ask Edison
that if they hire an arborist and that arborist comes forth and says there is an alternative
here that will work, are you willing to consider that alternative or is it a straight no
because she's representing on your behalf that the answer is no. Is it no or is it not no?
Mr. Llorens states that they don't have a plan to review. Commissioner Merino states so
it could be yes. Mr. Llorens states that based on 7 as it is, as the Chairman says, to date
all we have is 7, it doesn't say to look at these plans, it says to hire an arborist.
Chair Imboden states that earlier this evening you said that the landscaping that's already
there would exceed your current standards. Mr. Llorens answers yes. Clearly what we're
looking for is additional landscaping so I think if you feel that any additional landscaping
cannot be approved on this site, we may as well hear that tonight because clearly that's
what we're looking for. If you feel there is a possibility of that and you'd need to see
plans to review that, we should also hear that. Mr. Landrith states that we could take
plans to the substation. I'm telling you what I know and from our experience. If you ask
is there a possibility, it's like asking in a Court of Law. It's there's .1 % chance, yeah sure
anything's possible, I guess. We can get the plans and take them and have them say no
99.9% of the time and looking at the situation with a small substation, confined space,
confined space to put that landscaping, knowing our existing standards, there's probably
not a lot of alternatives. The area that I'm most concerned with is the Pearl Street side,
the residential side and we have overhead lines there so it really confines. There are a lot
of elements there where I'm not sure what we could do. I've gone over it with the
substation chief there in looking at the standards. I gave you the directive on our right-a-
ways, it's pretty cut and dry so we try and work with people as much as possible to sight
Page 12 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
these things and keep them as stealth as possible. One thing that stealth is putting them in
an area where there's already ugly stuff. My boss probably wouldn't like hearing me say
that, but it's ugly on ugly. You've got existing pole, you've got antennas going below,
you've got a substation there; it's not a great impact like putting a new monopole next to
Starbucks. Is it possible, I guess, but probably unlikely. Mr. Llorens states just to clarify
I think it's Pearl Street which is the north side of the substation, there's a small sidewalk
area there and per the conditions as Ken stated, we do have a 5' buffer and I believe
that's why the west side, in addition to the east side, has that other groundcover because it
is 5' away from the actual perimeter fence. So again, based on what #7 says, we'd have
to say no because there is no plan and what the request was to add additional to existing.
Commissioner Bonina states that if we asked you to put some additional landscaping
down next to the current, that's not going to happen. Mr. Llorens states that's correct.
Commissioner Bonina states that I did hear you say that you would consider a new
landscape plan for that area. Is that correct? Mr. Landrith answers that it's possible. I
think as you extend the perimeter it reduces the changes. If you were to propose
removing plants on Pearl Street and installing new, I think that is something we could
take in review. Commissioner Bonina states that his concern is Pearl Street and
Chapman. I think the sides have ample landscaping on either side. I think Pearl, for the
benefit of the residents that are living on that street, there is an opportunity for them not
to see what they see today. Certainly on Chapman, I think here is an opportunity to better
that situation and that's we're trying to get to. In terms of setback, from the fence to the
property line was 5' or 3', it's that simply resolved by taking the fence and putting further
back into the property and then you have additional area for landscaping. Mr. Landrith
states that he guarantees the substation is not going to give up property and move a fence
closer to their equipment, it's not going to happen. Commissioner Bonina states in other
words your setbacks are predefined and you're more than likely at the limit of those
setbacks? Is that what I'm hearing? Mr. Llorens states yes. Mr. Landrith states that the
fence is grounded all the way around for safety and you're talking thousands of dollars.
Chair Imboden states in regard to the fence. The City Ordinance allows for a 6' high
fence. Do I understand you correctly that your requirements would essentially deem this
fence having to be 8' high. Mr. Landrith answers yes absolutely, that's our standard to
keep the public out. Chair Imboden asks and you would not consider going to a 6' fence
if that's what our Ordinance is? Mr. Landrith states that no, that wouldn't happen.
Commissioner Whitaker states that the fence on the site looks to be 8'. Is the existing
fence an 8' fence? Mr. Landrith answers yes. Mr. Landrith states that they're putting a
fence interior to house their equipment and the existing exterior fence remains, but that
fence they're installing now becomes our exterior substation fence because they are
entering from the outside into their equipment area so from there is has to meet our
requirements, 5' clearance. You don't want people going in through their access and then
accessing the substation.
Commissioner Bonina states that he was there the other day and he noticed that there
were piles of gravel and sand and dirt in the facility. Do you also utilize the facility as a
staging of that type of material to do other kinds of construction projects in the area? Mr.
Page 13 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
Llorens states that he couldn't answer that, he'd have to talk to the substation chief as to
why those products are there. Commissioner Bonina states that he is curious to have that
answer, if would be very helpful. Commissioner Bonina states that he's not sure if that's
the norm for the substation. Mr. Landrith states that not on a property of that size. There
are other properties that are quite large that we would use for a contractor to lay down
yard, but it has to be a pretty large property. Commissioner Bonina reiterates that there
are definitely piles of gravel, dirt, sand and then there was a large area of broken concrete
that was piled up but I'm not sure what the use of the facility was.
Mr. Knight states that the OMC zoning code in commercial districts chain link fencing,
there is an exception for chain link fencing may be used for security purposes for public
utility structures and for temporary fencing uses and needs and also allows them to use
barbed wire so if they need an 8' fence for security purposes, it would probably be in line
with the zoning code.
Chair Imboden is it simply because of the Edison equipment that we would consider this
a utility site or would the cell tower alone qualify as that? Mr. Knight answers that the
cell tower would not qualify as a public utility, but the Edison facility would.
Commissioner Whitaker asks if we move forward this evening, would you be willing to
have that the microwave dish was not part of the permit? Ms. Norine states that she'd
like that to be part of the permit. Commissioner Whitaker asks but if we said no because
it's not on the plans? Ms. Norine states then I guess I'd have to come back.
Commissioner Whitaker asks come back on a second application? Ms. Norine states that
if she needed it she'd have to come back for a second, yes. It's now a standard policy to
always have that and this instance happened before the policy came in.
Chair Imboden asks if there are any other questions and asks if the applicant has any
further comments before he closes the public hearing.
Ms. Norine states that they are with the CPUC, we are considered a public utility.
Chair Imboden closes the public hearing and brings it back to the Commission for further
discussion.
Commissioner Whitaker states that as far as Condition #7, Edison's a landlord and I think
they have the right to say whether they want a tenant or not want a tenant under what
conditions. So if they say we don't want any landscaping, I think they have the right to
say that and they risk losing the tenant because maybe we don't approve the tenant.
That's their business decision and so then the question comes down to can we approve
the aesthetics of this application knowing that it would only be there without landscaping.
For me if you had the flush mounted antennas because it's an existing pole, that's already
ugly, that's never going away, the flush mounted antennas is probably not any worse, but
what I don't like is that you've got what seems to be a continuing set of sloppy
applications and here we have absolutely no renderings of the microwave dish and where
it's going to go and is it going to extend beyond the exterior footprint of the Sprint
antennas up at the top of the tower which could impact the visual blight that's already
there, whereas I don't think the flush mounting would. I would only move forward with
Page 14 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
the application on the extent if the microwave antenna wasn't part of it and it's flush
mounted and Edison is not going to allow any landscaping on their site, so whether they
have the new tenant there or not, Edison is never going to make this look any better, but I
wouldn't do it with the microwave tower.
Commissioner Steiner states that he wants to agree. He's not as hell-bent on the arborist
issue. I certainly and absolutely see the value of landscaping in certain co-location
applications that have come before us and in instances where we are considering putting
up entirely new poles. I think that in many instances that have come before us
landscaping can playa critical role, but I understand Edison's position and I also, just
looking at the image that was provided to us, to me the main issue was and is the flush
mounting. Just looking at the picture of it, whether there was anything in the way of
landscaping at the bottom of this cell phone tower to me is not particularly material, but
the issue of the proposed antennas being flush mounted definitely is. I'm a little
perplexed that at one point in the Staff Report we're told, not by Staff, but that the
applicant has indicated that they cannot, not may not, but cannot be flush mounted at this
location which suggests some sort of physical impossibility, but I'm glad to hear that
position has been modified because I'm willing to seriously look at it if there's flush
mounting.
Commissioner Merino states that he sees two clear issues for him. One is that we're
trying to make the Chapman and Pearl Street for one of our main streets in the City and a
neighborhood that is obviously been facing something unattractive, however, that project
isn't here. The other part of this is what the tenant, Royal Street, can do or what we can
ask them to do to keep the pole from being even uglier. It's been clear that it's the flush
mounting. I would be more than happy to move forward with a motion that actually
contained the requirements whether it's the arborist or the screening. I just don't think
that's going to happen so to deal with the reality that we're facing is that we're going to
get perhaps a flush mounted connection on this antenna that's already ugly and I would
then say to Edison that the Planning Commission is clearly telling you and whether it's
impossible or not, that the Pearl Street and Chapman elevations are of great concern and
if other projects and other tenants on this location come forward, you're going to hear this
over and over again. I think there is a clear message that I hope you're getting but I don't
see that we can hold the Royal Street hostage on the one issue because the two aren't tied
together.
Commissioner Bonina states that he agrees with Commissioner Whitaker in his
comments that he suggested that this proposal/document are not complete, there are some
inaccuracy and we need to address that. I also agree with his comment that this is a
business decision and I think it boils down to that and there is a business occurs everyday
where there are property owners and there are tenants. Tenants come to the City for
approval to occupy space and there are criteria imposed on those tenants, which thereby
get imposed to the property owner for approvals. It's that simple, that's where we are
here. What we're suggesting to Royal or Metro as a tenant of SCE, is that we
(collectively) have a need and a desire to enhance the landscape area off of Chapman and
off of Pearl, not necessarily for the benefit of SCE and not for the benefit of Metro, but
for the benefit of the community and that's what I would like to see. So with that said,
what I would like to see here is that we continue this item forward with the condition you
Page 15 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
come back with a landscape plan that addresses both Pearl and Chapman, that you
provide the microwave dish location on the property, again so that we have a completed
application, and then finally we have the flush mount antennas clearly articulated so that
we understand where those go as well. To me that would be a reasonable request of
Metro and then SCE has something to review. I think one of their complaints,
unfortunately, is that they didn't have anything to review. Here's an opportunity for
Metro to develop a landscape plan, addressing Chapman and Pearl, that SCE has the
opportunity to review and hopefully see the wisdom and community opportunity there to
approve a landscape plan that's adequate. That would be my position.
Chair Imboden states that he is going to concur with most of the comments that were just
most recently made by Commissioner Bonina. There has been some discussion of the
landscaping, will it screen the tower. The landscaping that we require for cell sites is not
for the tower. The screening and the landscaping that we require is to screen the ground
equipment and that is what we need to be looking at in this case. As I mentioned earlier,
my problem with Condition #7 is that it asks us to approve an item with perhaps, or
perhaps not, getting the mitigation that we would look for to screen that equipment. I too
would be willing to continue this with the very clear understanding that it is the screening
that we're looking for as it was when we first heard this project but also I would want to
express that the plans do have, as they have in the past, left out very vital important
information that helps us make our decisions. In order for me to move ahead with these
projects, we need that information, we absolutely do at least for myself I do. I'm going to
look to the Commission as far as what you would like to do.
Commissioner Merino states that if the sense of the Commission were that we want to see
certain things for this to move forward, would it not be prudent to put it back on the
applicant. Make the conditions that we want to see and they either comply or they don't.
If we continue this item, this could go back and forth and we could be right back where
we started from. If we want to see something, then we should make the decision to put it
in as a Condition of Approval and then it's up to the landlord/tenant applicant package to
decide whether they can move forward or not. We will have made a decision.
Gary Sheatz states that the applicant has a due process right and the due process is a
thumbs up thumbs down on the application they've submitted. It's difficult for the
Commission to coerce a condition and say that we know this isn't your application but
this is what we're going to approve so either do this or do nothing. As I'm hearing the
Commission up here, the issue of landscaping, we might be going down that road. The
issue of flush mounting, I don't think it is an issue and I'm taking off of what
Commissioner Bonina has said. The flush mounting doesn't sound like that would be an
issue, that might be something that would need to appear on the plans or a revision of the
plans just like the appearance of the dish. There's definitely the issue of aesthetics and
the need to say how is this thing going to look, so let's see where this dish is going to be,
let's see what it looks like when it's flush mounted. But as far as the landscaping goes,
it's difficult for this Commission to say no we want to send it back, you need to provide
us with a landscaping plan if the applicant says, you know what, that's a deal breaker.
It's not going to happen, we're not going to do it then the applicant deserves a thumbs up
thumbs down something from this Commission one way or the other so they can move on
through the process. They could take this decision and appeal it to City Council if they
Page 16 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
don't like that they could seek a Writ of Mandate with the Superior Court. They need
that. I think at this point it might be best to see from a continuing standpoint. This is just
a recommendation, the body does what it obviously does what you feel you need to do,
but to get a plan back that is representative of something that shows or reflects the flush
mounting if that an issue as well as the location or the appearance of what that dish is
going to look like.
Chair Imboden states that his response to that is he is looking for is plans that reflect what
the applicant is proposing in their application and furthermore, as far as the landscaping
goes, that meets the requirements of our City so I don't think that what we're crafting
here is necessarily anything beyond what our conventional standards are. Nevertheless,
that being said, why don't we just go ahead and jump right to it. Would you prefer to
have a continuance if this body does not feel that we can reach an approval this evening
or would you rather have a determination? Ms. Norine states that she'd rather have a
determination this evening based upon the plans that are in front of you tonight.
Chair Imboden states that with that being the case, he would like a motion from the
Commission.
Commissioner Merino asks if they should amend Condition #77 Commissioner Whitaker
states that he would like to make an attempt at a motion whether it succeeds or not, we'll
see.
Commissioner Whitaker motioned to approve PC 20-07 the resolution to adopt
Conditional Use Permit No. 2621-06 to allow 6 panel antennas but amending it not to
allow the microwave dish. Allowing the equipment cabinets onto existing monopole at
property located at 4725 East Chapman Avenue also deleting Condition #7.
Chair Imboden asks are we then relieving this project of any landscaping requirements?
Commissioner Whitaker states that at this point and hearing what the landlord says that
they're not willing to have any landscaping there, yes. That's the motion as it stands
because I think if Edison is going to say whether they want a tenant or not. If we do the
landscaping, Edison will say no tenant. My motion is basically saying there is no
landscaping requirement. Chair Imboden states no screening requirement perhaps it
should say. Commissioner Whitaker states that he would add to his motion the green
slats in the current chain link fence as screening.
Gary Sheatz asks to the maker of the motion Mr. Whitaker that essentially he's moving
approval of Exhibit B, the photo simulation that was provided by the applicant. That
photo sim does not reflect a dish. Commissioner Whitaker states to forget the photo
sims. He is moving the resolution and the Conditional Use Permit as it is stated in here
which has as item #6 flush mounting. The Conditional Use Permit and the words are
what count. We're taking out the microwave dish because it's nowhere in any of the
drawings that we've seen. Gary Sheatz responds now we're back to the drawings. I'm
trying to get a grasp when the body is talking about the aesthetics and there is reference
to plans in the conditions, so I'm trying to get a handle. Commissioner Whitaker states
that we have in past said that they must submit plans to the Building Department that the
antennas are flush mounted because I've seen flush mounted antennas before, but I've not
Page 17 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
seen how the microwave dish would look and I'm not willing to approve that tonight.
They want an up and down tonight and the only way I'm willing to approve it is without
the dish.
Commissioner Merino states to Commissioner Whitaker if you are willing to do that with
the flush mounted antennas, why not do that, for consistency sake, do that for the
microwave? Commissioner Whitaker responds because the flush mounted antennas go
flush up against the tower and it reduces the aesthetic blight. The microwave dish we
don't know where it's going to be on the tower and it extends out. Commissioner Merino
states that he would say the same thing of all of the issues here. We don't know how this
is really going to look because we don't have a drawing that looks like anything.
Commissioner Whitaker states that he made a motion and there was a second and it may
fail.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Steiner and Whitaker
Commissioners Imboden, Bonina and Merino
None
None
Conditional Use Permit No. 2621-06 was denied.
Commissioner Bonina wants to thank the representatives SCE for coming out and for
recognizing that this is a mutually beneficial relationship that SCE and the City of Orange
have had historically. You have a lot of properties in our City and I think we have
cooperated greatly as a City to allow certain things, Royal being the beneficiary of those
often and I just hope that in the future as these things come up, you see the wisdom and
try to enhance your facilities for the betterment of the community.
Chair Imboden asks if there is any interest in bringing another motion forward.
Commissioner Merino states that he would like to make a different motion. He would
like to move the project forward with the conditions recommended by Staff with an
amendment to the item 7 that the item 7 is retained and that whatever the arborist
recommendation is. Chair Imboden interrupts and states that Commissioner Merino can't
make another motion for approval. We all agreed on the motion and the second and
placed that vote. I'm sorry I may have said motion, I just meant simply any comments
that you choose to make in closing to the applicant.
Chair Imboden states that the item has been denied. I agree with the comments that have
been made here this evening. This project for me is just too far from the standards that
we require for such projects and would look forward to seeing further applications that
come closer to meeting those standards.
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS:
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2649-07 - BLUE FROG BAKERY
A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control License Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and
Page 18 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
Wine for a Bona Fide Public Eating Plan) License for a restaurant including findings of
Public Convenience and Necessity.
LOCATION:
136 S. Glassell Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 26-07 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2649-07.
Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Dan Ryan provides a project overview consistent
with the Staff Report.
As a note you were provided at your administrative session a copy of the Orange Police
Department Memo dated April 12, 2006 recommending approval of Type 41 Beer and
Wine sales at the Blue Frog Bakery. On July 12, 2006, the Orange Police Department
Memo regarding crime-reporting data was provided rather than the Orange PD Memo
recommending approval.
Chair Imboden opened the public hearing and asked the applicants to come forward.
Mike Mares, 136 S. Glassell and Jill Mares, 136 S. Glassell.
Chair Imboden asked if they have any additional comments they want to add. Mr. Mares
responds that he would like to thank the Police Department and everybody for approving
this. My whole thing on this is just being competitive with everybody else. Chair
Imboden asks the applicants if they have reviewed all the conditions that the Staff has set
forth with this application and that you're okay with those conditions? Correct. Mr.
Mares responds right.
Commissioner Merino states that on the ABC application in the Staff Report showed
some handwritten item on Page 6 that talks about handling patrons involved in fighting or
arguing that you then clarified about calling the Police. I just wanted to make sure it's
clear to you that if patrons get out of hand, that's the methodology because when you
filled that out, it looks like there were two different answers. Mrs. Mares responds that
clear.
Mrs. Mares asks about the conditions where it states that no one can serve liquor if they
are under 21, but I thought if it was open by someone who was 21, you could serve it if
you were 17 or older. Do you know anything on this one? Chair Imboden states that's
not really a City ordinance issue so I don't know that this body would want to venture
into that territory. Chair Imboden looks to Mr. Sheatz to respond to that. Mr. Sheatz
states that he would recommend that they not venture into that territory, that would be
regulated by ABC. Mr. Sheatz asks the applicant if he saw that in the City's conditions?
Mrs. Mares responds yes the paper that was given to them. Mr. Sheatz states that he
rifled through the conditions and he didn't see them. They are not actually part of the
conditions that go along with the entitlement so it might have been in something else that
you got. Chair Imboden states that it not something that they would have control over
anyway so I appreciate you asking that but I don't think any of us are going to want to
venture into making a condition like that. Commissioner Whitaker states that what she is
commenting on is on Page 3 or 5 in our Findings, the last sentence in Sectionl. Chair
Page 19 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
Imboden states that nevertheless it is not a City Ordinance and we can't really change
that.
Commissioner Bonina states that looking at the floor plan, I haven't been in your facility
and congratulations on trying to get into this area. There are two bathrooms. Do you
have them identified as male/female or are they both unisex? Mrs. Mares responds that
one downstairs is for the employees and the one upstairs is for the patrons.
Commissioner Bonina states that he wants to highlight Condition #18 that no alcohol is to
be served on the patio area.
Gary Sheatz states that as Commissioner Whitaker pointed out, that sentence appears in
the tail end of Finding #4 and if this item is moved for approval, that the maker of the
motion could strike that sentence from that finding that would be most appreciated.
Chair Imboden states the last sentence of Finding #4 is that correct? Mr. Sheatz responds
that's correct.
Chair Imboden asks for any further questions for the applicant. No questions so he closes
the public hearing.
Commissioner Merino asks Mr. Ryan regarding the crime statistics that we provided
shows this to be a low crime area. Mr. Ryan states yes.
Commissioner Steiner makes a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2649-07
striking the final sentence from Finding #4 and adopt Resolution PC 26-07 and to state
that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Bonina, Whitaker & Steiner
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2659-07 - GRAND STREET CENTER
CHILD CARD - FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
A proposal for an after school program serving 56 children (Kl-8 per day, operated by
the YMCA) and an Infant Care Program (12 babies from Casa Teresa).
LOCATION:
146 N. Grand Street (Old Towne Historic District)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 28-07 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2659-07.
Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Dan Ryan provides a project overview consistent
with the Staff Report.
Page 20 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
Commissioner Whitaker states that the school didn't have it's Conditional Use Permit but
asks Mr. Ryan if the YMCA's 20-year after school program have its' permit? Mr. Ryan
answers no it did not.
Commissioner Bonina asks about the traffic summary. Is that the one that starts with
agenda item and members of the City Traffic Commission? Mr. Ryan states yes it is.
Commissioner Bonina asks if that's the body of the summary. Mr. Ryan states correct.
Commissioner Bonina asks if the CUP was for the preschool. Mr. Ryan answers correct
that's the preschool located on the church property on Orange Street. Commissioner
Bonina states that recognizing that's an existing operation at the site and we're proposing
something new, do we see some sort of potential conflict moving forward from a Traffic,
circulation, or operational prospective if in fact we move forward tonight with the current
application? Mr. Ryan states that he doesn't believe so. The playground facilities for the
preschool where the kids go directly from the side of that property on Orange Street right
into the playground area so there is less impact for them for the movement of the students
around and that's important.
Commissioner Bonina asks about the drop off. Mr. Ryan states that there are three 9
passenger vans that pick up the students at 6 or 7 schools and those are brought back and
unloaded at the yellow loading zone in front of the Grand Street Center and they are
escorted into the facility. Commissioner Bonina asks that typically the pick-up will be
vehicles, the parents picking up their children and that was considered that they are not
all at the same time, they are somewhat staggered was considered in the traffic study.
Mr. Ryan answers correct and the length of the yellow zoning was also considered to be
important as far as the capacity to accommodate the maximum number of vehicles they
would figure would arrive at one time. Commissioner Bonina asks and we do not
anticipate any added traffic parking on the opposite side of Grand then much walking
across the street to the facility? Mr. Ryan states correct. Mr. Ryan states that in addition
we realize that Chapman is using 10 fewer spaces of their shared parking on the Grand
Street lot across the street as well.
Commissioner Merino also asks about the Chapman agreement and states that it's not a
formalized agreement. Mr. Ryan says yes it is and their parking management plan
requires them to delineate all of the shared parking arrangements they have around the
university. Commissioner Merino asks so if the 10 spots become available, are those
formalized in some sort of agreement now with this project? Mr. Ryan states he believes
there is some sort of discussion between First Presbyterian Church and Chapman as far as
the use of those spaces. Commissioner Merino asks if anything is formalized? Mr. Ryan
answers you'd have to ask the applicant, I think they might know
Chair Imboden states that he has a few questions. Staff Review committee approved the
drop-off and pick-up plan. Did they only have the same map that we have that just shows
the street markings? Is there any kind of a site plan? Where I'm confused with this is
that I don't have a comprehensive site plan that shows me pedestrian circulation. Once
the children get out of the car, how they move to the building and which buildings they
move to and how we came to numbers in terms of how many cars are coming at one time
or another and typically we have that for this kind of an application. Mr. Ryan responds
that it is his understanding that the Traffic Commission reviewed that directly and the
Page 21 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
information provided to them is the same information provided to the Staff Review
Committee. My understanding is too from the applicant that the yellow loading zone, the
staff is required to escort to children when they're dropped off into the center and my
understanding if parents choose to park across the street, that they would escort their
children across the street, but my understanding is that's going to be a pretty rare
occaSIOn.
As far as the site plan, there were some details on the loading and unloading zone that
were provided to the Traffic Commission. I believe those were also provided to the staff
here and to the Commission. The loading zones are indicated here on the Exhibit. Chair
Imboden states that the problem he's having is that they show him any relationship to any
buildings and also how did we come to these lengths based on the numbers. Mr. Ryan
responds that as far as the site plan, you'd have to actually combine. It was impossible to
try and put all the information on one page. If you notice, one page has the information
as far as the playgrounds, another one has the buildings, another one has loading zone.
It's not what you normally get to have in your hands, but it's kind of a look and paste
together kind of a concept. My understanding is that the Traffic Commission discussed
this at length with the applicant; maybe they can add more information to that because
they were involved with that. The frequency of drop-off and the times provided, that the
loading zone was large enough to be sufficient for those parents that would be there at
those times. Chair Imboden states that they will address any of those questions with the
applicant.
Chair Imboden opens the public hearing and asks that the applicant come forward and
add any additional comments and be available for questions from the Commission.
Judy Sollee, 660 S. Glassell, Orange and I'm the Director of the Orange Presbyterian
Preschool and the soon to be open Infant Center. Dolores Maricun, Executive Director of
the YMCA of Orange and our offices are located at 146 N. Grand. Bill Teachout, 2243
Foothill Boulevard, Santa Ana, but I'm a member of the Church and I am the Church
representative on this project.
Chair Imboden asks if they have any additional comments that they felt needed to be
made? Mr. Teachout states that in answer to Commissioner Merino's question, there is a
signed document with Chapman concerning the spaces that was signed about 3 weeks
ago.
Commissioner Bonina states that the Chairman has made a fairly good point in that the
plans are on different pages and we're trying to follow. How do you see this functioning
on a day-to-day basis in terms of kids being dropped off, where do they go, how are they
escorted through the process and then how are they picked up? Ms. Maricun answers that
there are three vans that pick up the kids from about 7-9 different schools around the
City. The way we envision it, they are going to be coming down Grand Street, parking
on the same side in the loading and unloading zone, escorting the children through the
front gates into the front door and into the gymnasium area. All the kids are signed in by
one of our leaders and pretty much the same thing when they leave, but their parents are
pulling in, walking in, getting the children, signing them out and then bringing them out
to their cars. Commissioner Bonina asks so they are escorted from the van? Ms.
Page 22 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
Maricun answers yes. Commissioner Bonina asks are they actually escorted or are they
simply dropped off? Ms. Maricun answers no; they are escorted in by the staff.
Chair Imboden asks at the end of the day, they are escorted again back to the vehicle?
Ms. Maricun answers the parents are required to come in and sign them out. Regarding
the loading zone, we are encouraging the parents to pull up to the loading and unloading
zone to get their kids so they do not have to walk across the street.
Chair Imboden asks if he is correct in understanding that there are 56 students? How
many cars can fit into this loading zone? How many did you expect would fit into that
loading zone at one time? Ms. Maricun answers four. Chair Imboden states then to get
to 56, 4 at a time, how much time are we talking about and how are you going to manage
that if there's ten people that show up at the same time? Ms. Maricun answers when you
look at 56 kids, typically we have more than one child in the family so it's not going to be
56 cars and that depends on when we have sign-ups and sometimes they have siblings, 2,
3 or 4 siblings coming. The parents do start coming about 4:00 so we're talking about
from 4-6 so they are spread out. The only thing that I can speak to is at the YMCA where
we run another childcare center, on an average you're seeing 3-4 cars coming and going.
I've never seen it at the Y where we have 15-20 parents picking at exactly the same time,
it's just typically spread out and that's just from my experience.
Chair Imboden states that if we already have 3-4 cars picking up and dropping off and
now we're going add another 56, right, am I understanding that correctly? Ms. Maricun
states no. Chair Imboden asks tell me where I'm not understanding? Ms. Maricun states
that the vans are gone. The vans are only there dropping off from 2:30 to 3:00, and then
those vans are no longer there.
Chair Imboden asks if the red line is part of what they are approving this evening or is
that part of the Traffic Commission approval? Mr. Knight answers no, those were actions
taken by the Traffic Commission. Chair Imboden states okay, so we're not looking at
approving that this evening, that's already established. Mr. Knight states that is correct.
Commissioner Bonina states that in a few weeks you are going to come forward with a
Conditional Use Permit for the preschool. Is that a conflict with what you're proposing
today and how does that work operationally? Mr. Teachout states that the subject of the
CUP for the preschool was brought up by Mr. Ryan a couple of weeks ago and I was
unaware that it had never been applied for and I then made a trip over to the City and
spoke to the people at the Planning counter and pointed out that part of the property for
the Church is C-2, so I'm not sure at this point and I haven't discussed it with Mr. Ryan
whether or not I really am required to submit a CUP because my understanding C-2 does
qualify to have daycare programs. I believe at the present time we are in compliance, but
I'm certainly willing to submit a CUP for that preschool if its necessary.
Mr. Ryan states that schools and preschools in the C-2 zone require a conditional use
permit.
Chair Imboden states that we've established that a CUP is required or at least it appears
that way right now, is there anyway to anticipate if there will be any type of variances,
Page 23 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
anything that's going to cause any problems? Chair Imboden states that he has no
objections to their use whatsoever. I think you provide a very important service. My
concern with this application is that it's quite fragmented. I realize that there's several
parcels, but we have a big use that works as a campus essentially but we're not seeing it
in that sense and it's difficult for us to foresee what your expecting to bring forward and
what problems there might be with that versus what we have in front of us this evening.
Have we started the process at all? I'm assuming we have not since we're still debating
whether it's even required or not. My concern is primarily for the safety of the children.
I want to know that we can move children around on a site safety from their vehicles,
whether it is from a van or from an auto, into the building. Typically when we have these
kinds of projects in from of us, we have a much more thorough pedestrian circulation
plan that tells us very, very clearly how people are going to move safety across a site so
that's where my hesitation is here.
Commissioner Bonina states that a Church a couple of 3 years ago had a similar
circumstance and one of the resolves was that we actually asked the applicant to develop
a master plan which provided, articulated and elevated the issues about circulation and
uses on the property and it really provide a clear picture to the Church and more
specifically to the City as well and the Planning Department so that they could make
these types of decisions. That is something to consider.
Mr. Teachout states that when they purchased the property it was their intention to make
it an outreach from the Church for the youth of the City. We purposely put the infant
care center in the back of the property so that it would not conflict with the YMCA's
After School Program. For many years, I would guess 20; they had the infant care and
the After School Program up in the front of this property on Grand Street. Now we have
the infant care center in the back and there is parking and the ladies from Casa Teresa,
which is a block and a half away, can actually wheel the babies over. We have a master
plan from the Church's standpoint and that is to utilize that building fully for the After
School Program, for the infant care program and certainly the backyard. If any of you
have been down on Orange Street and seen what we have done to that playground, I think
Downtown Orange should be very proud of the way that looks today.
Ms. Sollee states that she was the Director for the After School Program when the
YMCA was there and we didn't have the yellow curb and we did bus the children in the
same method. We opened up the van doors to the sidewalk, it's as close as I am to you
Mr. Knight, and we never had one bit of problem. We never had one bit of problem
because you don't have a lot of pedestrians. You have Renata's on the corner and Wells
Fargo and then the Church, so there is some parking on the street but I ran that for three
years with the after school. We had 158 children between the infant care, the preschool
and the school age and we never had a problem. As I say, it's very close to the fence
where the children go in. There's a gate there, they go in and it was very safe, we never
had one problem.
Chair Imboden asks if there are any other questions for the applicants? He closes the
public hearing and brings it back to the Commission and asks for any additional
comments, questions or motions.
Page 24 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
Commissioner Whitaker motions to approve PC 28-07, Conditional Use Permit 2659-07
establishing an after school program for 56 children K-l through 8 and infant care
program for 12 babies within the existing Church facilities located at 146 N. Grand with
all the conditions stated therein.
Gary Sheatz directs staff to correct the Draft Resolution, as the Chair's first name is
incorrect.
Commissioner Bonina states that this is categorically exempt and he echoes Chairman
Imboden's comment that we thank you for the service you provide in our community, it's
very appreciated
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Imboden, Whitaker, Merino, Bonina and Steiner
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Chair Imboden calls for a 10-minute break at 9:08 and will reconvene at 9: 18.
(5) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4095-06 - MIDSTOKKE
RESIDENCE
A proposal to convert an existing attic into a new 484 sq. ft. bedroom and bathroom on a
988 sq. ft., one-story 1887 Gabled Roof Cottage. Item was continued from the August
21, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting.
LOCATION:
154 N. Shaffer Street (Old Towne Historic District)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review proposed modifications and make a
determination on Design Review Committee No. 4095-06.
Senior Planner, Historic Preservation, Dan Ryan provides a project overview consistent
with the Staff Report.
Chair Imboden asks Mr. Ryan about the unique character of the property. Mr. Ryan
states that he took our Historic Survey and sorted it by date and by architectural style and
then those elements looking through the survey of what buildings are very similar and
there was only one other building that was somewhat similar that had a porch on the front
of it, it had the same roof design. This is the only building of that style. There was a
great deal of discussion whether it was 1887 or 1912, but I think that's a little less
important whether it was constructed that date or the other date. The issue is what are the
characteristics of that particular building and its age that are very unique to other
resources within the City? We don't have any other ones that are like this, so I think
that's another emphasis that I'm looking at. I went through and pulled out the survey and
went through this information and said if we have 500 of these or 300 or 20 of them or is
Page 25 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
there another one that's designed the same venue, then I can go look at that and look at
the characteristics, but there's not. I went through both the gable roof cottages and the
hip roof cottages for all the ones we have in the City, looked at the pictures, looked at the
data, and looked at the height. In addition, when we look at a resource, the other thing
that we have to pay attention to is that the survey did not have a District record when we
did the National Register Survey. Contextually, the block is very important as mentioned
in the first and second record of the context. Not only is the resource important, but it's
setting and other buildings of similar age within that block are really important, so we
also have to look at the large collection for the impact of that.
Chair Imboden asks if Mr. Ryan could talk about the second-story windows that were
added to this structure and is there impact more to this structure or to this historical
streetscape that you're talking about?
Mr. Ryan states that the windows would be visible because of the scale and the placement
of the house from the sides and the street view. Chair Imboden states that he understands
they are visible, but his question is more is it an adverse impact, in your opinion? Mr.
Ryan answers that he thinks it's one of the impacts. The other concern I have as noted
with the applicants is the unforeseen structural information that might be hidden in the
amount of work and impacts to make those changes in order to support that second floor.
We've had experiences in Orange where someone started a rehab and it turned into a
demolition; single wall construction falls over, I think we do have a couple of those and
part of that is we don't have enough information. We start out saying that there might be
some concerns here. Now we at least try to do when we figure there may be deficiencies
for construction or single wall construction or something that's adverse, try to at least go
out and make an inspection to find out whether that building actually can sustain a rehab
or, in this case, there was an addition attached to it and the addition stood up and the
other part fell down. To answer your question directly, when you look at the side
elevations, the windows look too tight in there. It doesn't look appropriate and the
simple style of the building itself really calls out that the gables were not finished out
with windows. It was not meant to have an attic space on it; it just doesn't seem to fit.
It's really trying to put a lot of stuff into a small space and there could be other options.
Commissioner Bonina asks about the garage being converted to an unpermitted second
unit. Is that something that we are looking at this evening? Mr. Ryan states no it is not.
It's a separate Code Enforcement issue. The City is waiting for a resolution of this
particular item to see which way they want to go. There might be another option if they
want to apply to have an accessory second unit on the property and provide parking for it,
that could be another option that was suggested the first time around, but certainly Staff
would be willing to look at that but I think at this point we're willing to try to find a
solution to what we have here before we proceed with Code Enforcement.
Commissioner Bonina asks whether the attic area has been built out as well? Mr. Ryan
answers yes it is currently converted. Commissioner Bonina asks was that done with
permits or not? Mr. Ryan states no it was not. Commissioner Bonina asks were both of
these items done simultaneously or were they phased in? Mr. Ryan answers he does not
have timing on that. I do understand that there may have been a bathroom in the rear
structure at one. I think the attic conversion happened before that; I don't have a date on
Page 26 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
that.
Commissioner Whitaker states that he is trying to get a little history of the conversion.
When he looks at the attachments that probably came from the applicant, they talk about
how they found the home with the upstairs attic and stairway in very bad shape and
there's pictures that show their redo of it to bring it into good shape. The question that I
can't figure out though is a year ago there were significant concerns about the structure
being able to maintain a second floor and especially if you redo a bathroom with tiles,
toilets and all those kind of things. Are these as built plans, or are they proposing to go
back in and reinforce the structure they've already built? Mr. Ryan states the second
part, they will go back and reinforce the structure because one of the requests of the
Planning Commission the last time was to have the applicant identify those changes
necessary to structurally allow the second floor maintained to meet Code and how that
would work out. As you can see there are quite a few changes from foundation all the
way up through their structure.
Commissioner Merino asks when a project is submitted for review and approval
specifically in regards to whether they comply with the Old Towne Design Standards or
to the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Ryan states that the overwhelming issues as far as
the Secretary of the Interior standards that the recommendation should be to return the
building back the way it was. Commissioner Merino states that's not the question he is
asking. It's a yes or no answer. Mr. Ryan answers no it does not. Commissioner Merino
states both in the case of the Old Towne Design Standards and the Secretary of the
Interior Standards. Mr. Ryan states more so with the Secretary of the Interior Standards.
Chair Imboden asks if there are any additional questions for Staff, he will open the public
hearing and ask the applicant to come forward and add any additional information that
you care to be available for any comments.
Craig Wheeler, Architect, 58 Plaza Square. I hope you each have a package of the
drawings revised 7 May 07 and on those drawings on the right hand side there's a section
called changes since the last submittal. That's where we try to describe what we've done
since the last meeting. We came away with four different things that we felt the
Commission wanted to see. One was the ribbon driveway that is listed here as being
concrete, I don't know where that comment came from, but we are calling out for a
concrete ribbon driveway.
The next is a study replacing the front door. They did find a door that very much appears
to be the original front door. It was in the attic over the existing garage. It's a 34" door
rather than a typical 36" and that's what the front door opening is so it's pretty likely that
was the original door, so I show that as replacing the door that's there now.
The third item was a suggestion by the Commission that we study the idea of some sort
of shutter over those two gable end windows on the north and south that would suggest
the attic ventilation that is seen on other houses of the period and so we have done that
with a study of a possible shutter configuration and since we did that I have played
around with a different configuration that I would be happy to share with you.
Page 27 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
Then the main thing that took the most time was to analyze the building structurally and
see what kind of changes would have to be made to make it suitable both for vertical live
and dead loads and for lateral loads and I had Chuck Yagi who is very experienced in this
area go through it and study it very carefully. He made a number of visits to the site and
he came up with the suggestions that I have delineated on sheets S3, D1 and D2 and if
you'd like, I would be happy to go through that a bit and describe what we're going to
have to do to the house.
On sheet S3, the foundation plan, we're going to be adding new continuance footings
under two of the bedroom walls on the northwest corner of the area. We're going to be
adding new square footings in two locations and a continuance new footing across the
front wall between the front of the house and the porch. The details of those are shown
on sheet D2.
The second floor plans verifies the size and type of the beam that was installed during the
modifications as the floor beam that extends across the main living room. We would
have to add sheer walls to two of the bedrooms walls and two sides of the front wall.
Those sheer walls on the front wall will be installed totally from the interior and should
not have to affect the exterior of the house at all.
On the roof framing, we're going to adding a new ridge beam over the back gable as well
as headers in four locations and as you can see on sheet D2, detail #3, we're going to
have to reinforce the single wall construction where it extends up beyond the new second
floor because that created a hinge where the forces from the roof were trying to push out
that single wall construction and Mr. Yagi has come up with some struts with a fairly
complicated attachment detail that will compensate for that and drag that lateral load
from the roof back into the floor diaphragm.
Other things that are going to have to be done are strapping over the new ridge beams, the
new foundations, new hold downs for the sheer walls, doweling into the existing footings
and new footings, new strapping over the existing floor beam that was put in during the
change and miscellaneous blocking. Those are the primary areas. The engineer feels that
it is possible to do it and that it can be done.
Those are the things that we've done on the drawings. I also had a couple of comments
I'd like to make on the Staff Report. On Page 3, and Mr. Ryan has brought it up this
evening, there are numerous references to the 1887 gabled cottage as though it was built
in 1887, but to me it seems quite clear by the historical resources inventory on Note 19 it
seems to make it pretty clear that the house was either torn down or incorporated into
something else that was built in 1912. We brought that up last time, but it seems to me
that it's much more likely that it's 1912. Also, as we talked about last time, to me the
windows don't look Victorian, they look later and the single wall construction certainly
was ramped around 1910. I did another house on South Pixley that was single wall
construction that was built in 1910, so it seems very possible to me that this house was
built more close to 1912. Also on Page 5 of the Staff Report, one item was that no
notation was provided to the material to be used on the ribbon driveway. I take exception
to that. I believe that notation was there. Also, the reference on the exterior finishes are
not shown for clarity, this is just a standard way of detailing especially for structural
Page 28 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
where you don't often show all the materials, so it is clear to see what is being done.
There is no sinister motive here to say that the exterior materials are going to be changed
in any way. In fact, on the cover sheet of the drawings, I made it clear that there
shouldn't have to be any modifications to the exterior. However, as Mr. Ryan pointed
out, we've always had mistakes where the contractor starts to tear things down without
asking questions so it's going to have to be watched very carefully, but from a structural,
I don't see any reason that the exterior should have to be affected. From my standpoint, I
wish it could be that the metal siding could be removed and something that could be put
back would be more appropriate such as the original bough tons that covered the single
wall construction but that's something for the Commission to discuss and my clients to
think about. As I said last time, I don't see that much historical significance in this
building because it's been so badly damaged. The porch has obviously been rebuilt, it's
modern conventional lumber, it's not an historic porch; it's not in the same location as the
historic surveys show the porch. The exterior has been clad in this hideous wood grain
stamped metal siding that is not an historic material and to me it does not seem that large
a deal that some windows have been added to the second story whereas we've been
adding windows to second stories or former attics to houses in Orange many times when
we make an attic conversion but we'll do our best to see what we can do to make it better.
Commissioner Merino asks you've submitted projects throughout the City to the City,
correct? Mr. Wheeler answers yes. You've submitted them, gotten corrections, made
those corrections, and gotten projects approved, correct? Mr. Wheeler answers correct.
Has Dan apprised you of the issues regarding the Old Towne Design Standards and the
Secretary of the Interior Standards? Mr. Wheeler responds yes. Is there anything that is
preventing you from working with your client to make the residents meet those standards
and those criteria? Mr. Wheeler responds he personally doesn't see where we're that far
off. The only thing that is visibly different on the exterior is three gable windows and
then we are proposing to add a rooftop window in the back. That certainly is a change
from the historic fabric of the structure.
Commissioner Merino asked if he heard him as Dan the City is the arbiter and has that
authority, so while I appreciate that you have an opinion and that you're advising your
client, as the City has that responsibility and authority, they are giving that to you and in
serving your client well, my advice would be that we come to a meeting of the minds and
that you comply with the requirements that Dan's setting forth. Do you see that there is a
problem with doing that? Mr. Wheeler answers that he feels the Dan feels those windows
are not appropriate under the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Commissioner Merino
states okay, so that's a correction requirement. Mr. Wheeler states that would be hard to
change because we need those windows both for egress and for providing air. If those
had to be removed, I don't think the project would be tenable. Commissioner Merino
states that as a fine architect that I know you are, that's a challenge that I'm sure you can
meet. Mr. Wheeler states that we'll try. I think one of the other comments in the last
meeting was to see if there's anyway to move those windows back to the rear and we
discussed a gable but I don't see anyway to get a gable back there because there's not
much space between the existing rear historic gable. Commissioner Merino states just to
sum up, you do understand that the City's putting forth requirements and that you're
being asked and the owner's being asked to comply. Mr. Wheeler states right.
Commissioner Merino goes on to state when we turn in projects as architects anywhere,
Page 29 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
we're given plan check corrections or corrections and you make those and I understand it
may be a difficult situation because you may have been brought in after the fact to sort of
fix something that's already been built, but we are here where we are so you clearly
understand those requirements I assume. Mr. Wheeler states that he sees the Secretary
Standards as a matter of interpretation. That there are, I think Dan mentioned, conflicting
standards. One thing will say one thing and one thing will say another, so do we have
actual hard lines that say this is it or is it something we should discuss, as there are
different approaches to it? Commissioner Merino states that the City has the
responsibility and authority to make that decision, I'm afraid that Dan's correction list is
the one that governs. Mr. Wheeler states that he thinks that the Commission has the
responsibility to make that decision. Commissioner Merino states your right.
Commissioner Whitaker asks about the three windows that are not historically accurate
because they are up on the second floor and in the gable, were they there before the
renovation project or were they put in as part of the renovation project? Mr. Wheeler
answers that as far as he understands they were put in as part ofthe renovation project.
Commissioner Whitaker asks so the dilapidated second story that was there had no
windows? Mr. Wheeler answers that as he understands it, there was no second story
there originally. The original house had a high ceiling. Commissioner Whitaker asks
what was the nature of the home when these owners bought it? Were there three
windows there, was the second story there and they're just trying to remodel it or was
that not there and they put it in? Mr. Wheeler responds as he understands it, there was no
second story. There was an attic. The original ceiling was higher than the current ceiling
because they put in a new floor down a little bit lower so that they had more room for a
new living space above, but originally there was no stairway and no second story, just an
attic.
Commissioner Bonina states that condition that you just described, was it prior to these
current owners buying the property? What were the circumstances with which they
bought the property? Mr. Wheeler responds as he understands it they bought it in the
condition where it had no second story. That it had merely an attic. Commissioner
Bonina goes on to state, no second story, no windows, no converted back garage, no
nothing? Mr. Wheeler answers that the back garage is a different issue. We seem to
have evidence that garage has been converted since at least the 70s so that's a totally
different issue. As I understand it, all the owners did with the garage was to paint it up,
clean it up and fix it up, but they didn't add or change anything. They may have put in
new fixtures, but basically the configuration has been since, as least according to former
neighbors, at least since the 70s. Also, the configuration shown is the same footprint as
shown on the Sandborn map. It appears that hasn't been changed as far as usage for a
long time.
Commissioner Whitaker asks for a clarification on the pictures that say stairs before and
stairs after. The stairs that were there before; were those put in by the applicant? Mr.
Wheeler responds I don't know of any stairs before. It was just a pull down ladder.
Commissioner Whitaker states that it's not what the pictures show. It looks like a full
staircase.
Page 30 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
Chair Imboden states that the bathroom before Image says rear window in upstairs
bathroom replaced.
Commissioner Whitaker asks was there an upstairs bathroom before the applicant bought
the home? Mr. Wheeler answers he hasn't been told of one.
Commissioner Bonina asks if the property owners could come forward.
Commissioner Bonina asks, just to confirm Mr. Wheeler's statement, what was the
condition of the home when you bought the house? Mrs. Midstokke answers that the
condition of the home was a disaster. Commissioner Bonina asks structurally, what were
the improvements? Mrs. Midstokke answers that when they got into it, there was a closet
and when we opened this closet, we opened this closet in a bedroom there was a rickety
stairway that went up to the attic, but there was no bathroom up there.
Chair Imboden asks if there were any windows. Mrs. Midstokke responds no.
Chair Imboden states that he is compelled to ask the question because he has a picture of
a half demoed bathroom here, toilet moved to farther wall. Mrs. Midstokke replies that
was the bathroom downstairs. That was added on at some point after the house was built.
Chair Imboden states that the problem is that right next to it says bathroom after, and it
shows me the upstairs bathroom. So you're saying those are two different bathrooms?
Mrs. Midstokke answers yes; they are on top of each other.
Commissioner Whitaker states that one of the comments in the Staff Report is that the
more appropriate thing would be to build an addition in the back pushing the footprint out
so that you had a line of demarcation between the historic and the non-historic. Have you
thought about that? Was there a reason not to do that especially if you take a look at,
having gone through a remodel myself recently and all the horrendous costs of structural
members, it would be better to have an addition out in the backyard. Mrs. Midstokke
states that at this point it would come down to financial. We're into it so far now, down
the road to try to start over and put something in the back wouldn't be an option for us at
this point. Commissioner Whitaker asks if they've taken a look at what the cost would be
to totally increase the foundation and redo the structure? Mrs. Midstokke answers a little
bit, yes. We've talked to construction people and we've got their input about them doing
it and so we know where we are there.
Chair Imboden moves to a public comment and calls Jeff Frankel forward.
Jeff Frankel, on file, on behalf of the Old Towne Preservation Association. Our position
really hasn't changed on this project since the last hearing. We did have an opportunity
to review the Staff Report, but the plans were not available at the Library, but Mr.
Wheeler was kind enough to share them with me for a short period of time before the
meeting. Again, this is a unique historic resource being the only pre-1900. That's up in
the air. I know on the City's website, here is the newest inventory because it has a 2005
photo. It states it's an 1887, but I guess that's neither here nor there.
We agree that if at all possible in adding additional living space to an historical structure,
Page 31 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
that it's best to utilize unused space within the existing structure, but with this structure it
may prove to be a challenge that cannot be met. The windows that were added at the
gables have a negative impact on the original design of this structure and they should be
removed, as the addition of shutters does not seem to be a viable solution. As with some
bungalows, they were designed with larger attics for possible future expansion and
therefore their gables were larger and could handle a larger window and some were
actually built to include living space within what appears to be an attic area. This home,
it seems, was never intended to incorporate living space in the attic. If adding living
space in the attic has a negative as well as unknown impacts on the exterior character and
defining features of this home, then it is not an appropriate direction to take and adding
on to the rear of the home would seem to be a more appropriate way to go.
I think we do have to ask the question that if this project was proposed and had already
not been completed or built, would it be considered for approval? I don't know, I think
we find that unlikely. We would suggest adding a sympathetic addition to the rear of the
structure that is out of public view, removal of the inappropriate siding and restoring the
porch to the original configuration if that's known. In addition, we agreed with Staff
regarding the restoration of the garage to accommodate two cars, but apparently that is
not part of this project and I thought it was.
I was looking at this house before the applicant's purchased it and I noticed that there was
2 by 4 framing in the interior and I wasn't aware it was single wall construction. It must
have been at one time because the attic seems to be single wall.
Aside from the fact that in our opinion this proposed project does not meet the standards,
there still seems to be unknown impacts associated with this project, therefore, we again,
encourage the Commission to deny the project before you.
Chair Imboden asks the Commissioners if they have any other questions for the
applicants?
Commissioner Bonina states that the whole idea of having work done with permits is one
that I don't endorse, but putting that aside for the moment, it just seems to me what this
boils to is the visual impact of these windows and these proposed shutters. I have a
question for Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Merino touched on this, is there a way to put these
windows in the back and still provide for the space that you have understanding that
you'd still have to do all these structural items and everything else that's being proposed?
Mr. Wheeler responds that he hasn't found one. As I mentioned, the only space that
seems adequate would be, as you're looking at the front of the house on the left rear, but
that would place the window over the existing stair going down, so that window would
not be available for egress, you'd have to leap across the stair opening to get to the
window. It would be available to light and air, but that would be about all. I can look but
I don't think there's enough room to get a new gable on the right hand side in the back
without that gable being a very visible element from the side of the house. It's going to
be very close to the edge of the house if it works at all so I can't see one. Theoretically it
might be possible to reconfigure the whole second story so that you try to get one major
window that does all in the back of the small gable in the rear but I don't think that would
give enough light and air from looking at it. It would be off of a very small area and
Page 32 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
trying to service this much larger area. I've tried but I haven't been able to find a way to
do it.
Commissioner Bonina states that not being an architect, does the window from the roof
contribute to the light? Mr. Wheeler answers yes, that contributes to the light and the air
because it is an operational roof window, but it doesn't do anything for the egress. It's
still too high for that, so we have to rely on one of the two new gable end windows. One
of these will have to be converted from a current double hung to a casement that will look
similar to a double hung but maybe will give us a large enough opening to meet the 5.7
square feet of area you need for an egress window.
Chair Imboden states that he has a question regarding the shutter proposal that you have
and if I could I want to remind the Commission where the project was when we sent it
back. We had discussed the opportunity of other egress options from the second story
and it didn't appear that they were possible and we encouraged the applicant, with the
crux of Staffs concerns regarding this, was the addition of that second story window, but
we said let's find a way to diminish that window. Actually the direction that was given
was not to create shutters, but to create the appearance of an attic vent and then the
question was raised how do we get our egress and the response was have it function as a
shutter. Instead what I think we have done is design decorative shutters that I think are
entirely out of context with this house, in fact, draw more attention to something that
we're trying to get rid of. I think that what we have in front of us tonight is really to
assess the impacts personally and whether we feel they are adverse or not.
Let me ask you, before we move on to that, about this shutter being quite frank with you
that I'm not happy with the solution that came back to us. Mr. Wheeler asks if he could
pass around the alternate one? Chair Imboden answers go right ahead.
Chair Imboden states that in his opinion you're getting closer, but we now look like
louvered shutters instead of just louvers and I'll be real frank with you about another
thing. What I don't want to see here are shutters put on this house, if this is the direction
we go, shutters that are put on this house that as soon as someone inhabits the home, they
open the shutters and now we have an upstairs with shutters again drawing more
attention. It has to be understood that this is first and foremost an attic vent. Mr.
Wheeler states that is one thing he was trying to do there. He was suggesting that these
shutters be put on with spring hinges so they would be encouraged to stay closed.
Whether that works or not, whether the Building Department will accept it, I don't know.
Chair Imboden states that he knows what he would do if he lived in the house. I don't
know how the rest of feel if this is a direction and we're getting into comments now
rather than discussion, but I guess this may be where you have to make some changes if
we move there. It's still shutters to me and that's not what we asked for. We asked for
the appearance of an attic vent that would diminish the second story appearance of this
house. I don't want to consider or entertain anything that is going to bring more
attention. That's the opposite of what we're trying to do here. So it sounds as though
you're open and not set on any kind of desire for that up there. I think that's the only
question I have. Actually for clarification, let me just cover a couple of things. When I
look at PI, I see a new concrete ribbon driveway; keynote #5 so I think your proposal is
Page 33 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
to do concrete. Mr. Wheeler answers yes. Chair Imboden states he is fine with that. The
only other thing that I was confused with was the plans where they state reusing what you
believed to be the original door. There was kind of a question mark there and I just want
to make sure that we're on the record here that you do intend to use that door because the
door that's there now is part of this remodel as well. Chair Imboden states that it's
keynote #4, A4. I just want to make sure that isn't a question. Mr. Wheeler states
replace the current entry door, the one that's there now, the one that everyone feels is
inappropriate, with the door that we found in the attic of the garage. Chair Imboden
states that answers his questions for the applicant.
Chair Imboden asks if the Commissioners if they have any other questions for the
applicant. There are some things that need to be discussed.
Chair Imboden asks if the applicant has any closing comments? He closes the public
hearing and brings it back to the Commission.
Chair Imboden states this is a problem project as well all know and the problem is
caused, of course, because we're trying to make something comply that didn't come
forward for review in the first place. That makes it more difficult. That doesn't mean
that I think we can't find some kind of solution here that meets City requirements, meets
Secretary of Interior Standards, gives the homeowners some kind of final resolution to
this. I don't know when this came to us before, but I'm looking back through the minutes
and I see old Commissioner's names on here. Some of you this may be your first time
seeing this even. Commissioner Bonina states you meant prior Commissioners, not old
Commissioners. Chair Imboden states some were prior; some were older. At any rate, I
think we have to determine where we are. I know that last time this was in front of us
Staff gave us recommendation for denial based on Secretary of Interior Standards.
I have to say that I don't agree with that conclusion and Mr. Wheeler brings up an
important point when it comes to the Secretary of Interior Standards. There is not a list
of items that we can just go down and check off that we've met each one of them and the
project moves ahead. Instead they have to be consulted very, very carefully. You have
to read through them to find the intent of the standards and try to apply that philosophy in
that intent toward the project as you make your decisions and really use it as a guide to
make educated decisions. I understand that there are standards that would lead a person
to not interrupt the historic resource and do an addition to the rear, that is one option the
Standard allows for here. However, when I look at the massing of this building and I
look at the floor plan, I have no doubt whatsoever that an addition to the rear of this
building would cause more disruption of the historic resource than what is being done
right now. Beyond that the Secretary of Interior Standards that I have in front of me in
their introduction to the section that deals with Alternations or Additions For New Use
that this would certainly fall under. The construction of an exterior addition on an
historic building may seem to be essential for new use but as emphasized in the
Rehabilitation Guidelines which is part of our approved Ordinance, that such new
addition should be avoided if possible and considered only after it is determined that
those needs cannot be met by altering secondary, i.e., non-character defining interior
spaces. When I look at this I certainly would have to say that I think an attic of a house is
a non-character defining interior space. Yes a stairway has been added to the living
Page 34 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
room, but there was a stairway of some sort there already. We have a picture of it. I
think the modification is very minor. To me the biggest crux with this project, I think
we've solved all the other issues, with the door, the issues with the driveway that we had
in front of us last time, are the situation with these windows that have been added and I
think we have to come to a conclusion as to the adverse nature of those windows and all
options on the table, what is going to create the least impact to this historic resource?
We sent the applicants away last time asking them to try to disguise this, to try to mitigate
those windows. I can't say that I'm ready to go exactly with what's proposed, but
certainly what we're seeing tonight is getting closer to that, but I want it to be understood
that my direction and feeling is that the way that the addition has been done within the
existing bulk and mast does very little to disrupt the overall form and character of the
building. It does very little, actually, to impact the interior of the building. I think that
you keep within the standards as much as you can by the way that it's been done. I hate
to condone the way that it's been done, but that is what I'm doing. I'm going to throw it
out to the other Commissioners here. I just hate to see us veer off on a direction entirely
different than when we visited this last time.
Commissioner Bonina adds I think we need to be practical, I think it's important here at
this juncture. We tried to explore the opportunity of relocating the windows and
apparently it sounds like that's not going to be feasible. I think the applicant, through the
architect, has been able to address the structural issues that we had required back in '06
and I think that was very important to make sure that was taken care of. My
recommendation here would simply be that we approve the application as submitted with
the change that the shutters be worked between the architect and Mr. Ryan and allow Mr.
Ryan to have the final say if, in fact, it does comply from an historical prospective and
it's something acceptable to the City. To me that would be a reasonable resolve and
again, we certainly don't condone folks going forward with projects that are not
permitted. It's not something that we endorse here.
Commissioner Merino states that he is having lots of difficulty with this issue because we
have vested our Historic Planner on this project and our Staff with the ability to make the
decision and the interpretation on the Old Towne Design Standards and the Secretary of
the Interior Standards. We've had that interpretation made, and we have a Staff
recommendation. It gives me great pause to now, essentially from the dais, make another
interpretation that is different than our Staff is making because we have to have some
finite person interpreting those two standards by which to make a decision so that when
other applicants come forth it's not assumed that they can come to the Commission and
maybe get a different answer. That being said, I have great sympathy with the applicant.
I'm sure they regret having moved ahead without the permit and based on the argument
that the Chairman made, it's very convincing, but it's different than our Staff member
made. I'm still somewhat torn and probably won't be able to make a final decision until I
push the button, but I'll say that there is a precedent that I'm concerned about and we
should be careful in looking at this when we push the button.
Commissioner Whitaker states that it's a very close call and I think our Planner said it
was a close call in the way that he came down on it was that it was less damaging to the
historic character of the building to build onto the rear and the way the Chairman's
Page 35 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
saying that it's less damaging to the historic character to stay on the interior and I'm
really conflicted as to which way is the right way but that's in our discretion. That's why
we're appointed to sit up here and make a decision. If you visit the property, the
windows especially on the north side aren't very visible due to the landscaping that's
there. The south side is the side you're really most concerned about because that's the
side that's facing the Library and people are going to see. I think obliviously the current
shutters bring more attention to it. I would like to see something as the Chairman
indicated, it even in the minutes from the meeting a year ago, to have something that
looked like an attic vent. Where I am at this point in time, I would probably lean towards
where the Chairman's position is.
Commissioner Bonina asks Mr. Ryan, to all eave a little bit of Commissioner Merino's
concern and I appreciate what he said and I just want to get clarity. Mr. Ryan, it didn't
sound to me that you were necessarily, absolutely advocating that the resolve here would
be to put an addition in the back but that one of the resolves would be to do something
with the windows in terms of the shutters, making them look like attic vents as the Chair
has suggested.
Mr. Ryan responds that he is very clear on the issue that I believe the design and the
uniqueness of the building warrants that there are not windows in the gable ends.
Commissioner Bonina asks your black and white there? Mr. Ryan states the options
would be to explore what the impacts would be to adding the addition to the rear of the
property. Certainly that's been the given custom when there's an issue as far as bulk and
mass, if the secondary building or addition is of lower height and it's constructed within
the setbacks or has a line of demarcation. My main concern is the amount of structural
changes to the building and my experience in Orange about when that takes place-having
buildings where a project gets way beyond what they discover because there hasn't been
a thorough investigation of how the building is constructed. Termites do like red wood
even ifit's 100 years old. Even on my own experience you don't know what's there until
you open it up. The problem being when you're that far along and you comment yourself
to it. I just see that the amount of structural work that could be done could be better put
to building an addition on the rear that would be compatible and resolve those issues as
far as access and floor plan. I think that there's an addition on the back that's a later
addition, a little shed roof that comes down, I'm sure that's less appropriate and historic
than an addition that's properly designed on the back. I have grave concerns that's a
unique building by itself and any changes to it, based on the amount of work they are
proposing could have an adverse impact of the unknown and it seems like a better
direction to be consistent with the kind of additions onto the rear with a line of
demarcation and it's sometimes easier to pencil that out as new construction than going
into something that's unknown and then you can keep the main building as it is. You
don't have to put a new floor system and do everything else.
Commissioner Bonina asks in the typical attic, would you not expect some sort of
ventilation of that attic through vents? Wouldn't that be a typical mechanism to vent an
attic? Mr. Ryan responds a lot of times the gable vents at the end have vents to get the
heat out of the building even ifit wasn't habitable space.
Commissioner Bonina asks about Commissioner Whitaker's comment about the south
Page 36 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
window being the most prominent. Is there an opportunity of removing that south
window entirely and then moving forward with the other two and still making this work?
Mr. Ryan states that it gets back to the central question is the building unique and
compromising one portion visibly to another portion is the same issue whether you're
going to build on the back or do the addition.
Chair Imboden comments that in regard to the uniqueness of the house, certainly unique
construction, techniques, unique styles of homes can lead to their listing on the National
Register simply on that basis but that it not the reason for it's listing as being some
unique type of construction. In fact, the modifications that we're talking about here this
evening don't impact the uniqueness that is being discussed here. If we were to change
this to blowout dormers through the roof, then yeah, of course we would be changing that
but I think we have to be careful what truly are the character defining features. Bottom
line does the house demonstrate or convey a sense of time and place which is it's
requirement to be brought into the district and to be constructed during our period of
significance. Another thing that was brought up that is often overlooked that yes the back
of the house probably was an addition or has been changed over time, however, if it
occurred during our period of significance which brings us all the way up into the 1940s,
if it occurred during that time, it also is significant material and we can't just discount it
because it was not part of the original building campaign. Just because it may not date
from the original construction of the house, doesn't mean that we lose it to do an
addition.
I just want to clarify where I'm coming from with this. There are a number of ways that
we look at these things and we have to be very comprehensive in doing so. Pulling a few
standards here or there won't get us there.
Chair Imboden motions that the Planning Commission approve Design Review
Committee No. 4095-06 Midstokke residence with the condition that the applicant or the
applicant's representative provide for Historic Planner Dan Ryan's approval window
screening with the appearance of attic venting that attempts to diminish the presence of
the new second story windows.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Imboden, Whitaker, Bonina, Merino & Steiner
None
None
None
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION CARRIED.
Chair Imboden made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, August
6, 2007.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioners Imboden, Whitaker, Bonina, Merino & Whitaker
None
Page 37 of38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 July 2007
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 10:21P.M.
Page 38 of 38 Pages