2007 - August 6
caBC6.G.d.3
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
6 August 2007
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
STAFF
PRESENT:
Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Jacqueline Bateman, Recording Secretary
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
INRE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Cheryl Hansmann
446 S. Tustin #31
Orange, Ca 92886
Representing Val Verde Estates development
Cheryl Hansmann addressed the Planning Commission. She is representing the tenants
of Val Verde Estates and states that the owner wants to develop the park and the
homeowners will be at every planning meeting until this is resolved. Although they are
not here in great numbers tonight, they will be the next time and they are determined to
fight this development as they do not want to loose their homes.
IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN:
(3) DESIGN REVIEW COMMMITTE 4085-06 - GABBI'S REAR FACADE
REMODEL
Chair Imboden made a motion to pull items 3 & 7 for continuance.
Motion was made on item #3 Design Review Committee 4085-06 - Gabbi's Rear Facade
Remodel to be continued as requested by the applicant, Mr. Patrick, as he was unable to
attend this evening's Planning Commission Meeting. This item to be continued to
October 1, 2007
Chair Imboden made a motion to continue DRC 4085-06 to Planning Commission
meeting of October 1, 2007.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Imboden, Bonina, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
Page 1 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
(7) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2662-07 - WESTOAK CHEVRON
Chair Imboden made a motion for continuance on Item #7 Conditional Use Permit No.
2662-07 - Westoak Chevron as requested by the applicant, Fancher Development
Services, Inc. to September 5,2007
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
JULY 2, 2007.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 2, 2007
meeting as written.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Imboden, Merino and Whitaker
None
Commissioners Bonina and Steiner
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 20-07 DENYING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2621-06 - ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS INC.
Commissioner Bonina made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 20-07 denying Conditional
Use Permit No. 2621-06. Chair Imboden opened the item to the panel for discussion.
Commissioner Merino states that the issue that took place on the prior vote on this project
was on his part with the denial. He explained that his vote for denial had to do with the
motion itself vs. the application. His opinion in regards to that and the information that is
in the staff report will reflect in his vote tonight. He made it clear that for the record that
the issue he had was not with the application, but with the motion. The motion tried to
split portions of the application to make it palatable for some of his fellow commissioners
to vote in favor. Therefore, I will vote accordingly, to reflect my opinion.
Chair Imboden noted the motion made and asks if there is any further discussion. Are
there any words from Council?
Page 2 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
Assistant City Attorney Sheatz states that we do not have a final action until we can adopt
something that memorializes that final action. Staff can make an attempt to make another
run at it and bring it to you at the next meeting or if perhaps the commission could offer
some direction to staff as to what they would like to see confirming the action. We could
simply bring back a resolution that would reflect the fact that there was a motion made to
approve the project that it was seconded and that failed by a 3-2 vote. The problem with
this is that we have a procedurally due process issue and the applicant is not necessarily
on notice as to why the project failed.
Commissioner Steiner questions what the policy is with respect to reconsider or to
reagendize this issue.
Mr. Sheatz explained that you could make that motion tonight to reagendize. Staff would
need to go back and renotice it and we could bring the project back before you again. As
far as timing I would need to defer to Mr. Knight as that would come from planning as to
when they could get that project back before the commission.
Mr. Knight states that the earliest that the item could be put back on the agenda would be
for the first meeting in September. As notices would need to be sent out again and that
would be at least 10 days.
Chair Imboden poses the question. We had a motion, we had a vote. What action is now
required from this body to have this item resurface for further consideration?
Mr. Sheatz explains that a motion for reconsideration and a second with majority
approval is what it would take.
Commissioner Merino asks Mr. Sheatz if he clearly understands that the motion and the
direction that was provided at the last Planning Commission Meeting was insufficient for
staff to frame a resolution that is clear to the applicant?
Mr. Sheatz answered no, that this is what this resolution does.
Commissioner Merino asks Mr. Sheatz, is it Staff's opinion that the resolution reflected
the Planning Commission's opinions, direction and vote at the last Planning Commission
meeting?
Mr. Sheatz responds yes, the resolution before you this evening in Staff's opinion does
that.
Commissioner Merino responds to Chair Imboden that for the record he does not
completely agree with that. I am open to a motion of reconsideration. Chair Imboden
states that he will look to the body for any motions that anyone may care to make.
Commissioner Whitaker states that he would be willing to second the motion; however, I
feel Commissioner Merino should make the motion to reconsider just out of proforma.
Somebody who voted in the opposite would make the motion to reconsider.
Page 3 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
Commissioner Merino states that he would be willing to make that motion, and
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to second.
Commissioner Whitaker asks for clarification that this motion was to reconsider the vote
from the last meeting and to reagendize the matter to come before us again.
Chair Imboden states that it would be best if we just state a motion. Commissioner
Merino made a motion to bring the project before the Commission for reconsideration at
the next available date. Commissioner Whitaker seconds this motion.
Commissioner Bonina addresses Mr. Sheatz with two questions. What does this do to the
prior action? Does it dissolve it, deny it, what does it do?
Mr. Sheatz explains that it depends on what action the Commission takes when it comes
through again. You might go through the iteration of rehashing the project and
discussing it and saying that you are in the same place that you were last time. It may be
that the motion to reconsider may go down the very same way that the original vote went
down. The applicant would be in somewhat of a procedural limbo until they get a final
decision.
Commissioner Bonina, asks Mr. Knight if the information at the next meeting would be
the same application that the Commission originally looked at, along with the minutes
from that meeting - or would this be a new application?
Mr. Knight responds that this would be the same application, the same material and that
he doubted that the Staff Report would change. The item that is before you is the same
evidence and circumstances. The facts are all the same. The only thing that would differ
between the first Staff Report/Resolution and the one in September is that you would
have the minutes from that meeting.
Mr. Sheatz adds that based on what has transpired the motion to reconsider isn't
necessarily based on new facts, in other words something that has happened or that was
discovered factually about this project since the previous action was taken. I recommend
if you are going to reconsider, let's reconsider what you looked at the first time, bring it
back exactly the way it came through to you the first time. That should be at this point,
unless there is something different that the maker of the motion knows, the motion to
reconsider would be the basis for it.
Commissioner Merino asks as this item is coming before us for reconsideration does the
applicant have the opportunity to come before the Commission to provide testimony
again or any kind of evidence themselves at the next hearing?
Mr. Knight responds that it is going to be a noticed public hearing so the Chair would
conduct it like he would conduct any public hearing. There would be a Staff Report and
the applicant would have the opportunity to step forward and give their case, along with
any other speakers that came that evening. They would also have an opportunity to
speak. The hearing would be closed and then the Planning Commission would
deliberate.
Page 4 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
Mr. Sheatz adds that in this instance you have a situation that has been before this body
on two separate occasions. You have the benefit of that and the benefit of the Chairman
to direct anyone who is testifying and if there is anything new outside of what you had in
the past, including from the applicant, you can go ahead and state it at that time as you
are essentially looking at the same facts, same everything.
Commissioner Bonina had a follow up question for Mr. Knight: When you noticed this,
this is a three hundred foot radius around the perimeter of the property? Mr. Knight
responds, correct. Whatever our notice is for a Conditional Use Permit, as I know for a
fact, a three hundred foot radius as well.
Commissioner Bonina, asks Mr. Knight are there any notices typically gIven to
homeowner groups or groups that have interest in the area?
Mr. Knight states only if they have specifically requested that they receive notice for this
particular item.
Chair Imboden asks if there are any further questions. There are none. A motion and
second had already been made. Chair Imboden adds that he would not be in support of
this motion, that he believes this project came before the Commission and it was heard.
The Commission was given the opportunity to vote on this project and he does not
personally see the need to revisit this item.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
Commissioners Bonina and Imboden
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(4) APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 0519-07 - 2ND APPEAL OF DRC
APPROVAL ACTION OF MAC MILLAN RESIDENCE AND DETACHED
GARAGE
An appeal of the DRC's reconsideration and approval of a proposal to construct a 2,385
square foot detached garage with doors in excess of the standard eight-foot maximum
height and having an encroachment of three feet into the required front yard setback.
LOCATION: 7736 East Sandberg Lane
NOTE: This project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Appeal No. 0519-07
Associate Planner Anne Fox provides a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Page 5 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
Chair Imboden asks if there are any questions for the Staff?
Commissioner Merino addresses Mrs. Fox and states he would like to go through the
appellant's letter quickly and get a specific answer on each one of them, if you don't
mind. If you go to page 1 of appellant's letter, item A says that the proposal does not
comply with the infill residential design guidelines. It is pretty straight forward, there is
amplifying guidelines. Does it comply or not?
Mrs. Fox states that it is within the discretion of the body to make that determination. It
is Staff's recommendation that the project complies with the infill residential design
guidelines.
Commissioner Merino reads the second item. Staff reports that the DRC Meeting of June
20 indicates that the roof of the attached garage has been modified to replace the hip roof,
the one that matched the primary residence. Has this been changed to meet the Planning
Commissions previous guidance?
Mrs. Fox states that she believes that it has.
Commissioner Merino reads the third item. It goes on to say that the project does not
reflect the predominant pattern of the established neighborhood where the garages are to
the rear of the principle structure. Is there an ordinance or requirement that would force
that position?
Mrs. Fox responds that the ordinance specifically states that the project shall comply or
show compliance with design guidelines. That is actually in the ordinance, that portion.
The reference is being made to the design guidelines themselves. Therefore, there is not
a specific requirement that everyone have a 20' set back. In fact, I think that in your
report, Staff pointed out that Orange Park Acres Specific Plan encourages varying
setbacks.
Commissioner Merino sums up that the answer he is getting, is the staff's opinion that
there is not? Mrs. Fox responds, yes.
Commissioner Merino reads the fourth item. The DRC, Planning Committee and Staff
erred in allowing administrative adjustments based on the plan submitted by the applicant
and it goes on to say that the plans were in error. Where they in error?
Mrs. Fox states that the she does not believe so.
Commissioner Merino reads paragraph E of the OMC ordinance. It goes on to say that it
does not provide for more that one garage exceeding 8' in height. Is that in fact the case?
Mrs. Fox states that this was the construction of language questioned. The code already
deals with singular, plural and the allowance, where the use of one in place of the other
and so forth.
Page 6 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
Commissioner Merino asks, so again the answer is no? Mrs. Fox states ok.
Commissioner Merino reads that the proposal includes a 3' pipe railing and goes on to
make an issue of the fact that this does not necessarily blend. Is there any reason that the
applicant could not change the railing to be wood or have the wood appearance that is
being talked about here?
Mrs. Fox responds the fact that it is where it is, it could be made of wood, it could be
made of glass, and it would still be 3' high. Commissioner Merino clarifies is there any
reason it couldn't? Mrs. Fox responds you are correct, there is not a requirement
specifically.
Commissioner Merino states, as I understand it, we did get a letter from the OP A Board
President and from some neighbors as well that were in favor of this project. Has
anything changed since the last time we saw this?
Mrs. Fox responds that they have had no subsequent correspondence since they posted
the new appeal notice at the site. As far as we know nothing has changed. I do not have
current correspondence either way, just for the record.
Chair Imboden asks if there are any further questions for Staff? Chair Imboden states I do
have one question, and you can actually check on this as we are moving forward and get
back to me later. One concern that I have is that we are talking about a 36" rail on top of
this. I think that code would actually require 42"as a guard rail. I know this is a building
code issue that is not necessarily your expertise, but if we could find, just so we know
what we are approving here this evening. If there is a way at all that you can come to any
conclusion on that before we come to a vote that would be appreciated.
Chair Imboden asks if there are any other questions for Staff. There were no further
questions. Chair Imboden opens the public hearing and asks the applicant to come
forward and share anything more about this appeal.
Appellant Mel Vernon, residing at 2301 E. Hoover Avenue, addresses the Commission:
I appreciate Commissioner Merino asking the questions. I however, would like to
elaborate on the basis of the questions or the concerns on each item. Let me take care of
a few things before I get into that. The first one, I have some photographs for those of
you who may not be aware of the situation. I have a rendering that was presented I
believe last time you saw this at the Planning Commission. This rendering apparently
had a 16' height on the structure; this will become important in a few minutes. It also
shows another structure beside it. The infill guidelines do not allow any more than 50%
of the principal structure, so this structure could not be built given its size. (Drawings
were passed onto Chair Imboden for the review by the Commission). I have just a small
copy of I think what is the first page of the site plan for the project, in the lower corner
you will see a highlighted portion that describes, I believe another wall to the building, it
extends into the setback area. I do not think that is allowable, if you could look at that. I
have a photograph that I have highlighted of homes showing the principal structures in
relationship to Sandberg Lane as I have noted before. Those homes are in excess of 50',
Page 7 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
some are in excess of 100' and the general situation is that all of the homes are in excess
of 50'from the road. This is a map that shows the road and the easements in relationship
to the project that was started without a permit then demolished, then came back,
submitted a project described as a four-car garage. It was approved over the counter.
That was in error as communicated to me by the Planner at the counter.
Chair Imboden, speaking to Mr. Vernon before you go on, this rendering that you've
provided for the Commission this evening is this something that you have prepared or
what exactly is this?
Mr. Vernon responds that the drawing was obtained from a neighbor. She communicated
to me she received it from the applicant. I believe this is the rendering that was shown to
you at the last Planning Commission. Chair Imboden acknowledges his response with
thank you.
Mr. Vernon continues that a Planner approved this over the counter, a 4 car garage, by
the way for those that may not be aware this was presented as a 2500 square foot
structure; 50' x 50' wide, 16' tall. It encroached in the set back and it exceeded the
allowable relationship to the principle residence. There were a number of errors made,
including not having this go through the DRC process, having Orange Park Acres
notified, notifying the public about the conditional use permit requirement and noticing
the Orange Park Acres Board, allowing their Board review. A staff member who is not
present now, when I communicated all of the issues related to this with regard to the infill
guidelines and how it encroached into what I believe was the setback, stated to me that
we will allow this to be continued to build with a permit in error because we do not want
the rebar that is in place to rust. I communicated to him that it still did not meet the
guidelines. I believe his intention was to allow this to be built because errors had been
made by staff up to that point. I informed him that there are ways to handle the rusting
situation, but he said as it stood they would be allowed to pour the concrete. I think that
is just because they made mistakes that they were going to allow it to continue to be
constructed, so there would be so much built that a court could not rule that as a
substantial amount had already been done and it would be incumbent to remove it.
Subsequent to that conversation I had a conversation with Alice Angus the Director of the
department, and she communicated that the infill design guidelines would be followed
and that included the roof slope and pitch matching the principle residence. That was the
primary point that I will be making tonight.
Mr. Vernon goes on to state that at that point Staff communicated to the applicant that he
would need to change the roof pitch so it matches the principle residence. You can see
the principle residence on the bottom and to the left of the proposal that was generated
after Staff communicated that. The last few times that we have met we have had
discussions about set back requirements, plumbing facilities and what would be stored in
the building and my understanding that they would be RV storage. I noted that the IRS
considers that RV's that have cooking, bathing and sleeping to be dwelling units. The
point is that there is an item in our Orange Municipal Code that states that garages may
be attached or detached but they will serve vehicles that are typically used for household
use. As you know I was a proponent of addressing issues with RV storage in front yards
and the Council has moved that there be one RV allowed in the rear of a property. They
Page 8 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
have addressed those issues. This garage will hold as many as 4 of the bus size RV's.
On item A, the design does not comply with infill design guidelines and I am assuming
that each of you have a copy of the infill design guidelines. I think the staff erred in not
communicating to you that a flat roof would not meet the requirements. They should
have done that several meetings ago. I would have hoped that you would have been
prepared to know that.
On page 4, the infill design guidelines, it states that with site planning to achieve infill
developments and streets that are sensitively designed to respect existing residential
patterns. On item #4 of the same page, placement of buildings of a lot and siding of
additions should reflect a prevailing pattern of established neighborhood. Also refer to
section F, Accessory Structures and Features; prevailing pattern has to do with how
properties are set back from the street. As I have already mentioned the properties that are
within 300', even 1000', are significantly set back from the street. No.5, New Infill
Residences and Additions, should be compatible with existing on site relationships and
surrounding established neighborhoods such as the front fac;;ade orientation, such as the
prevailing front and yard set back areas. Let's go over to the page that has to do with I
think is an item that the Staff is going to contend. That is Item E, Accessory Structure
and Features, accessory items such as sheds, gazebos, carports, exercise rooms, pool
houses should be designed using forms and materials that are compatible with the
principle structure and similar in amenities found in existing established neighborhoods.
Garages may be attached or detached, however, incorporation of garages into the in fill
development should reflect the predominant pattern of the established neighborhood.
That has to do with Accessory Structures and the Staff states that they do not fall under
these guidelines. I was told by Alice Angus that they did. I had numerous successions
with Mr. Sheatz about how they did. We allow gazebos, sheds and other things that must
reflect the principle structure. In this case I believe Staff communicated that the principle
structure should have components, roof design and what not, it has since been modified
to a flat roof. Scale, infill should be similar in scale. This is a 17' high structure as it is
now proposed; at the home that is surrounding this is the only two-story principle
residence that exists right now. Everything else in the neighborhood is one story, with a
plate line of roughly 8' to 10'. The plate line of this starts at 12'6" and goes up to 14'. It
does not meet the existing pattern in the neighborhood. It has the mass and scale of a
two-story structure, even though it is being called a one-story structure. Similar
structures that are near the street, there are no other principle structures that are closer
than this in any detached structures, sheds or whatever else in there annexation of the
area, or they are not of significant size that they would need to be permitted. Item 3, the
dominant existing scale of an established neighborhood should be maintained. No.4,
Special Design Attention should be directed to two-story facades. This is because its
height is a two-story. The perceived scale of new infill residences should be minimized
and then at the end, include a single story element. Buildings and additions should be in
proportional relationship with buildings on adjacent properties. All the adjacent
properties are single story. Garages of new houses should be designed in a manner that
minimizes their prominence on the front elevation. The principle structure for this has a
4 car attached garage and the bone of contention is the detached structure that is closest to
the street. It is so massive; it is bigger than a firehouse. It is an industrial design as it
stands now, with industrial pipes on the top railing. Mr. Vernon reading on, additions
and accessory dwelling units should match the design of existing principle residences,
Page 9 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
incorporates architectural rhythms to adjacent and nearby structures that establishes a
contextual relationship between the existing residence and the new construction. Roof
form should be consistent with the individual residence and compliment the
neighborhood. First and second story plate heights should be consistent with homes in
the existing established neighborhood. On page 9 of the infill guidelines, Roof Forms
and Pitch for New Residences, building roof forms should be similar to those found in
surrounding established neighborhoods. In the case of accessory dwelling units and
residential additions, roof forms and pitch should match the principle residence. There is
an illustration where they show a flat roof attached to a residence that has a pitched roof
and it says "discouraged". Now again I am going to make the point, as I am sure they are
going to try to argue that the infill guidelines do not apply to accessory structures. They
do, and more so when sheds, gazebos, carports, exercise rooms, and pool houses are
designed to reflect using forms and materials that are compatible with the principle
structure. Plate line at 14' and adding pipe railing making it 20', and the smallest 12' 6"
to allow drainage ofthe roof.
This brings up an engineering issue that I think needs to be addressed at this level
because the city engineering needs to have some input on this. What you have is a
structure that is draining to the rear and you have a slope that is draining into the
structure. All the water that hits this site in the area of the garage runs to one area, this is
a block wall construction. Is this building designed to meet the weight of the materials
themselves? The soil when both dry and wet to accommodate animals that may be on
site or people that may be on the site. We have had some structural failure recently in the
United States and this is a serious issue. It represents the first time that we are dealing
with a green roof in this city. We need to have some input on the structure. The Staff
indicated that the architect stated that this is what is structurally required. Does he have
the engineering background to do that? Perhaps he could answer that. I think it could be
significant. On adding the pipe rail to the edge of the structure, and as depicted in the
drawing they show a horse on top of that. Most horses are at least 6' tall and to ride on
the top of it, we have a significant safety issue here. When it happens and someone dies
up there, you will be aware of it, and the attorneys will look at the record, knowing
somebody messed up here. There may be a more significant problem here than having
this whole project reconstructed.
Mr. Vernon continues, Staff is trying their hardest to advocate for the applicant because
Staff screwed up and they have covered up. Now it feels like I am the underdog, having
to work against a whole body of structure that knows what they are doing is wrong but
that they are covering up the situation.
Let me talk about minutes of the DRC, I don't believe they are actual minutes, that they
are draft minutes, I haven't seen that the DRC has approved those minutes contrary to
what has been communicated. In the Staff information I do not believe that is
appropriate, but you will make that decision. Staff, in their report in response to my
appeal, that as the Commission and the DRC is already familiar, OMC section 17.14.255
states that infill residential development shall conform to the infill residential guidelines.
I want to emphasize - shall conform - because it seems as if we were having a bit of
debate in writing what definitions we were using. Whether should, shall, may. But OMC
states shall conform. The infill guidelines basically say should, should, should and they
Page 10 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
say encourage, discourage but it says shall conform. What does that mean?
Chair Imboden addresses Mr. Vernon stating that a lot of the information that we are
discussing here this evening, obviously this item has been before us; this is the third time
now and we are quite familiar with the project. We are also quite familiar with the
standards that is being judged against. What I as a Commissioner and I am going to
guess that the other Commissioners up here would like to hear is really where you are
opposed to the project as it is presented and approved by the DRC. I think that would
strike closest to the heart of the matter and most of the information we've been hearing so
far we have covered in other meetings or in the information that you have provided to us
already. Rather than read us code that we are familiar with or give us dimensions of
buildings that we are already familiar with, if you could state for us where it is that you
have the problem with this project.
Mr.Vernon, acknowledges Chair Imboden with a thank you. He continues with, I
apologize for my lengthy report and I have been diligent with this and I have looked at
the records, and I have been involved with this for over a year. I have looked at every
document that was available. I object to the architectural style of this building, this is an
industrial building. I object to the mass and height and scale. Essentially Staff got this
proposal at 16' and now it is 17', they got this proposal and then they put a sloped roof on
it, essentially putting a hat on top of what was proposed. It wasn't modified to reduce it,
and I came to you and said do the design infill guidelines require a human scale? That
this should be judged in relationship to a human scale, it was 22' a one point. Now with
the pipe railing it is 20'. I obj ect to the height of the doors as I mentioned in my report.
One part of the post says door another says doors. I would ask you to ask Staff because I
believe this is precedence setting where and if any project has been approved with
multiples of 8' doors in a residential zone area. I have spoken with other Commissioners
they said I am not aware of it. I cannot find a record of any project that has been
approved with more than one 8' door. The design does not reflect the design of the
principal structure. The one that you asked Commission to revisit, quite frankly, is more
reflective of the existing design. The mass and scale of that is out of proportion to the
other residences. You are in between a rock and a hard place. Staff should have advised
you of this, but they let you go on. DRC, even though I showed them pictures of all the
existing homes with sloped roofs in the neighborhood, they have selected hearing or
selected vision. Retaining walls are further than the administrative adjustment allows
into the setback area. I do not believe a surveyor has actually gone out and marked the
corners of this property, even though it is indicated that a survey has been done. I do not
think a certified professional has marked that. I do not think that we can actually say that
this property is a certain distance back from a property line, from an easement. The
applicant's information says plus or minus. The Staff Report says approximately. I think
we need to be precise about things like this, especially when we look at offering a
variance to someone. The reason for the variance is not the compelling reason of an
applicant spending money, which he stated that he did. It is what its impact would be and
how it adversely affects the surrounding area.
I have spent a considerable amount of time, I have spent $2,000.00 appealing this, and
that is because it has an adverse effect on my property value. The neighbors are good
people, I am sure they have written letters in support, this project has gone on way, way
Page 11 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
too long. It has been in a state of condition that they are wanting it to get finished.
Maybe they would just go along to get along. I have looked at the details and have seen
how it did not apply.
With regard to equestrian overlay, OMC Section 1728.060 of item #2, E of item #2, the
edge of any private stable, shelter or corral shall be set back a minimum distance of 50'
of any street, highway, residential building other than that of the owner. It needs to be
back 50', it is not. Contrary to what Staff is saying, such does apply.
I think there are some options that are possible, I think that a flat roof is what is
appropriate, I want to help to remind that when Commissioner Whitaker asked the
applicant of the project if he could lower the height he said yes, he would make every
effort to lower the height - this is increased height. It's like we have given this applicant
carte blanche because Staff has made errors. I am going to ask you not to follow in their
pattern, things have occurred by numerous people on Staff that were not justified and I
think Staff is trying to minimize their liability if this project is denied. On its merits, this
project does not meet the guidelines.
This is a cross section of the building that shows the slope of the roof and slope of the
driveway. There are things that you need to examine in this that would allow the
building to be reduced. I think that it is your job to take into consideration plate heights
of the existing houses in the neighborhood, the plate heights of the accessory structures in
the neighborhood, which as far as I can tell do not exceed 10', or 12'. Let's make the
front elevation maximum 12', if you're going to do a flat roof 12'. Have their engineer
and the City's engineer work together to figure out how more of the structure is hidden in
the hillside. As it stands now over 50% of the structure or approximately 50% is visible
from the street, but the biggest portion - the front facade - is mammoth in its size and
scale. It is right up on the street compared to the other properties on the street.
Chair Imboden interjects and asks for clarification of the drawing Mr. Vernon has
submitted. Is this a drawing that you have authored?
Mr. Vernon responds no it is not. It comes from the 3rd page of the applicant's submittal.
Chair Imboden asks was this provided to you by the applicant?
Mr. Vernon answers that no, it was provided to me by staff. The handwritten notes are
mine. I want to give you one more item. Handing a drawing to Chair Imboden, Mr.
Vernon states that if you decide to do a flat roof there are some designs that on a flat door
allow arches to be in place. Arches would match the principle residence. I think that
would be more appealing.
I apologize that I have not been a good speaker and have not been as succinct. This is a
complicated process, complicated project. It would have been much easier if this would
have gone through the DRC process from the very beginning, before things weren't done
appropriately. The best action I believe is that you will hold either the designated Design
Review Guidelines or that you drop the mass and scale as the applicant has said he is
willing to.
Page 12 of26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
I would be happy to answer questions. I thank you for your time, I know this has been
laborious. I have given a lot of time on my work on this, but I have been immensely
diligent. On Staff, you put them to the test and ask them what they said, including the
Director, you will find out that is the direction they took. I hope that you will ask them
for the truth. Thank you for your time.
Chair Imboden asks if there are any questions at this time for the Appellant? There are
none. He invites the property owner and his/her representative the opportunity to respond
to any of the comments that have been made here this evening if you so choose to.
Property owner Ian MacMillan, residing at 1525 N. Mustang, steps forward with the
following:
First of all, thank you very much for your time tonight and thank you Mrs. Fox for your
presentation. I appreciate all the Commissioner's time, Chair, Mr. Sheatz and Mr. Knight.
I am not going to take a whole lot of time I just wanted to make clear a few points and
answer any questions you may have. We have, as you know, come back with a new
design that we presented at the last Planning Commission Meeting. Trying to work with
the concerns of one of the city's residents that oppose this project by trying to reduce the
roof structure as much as possible. We went back to the original design of the pipe rail
that is 36", which is the residential requirement, 36" I believe is the residential
requirement and 42" is for commercial. To keep the lowest possible profile, we decided
to go with a pipe rail vs. wood or plastic white railing to try to maintain a rural equestrian
look as much as possible, and in keeping as strong a structure as well. We made our
attempt to try to reduce the size of the structure. I must point out the elevations of the
property are well within the allowable limits ofthe City code.
Last time we were here there were some environmental concerns about the RV dump that
we just removed completely. We are trying our best just to move forward. We changed
the arches in the door design, which the DRC was very impressed and in favor of. It just
lowered the profile of the structure considerably. I just want to make sure that the
Commissioners know that 2/3rds of the building is underground. There is only about
1/3rd on the hillside. I have to say I am a little confused as Mr. Vernon was such an
opponent of RV storage being in front of your home, or on the street. I would think that
it being stored in the garage, invisible to the neighborhood, would be advantageous. I
just would like to point out one thing, that all along we have had numerous residents of
Sandberg Lane, some have spoken, some have written letters; I have spoken to each and
every different neighbor and we have complete support from the neighborhood.
Unfortunately this project has been on hold for about a year and these poor people have
to drive by this every single day, day in and day out, and luckily enough they are
extremely patient. I talk to them on a regular basis to keep them informed of how we are
proceeding. They have been exceptionally patient to this point in time.
They have a concern, the roadway needs repair, they are holding off on doing that. It is a
private road. Weare all going to have to do this together. The entire neighborhood
wants to hold off until after construction is completed obviously due to the wear and tear
Page 13 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
from the construction vehicles. Weare trying our best to move forward. If you have any
questions I am here to answer them. I think we have tried our best to please not only the
DRC, but also the Planning Commission. They have done a great job. We have tried our
best to please the resident, the neighborhood of Sandberg Lane. Thank you.
Chair Imboden asks the Commissioners if there are any questions at this time?
Commissioner Bonina thanks Mr. MacMillan and states I want to make clear what the
scope of the project is that you are proposing. That it is a garage that we have been
talking about, it is a new house, is there also a third building; a barn, and is that correct?
Mr. MacMillan responds that the drawing was drawn by my wife and we made the
rendering and gave it to all of our neighbors to give them an idea, after the lay of the
project, of what we were trying to do. What our ultimate goal of this project is. It is an
equestrian area. We put a proposed barn. Commissioner Bonina reads that it states
future barn. Mr. MacMillan continues, stating that we anticipate some point in time
having horses. Our neighbors have boarding facilities so we do not have to have a barn,
we do not have to have horses. But that is our ultimate plan.
Commissioner Bonina asks Mr. MacMillan if the scope of this evening is simply the
house and the structure that we just talked about?
Mr. MacMillan states yes, we have an RV that we would like to store inside, out of the
way of the elements, as well as to conform to the City regulations and codes.
Commissioner Bonina continues that there has been a lot of discussion about the set back
and street things. When I drove by and spent a little time on Sandberg Lane, nice street
by the way, I could see how there could be some concern about the building that is being
proposed from the street in terms that it doesn't look like it is 27' back, in some cases in
the most narrow spot. The street is designed to be a 30' width street, is that correct?
Mr. MacMillan responds that the street is not quite that wide, that it is barely wide
enough now for two vehicles to pass. The actual structure is in the front of the property, a
portion of it, which would be the right hand portion as you see in the drawing, is 52' from
the edge of the pavement. The corner in the existing footings that would be set back, I
am not sure but it is on the drawings, that corner is cut back significantly to comply with
the City setback requirements.
Commissioner Bonina states that what he has is 30'; maybe this is a question for Staff?
Mr. MacMillan clarifies that this is 32' from the property line.
Commissioner Bonina responds that looking at the width of the street it has 30'from
property line to property line. I am assuming that from the property line across the street
to your property it would be 30'. I will ask Staff. The last question I have, given the issue
with setback and all of this, did you do an ALTA Survey on the property?
Page 14 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
Mr. MacMillan states that they have performed two surveys on the property. One
originally and one before coming back to the DRC. I believe on the second, we had
done a survey to indicate the location of the work we had done.
Commissioner Bonina asks do you have a physical survey? And the corners of the
property lines have been posted and identified?
Mr. MacMillan states yes.
Commissioner Bonina questions if this has been relayed to Staff?
Mr. MacMillan again responds yes.
Commissioner Bonina states, I have one more question for Staff.
Commissioner Moreno has a question for Mr. MacMillan: what looks like a bit of a
retaining wall that comes out from the garage on the left hand side which Mr. Vernon
identified to us. If that became an issue, would you be able to do a redesign to pull that
wall back?
Mr. MacMillan says yes, if we had to.
Chair Imboden asks Mr. MacMillan - have you had a chance to review these documents
that Mr. Vernon submitted this evening?
Mr. MacMillan states that he has not. The Chair passes these documents to Mr.
MacMillan for his review and asks ifhe could briefly consult with his architect?
Chair Imboden responds yes, you can take your time to go through those things and we
can just get an answer from you before we take a vote on this. Chair Imboden asks if
there are any further questions for the property owner. There are none.
The appellant, Mr. Vernon is asked to come forward if he has any additional information
about the comments just heard.
Commissioner Bonina has a question for Mrs. Fox.
Commissioner Bonina asks Mrs. Fox if she has the ALTA Survey in front of her?
Mrs. Fox responds yes, there are two different surveys as the applicant indicated. The
appellant has alluded to our previous Staff Reports on this item. He mentions that many
errors were made. As soon as they were determined that they were made, the City
stopped the project. Applicant has complied with that, and during that time period what
we discovered is what we needed which is unusual. Typically we do not go to the degree
of the type of survey done on this property. Our own department did not have sufficient
information, so the applicant began to do some title searches and record information to
get things corrected.
Page 15 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
As to the question of Sandberg Lane, the paved surface does not follow any right of way
lines. When you travel on it, by the naked eye, you are not able to make a determination
that you are standing on the centerline. I will tell you that Sandberg Lane is supposed to
show from the centerline 30', for a total of 60'. There should be 30' to each property
line. It currently has a 30' right of way and then it has this 15' no mans land that sits
behind a private street, that is retained by a public agency, and has never been developed.
When we discovered that, we had a discussion with Mr. MacMillan and explained this
would need to be set back. What you see out there today is the structure that Mr.
MacMillan started to touch on. He has not worked on the project. Those footings are no
longer valid. They are going to have to be cut back. On the plans, before you reflect
where they are going to be on the construction that is out there today. Stand there on the
street and look visually back at it right now - yes it is closer - but it is not what you will
ultimately see. It is what was originally issued in error.
Commissioner Bonina asks Mrs. Fox ultimately that street was 60' wide street from
property line to property line.
Mrs. Fox states yes, the survey talks about a 30' right of way from centerline to the
MacMillan's property and 30' as well on the other side. You have from centerline; if you
could put a line down Sandberg Lane you would have 45'.
Commissioner Bonina questions is the building another 17' back from the property?
Mrs. Fox states yes, correct, there is a corner of the building on Sandberg Lane where the
street itself starts to curve. There is a curved driveway as well that provides access to
another property. Those are 17' back once you get beyond the 15' easement of the public
road.
Commissioner Whitaker asks Mrs. Fox to clarify that the 17' is the administrative
adjustment that we are giving to get to a 20' setback. It is only 17' at the closest point,
which is 3' shy of our 20' rule.
Mrs. Fox states that is true in one corner.
Commissioner Whitaker asks in one corner, at our last meeting we approved, the DRC
approved the administrative adjustment allowance of 3'. This was prior to the additional
wall?
Mrs. Fox answers the additional retaining wall below 42"; I was going to address that as
well. I know there have been questions about that. You can have construction of a wall
within the set back of 42" or below without seeking an administrative adjustment.
Commissioner Bonina questions that you can do that, it is totally up to the property
owner?
Mrs. Fox answers yes.
Page 16 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
Commissioner Bonina continues; if in fact what you are saying is accurate, it is very
deceiving as you drive through this area. It would suggest that the property opposite here
is going to be cut in a lot.
Mrs. Fox states that is why we did, I know it's difficult to tell from an aerial photo and
they are not very accurate but we did provide exhibit E, to give you an opportunity to
look at visually what has been going on in that subdivision over time. Portions have been
in the city, portions of this particular portion and a couple of addresses were annexed
only recently. Over time, these properties were 5 acres in size at one time. Through
numerous subdivisions they have become acre properties. You have that across Santiago
Canyon Road as well, which was all part of the original subdivision. We actually did go
back as part of this whole process and reviewed that subdivision to try and make
determinations about where easements were and who they were to. One of the other
questions I want to respond to, I know that the applicant already stated this, for the record
regarding the guard rail, the code does require 42" there is an exemption for our
occupants - they may be 36" in height. Section 509.2 of the CBC.
Commissioner Bonina has one more follow up questions: you have the Alta Survey and
also a grading, the finish line for the actual building itself shows 537.3 for the drive in
front, is this the right finish line?
Mrs. Fox responds close to the driveway, yes, that is pretty close. 537 is pretty close.
Commissioner Bonina asks how does that compare as you overlay the drive and approach
the street, is the grade, again not having the benefit of what you have in front of you. Is
the grade appropriate for the size ofthe anticipated vehicle, which is an RV?
Mrs. Fox states that in that particular corner, we are talking about the northerly corner or
the southerly corner?
Commission Bonina states that would be the southerly corner.
Mrs. Fox answers ok; it is showing that finish grade of 537.35, and then dropping at 536
which should be at the edge of the curb and 532 at the edge of the dirt. It does start to
drop away. It is 11 %.
Commissioner Bonina asks does it meet our guidelines?
Mrs. Fox states yes, I consulted the city engineer regarding that as there was a question as
to what driveway grades were allowed.
Commissioner Bonina asks what is the minimum- is it l5%?
Mrs. Fox answers yes, but I don't think we would want see that on that particular portion
there, we did allow for it on the other driveway. The new one that is much more
southerly. It serves just cars.
Page 17 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
Commissioner Bonina adds, just to confer with Mr. MacMillan as to the scope of the
project, he answered garage that we are looking at today and the new house?
Mrs. Fox answers new construction is the single family home with an attached garage
and there is a detached garage as well. That is the subject of the appeal.
Commissioner Bonina thanks Mrs. Fox.
Chair Imboden asks if there are any further questions for Staff? There are no further
questions for staff. Chair Imboden reminds Commission that public hearing is still open.
He addresses Mr. MacMillan and asks him if he has had adequate time to review the
documents and give you the opportunity to make any comments on them?
Mr. MacMillan states that the one drawing was requested by the DRC, the wall actually
extended to the north, the DRC asked that we extend that out to the west. That is the only
thing.
Chair Imboden asks Mr. MacMillan to leave the drawings. He addresses Mr. Vernon and
asks him ifhe would like to step forward and give any closing comments he may have.
Mr. Vernon steps forward and states I just want to make sure of what I heard that a
survey had been done and the property corners were staked and I need to know that Staff
actually observed the staking. Engineering corners, I cannot find any stakes that indicate
the property lines, therefore, it would help determine what set back are, easements and
what the street lines are. I do not think the Staff is accurate about the private road width.
It is a private road in front ofMr. Macmillan's structure. Then there is an easement from
the OC Flood Control on one side, I don't know who owns the easement on the other
side. The property lines come of to approximately where the pavement comes to. The
road is only about 12' and in some areas, it is very narrow. It makes you think are we
going to be bringing buses down there and now single cars have to pull over so another
car can pass. We are creating an issue of circulation which I have talked about before.
Again, I don't think that the variance is warranted and I know it may be appropriate to
talk about it, but I think we erred by not deciding, I think you decision needs to be that
there was no adverse affect to the neighborhood. Not every thing Staff said that he
should do or whether he followed their directions, but whether it has an adverse effect.
The property has a depth of something like, in excess of 150'. She indicated we were
going to remove parts of the foundation - let's move it back so without need for a
variance. If this would have been done in a proper order it would not have needed a
variance. I would encourage you to ask when was the last time we did a front yard
variance for a detached structure? I don't think we have done one before. I also ask you
to ask Staff to tell us when we have done two garage doors in excess of 8'? These are
two 12" doors. I drove all over the city and didn't find more than 1, except when I went
to an industrial building and then I had trouble finding 12' doors that were 16' wide.
These are huge. There are no, within the neighborhood 300', 500', 1000' there are no
detached structures that I am aware of in the front yard set back area. In front of the
principle residence. I can think of one where a fella.
Page 18 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
Chair Imboden interjects and states to Mr. Vernon that we would really appreciate if you
would not repeat the presentation you gave us earlier. If you could just give us your
closing comments as to why this Commission should uphold your appeal.
Mr. Vernon continues, again I have been diligent, errors were made, you were given the
authority to enforce the codes. Our OMC says shall, with regard to design infill
guidelines. The Staff used that language, shall. Thank you very much for you time. I
hope that you will also ask for engineering consultation - massive structure - can it hold
the weight of the earth on top? I don't think it can handle the water.
Chair Imboden thanks Mr. Vernon. As I don't have any cards I am going to close the
public hearing and bring it back to the Commission for discussion, deliberation or a
motion.
Commissioner Whitaker states that this is the 3rd time that we have seen this project. A
lot has been made about the infill design guidelines. I think my comment was at the last
hearing or the hearing prior, that I thought the Staff too rigidly applied the guidelines that
you would see in suburbia to Orange Park Acres. By adding the massive hip roof it made
the building more massive and took away from the equestrian nature of the original
design which was to have a riding arena. Having a riding arena on top of a flat out
building you'll see in two or three instances on Santiago. In my opinion what the
applicant brought forward today or through the DRC followed the commentary ofthe last
two meetings. Which was get back to the smaller structure, get rid of the five to six extra
feet that the roof added. Get back to the equestrian nature of the property and that is
following the prevailing style in the area. By being more on the equestrian style. I feel
the materials that are there, the materials being used in the construction, that you are still
getting some of that adobe style of the actual principle residence. In my opinion tonight
the applicant did what they needed to and I don't feel the appeal should be upheld.
Commissioner Bonina states that he did not have the opportunity to participate in the last
meeting, but I did watch some of it on TV. It was a very interesting conversation. I
appreciate the fact that we are back here again for the third time, but I think it is a good
thing. I appreciate your persistence and your beliefs and your requests, and how you see
things. I think as you drive through this area you do get a very skewed view of what is
up today, and ultimately it will be set back a little further in what will be built. I do think
it is a very large structure for the area. It is further exaggerated by the fact that it is really
close to the street. Although, it is 32', it meets the appropriate setbacks. I think the
property owner made some great efforts in terms of him design and frankly I do not see
any issue with this going forward as proposed by the applicant. I would caution though, I
realize that there are some arenas that are elevated on Santiago; it just appears that it is
somewhat of a dangerous circumstance, where you have an arena that literally goes to the
end of the building. Even though you have guardrails it seems to me that it is somewhat
of a dangerous circumstance. Again, if there is precedence in having that kind of design
in our city and there had been no issues I do not have any further comments.
Commissioner Merino states that he has 3 quick comments. One is, Mr.Vernon you have
kind of hinted at what you perceive as issues with the Staff, I believe firmly that all the
Commissioners will judge the project on its own merits. I can certainly speak for myself,
Page 19 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
and we are not advocating and I firmly believe that. In terms of the profile of the project
the comment was made by pushing the garage back that somehow that could mitigate the
issue. If you look at the existing site, it is a sloping from the top of the hill, and if you
were to keep pushing back it would get bigger and bigger, because it is in a retaining
condition. I would absolutely guarantee that if the applicant did that, you would be right
back here with filing an appeal for the retaining walls, or something got larger. We have
to judge the project on what we have before us, and I personally have to say thank you to
the applicant to some degree, as they have made every effort and followed every
guidance that we had asked previously. They have removed the objectionable plumbing,
they have taken the objectionable roof, and I am sure if one ofthe Commissioners wanted
to make a large issue of the railing or piece of wall - they would comply with that. They
have made very effort to do that. I think Commissioner Whitaker addressed the infill
design guideline issues quite well; I am prepared to move forward with this project.
Commissioner Steiner states that he agrees with the comments of my fellow
Commissioners. I find it also particularly persuasive that the people who live in this area
also support it and that is a significant factor as well.
Chair Imboden states that he concludes that he shares the comments of my fellow
Commissioners. I think we have had several opportunities to review this project and I
think the project has gotten better. I agree that there is potential for this building if it is
pushed back on the property it could potentially cause new effects that we wouldn't wish
to see. I have certainly viewed the project from many different angles and perspectives
and way to accommodate the objectives that are here. I think we have come as close to
those as possible within our means. I am perfectly satisfied with what I have this
evening. It appears that we are in consensus and have similar comments so I think I am
going to look to the Commission for a motion unless there is any further discussion.
Commissioner Whitakers moves to deny the appeal 0519-07 - 2nd appeal of the DRC
approval action of MacMillan residence and detached garage.
Chair Imboden states that we have a motion to deny and we have a second, is there any
further discussion? There is not. He reminds the Commission that casting a yes vote
would be to deny the appeal.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Page 20 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
(5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2630-07 - ARNONE'S LITTLE
ITALIAN RESTAURANT
LOCATION: 2243 N. TUSTIN
NOTE: This project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines 15302 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution PC31-07 approving Conditional Use
Permit No. 2630-7
Associate Planner Robert Garcia gave a project overvIew consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Imboden asks if there are any questions for Staff?
Commissioner Steiner asks: this is not an over concentrated area?
Mr. Garcia responds correct, this is not an over concentrated area.
Commissioner Steiner states that there are six allowed and three currently.
Mr. Garcia states correct.
Chair Imboden opens the public hearing and asks the applicant to come forward to share
any additional information on this project.
The applicant, Gary Arnone, comes forward. I reside at 2321 Villa Real in Orange.
Mr. Arnone states that we have waited over a year to get to this point; due to the fact that
some of the businesses up the street from us were problems. I have been patiently
waiting for that to be taken care of - so it has. Sergeant Bird has been working with me
as far as what I need to do to please everybody. We have done our best; fortunately the
business has almost doubled in size. Our clientele are 30 years and above, we cater to an
older clientele. They are a little bit more responsible than younger people are with
drinking. I have been in the business over 30 some years and I do not plan to put in any
brass poles. The reason for that, if any of you have met my wife, you know she would
not let me do that. What we want to do is provide good service and bring the restaurant
to the capacity that it deserves; to be a full service restaurant and be responsible to the
city of Orange.
Commissioner Steiner asks Mr. Arnone, do your customers frequently ask for or would
like the kind of license you are hoping to get thru the CUP.
Mr. Arnone states that most of our clientele is 95% repeat. They come in either weekly or
every other week. It is an older crowd. They like to have a cocktail. When we decided to
expand the property that was one of the questions: are you going to put in a full service
bar? I stated that we would try. Fortunately we got the license through the lottery. They
Page 21 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
keep asking me now: when is the bar going to open? When you see me pouring a
cocktail you'll know we are open.
Commissioner Whitaker asks have you read all the questions that the Staff has proposed
with the Conditional Use Permit?
Mr. Arnone responds yes, I have.
Commissioner Whitaker states are you aware of item #12 it says there shall be no bar for
alcohol consumption, unless they are waiting to be seated for their meal. It is not a bar
for people to come in, have their drink, have another drink, have another drink and then
leave?
Mr. Arnone states we are not going to go after that. If they do want to sit at the bar and
have dinner or lunch they can do that. As far as somebody just coming in to plow them
down, we are going to try to no let that happen. We are going have menus as well at the
bar, appetizer lists, so they know that there is food. Weare not going to be open until
two in the morning. It is strictly a convenience for our clientele to have a cocktail if they
should choose so.
Chair Imboden states he would like to ask one question as well. He states in regards to
the condition, condition #10 which is a typical condition for us. It is sales, service and
consumption of alcoholic beverages shall cease at least one hour prior to closing. So,
regardless of your closing time that activity would cease one hour before closing and
your o.k. with that?
Mr. Arnone states yes that is fine, we are not interesting in staying there late. I'm not
interested in asking people to leave. One hour before is last call.
Chair Imboden asks if there are any other questions for the applicant? There are none.
Chair Imboden closes the public hearing and brings it back to the Commission. Is there a
question for Staff?
Commissioner Merino has a question for Sergeant Bird. He states I think the applicant
insinuated that there was a problem or causality for the crime that was in the
neighborhood has ceased to exist. Is that the prior; was that Kwon's that was the
causality?
Sergeant Bird responds, no sir.
Commissioner Merino asks what makes the police think that the crime would continue to
decrease.
Sergeant Bird answers there was an agenda item that did not come to you. It was going
to come to you. Which was the old Spoons. The establishment was trying to go in with
public premises with entertainment, dancing and all that. This was creating a problem.
Although it is not the same census tract, it is an adjoining census tract. We do have crime
problems in that adjoining census tract. The feeling was that if it came to you while that
Page 22 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
was going on, that particular applicant would have more fire power to get their alcohol
license and approve it through you. Whether to just let them go through the course of
time and they just ended up disappearing. Then he put in his application for his
establishment.
Commissioner Merino states for clarification, the Staff Report, your contribution to the
Staff Report states that crime statistics do not favor the issuance of a license. That hasn't
changed by the fact that Icons did not receive a permit for conditional use of alcohol?
Sergeant Bird responds that this is correct, it has not changed. That is a high crime area
that is the third highest crime area in the city. Reporting District 77 South, with borders
of the 55 freeway to the east, the south is Meats, the north is Hind and the west is Canal.
It essentially encompasses nothing but Orange Mall and the Target Shopping Center. All
crime is generated by shop lifting and anything that has to do with those particular stores
in that area.
Commissioner Merino asks there isn't necessarily a nexus between the crimes that are
occurring that are generating the crime rates and the types of crimes that would be
alcohol related?
Sergeant Bird answers correct.
Commissioner Bonina states if I understand how a census tract is developed; they are
created, they are driven by the population in great part?
Sergeant Bird states it is sir, and to clarify I was talking about a reporting district which is
separate from a census tract. A reporting district is what we use to generate our crime
reports and is a separate map. The census tract is derived from population, it also as far
as establishments per population it is 2000 off cells. For every 2500 people there is one
off cell, for every 2000 people there is one on cell allowed in that census tract.
Commissioner Bonina asks as a matter of curiosity, how is your reporting district, areas
created?
Sergeant Bird states it has a little bit to do with population also. I couldn't give you exact
numbers on that.
Commissioner Bonina states so it is population driven and commerce driven I suspect:
Sergeant Bird responds yes sir.
Chair Imboden asks the Commission if there any additional questions? There are none.
He looks to the Commission for any further deliberation or motion.
Commissioner Bonina makes a motion to adopt Conditional Use Permit No. 2630-07 _
Arnone's Little Italian Restaurant recognizing that this is categorically exempt from
CEQA.
Page 23 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
Chair Imboden states I have a motion to approve and a second, is there any further
discussion. There is none.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2652-07 - ROYAL STREET
COMMUNICATIONS
A proposal to operate MetroPCS wireless telecommunications antennas on a non-stealth
existing Southern California Edison (SCE) tower and associated equipment cabinets on a
vacant lot.
LOCATION: 1511 N. Main
NOTE: This project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per state CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 _
Negligible expansion of an Existing public utility).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. PC 29-07, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2652, allowing
the construction of six (6) MetroPCS Antennas, associated equipment cabinets, power
and telephone box, GPS antenna and microwave dish, subject to conditions.
Assistant Planner Doris Nguyen provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Imboden asks if there are any questions for Staff? There are none. Chair Imboden
opens the public hearing and asks the applicant to come forward.
Applicant, Pete Shuban with Sequoia Deployment Services, I reside at 1 Venture Ste.200
in Irvine. I am here tonight representing Royal Street Communications California, LLC.
Mr. Shuban states we have reviewed the Staff Report, draft conditions of approval and
discussed the change to condition #3 mentioned by Ms. Nguyen. We can accept the
conditions of approval as presented in the Staff Report. I am here to answer any
questions you may have.
Chair Imboden asks the Commission if there are any questions for the applicant? There
are none. Chair Imboden closes the public hearing and brings it back to the Commission
for any discussion.
Commissioner Steiner makes a motion, recognizing that this item is category exempt
from the provisions of CEQA, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2652-07 - Royal
Page 24 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
Street Communications.
Commissioner Whitaker adds also for clarification the DRC 4226-07 - I believe we have
to approve the DRC number according to the agenda item.
Commissioner Merino states yes, and conditional use permit and DRC.
Commissioner Whitaker addresses Commissioner Steiner and asks if he would add the
DRC item to his motion.
Mr. Knight states that it appears that the item has been left off the agenda. The subject
here DRC No. 4226-07 would be included.
Commissioner Steiner states I will amend my motion to also include amongst the
approval, matters for approval DRC 4226-07, also incorporating the changes mentioned
by Staff.
Commissioner Bonina has an additional comment and states I want to encourage the
applicant, you have an entity you are working with SCE, they have obviously made some
attempts to shield the area from the street on Main Street and that vegetation really needs
some work. It would be helpful if you could encourage them to address that.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Whitaker
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Imboden made a motion to adjournment to a special general plan study session
with the City Council held here in the Council Chambers on Tuesday, August 14, 2007.
Chair Imboden: I have a motion and a second is there any discussion?
Commissioner Bonina states that driving through different parts of the city, I noticed as
you get off the freeway going from north to south on Chapman Avenue and head west,
there is a car lot that we approved. If you will remember, some of you were on the
Commission when that was done. I think it was referred to as Steve's Automotive, or
Steve' Cars - apparently is changing names, the name is actually shrouded. The thing
that is concerning is that one of the reasons we approved this car lot that it was presented
to us to have high-end automobiles, that was very important to the Commission. It
appears that what is on the lot today are not high-end vehicles, to the extent, I am not sure
how these things are frankly monitored or policed, I just wanted to bring it to Staffs
attention.
Chair Imboden states that was the application that was brought before us, then it would
Page 25 of 26 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 2007
be appropriate to ask City Staff to be able to brief us at our next meeting. If that is the
case over there and to tell us what has happened. Obviously there is operation over there
under CUP, and it is reasonable to ask for an update on the site and it's compliance with
the CUP. If Staff is agreeable to that?
Mr. Knight states we will look into that.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Moreno
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 9:18 P.M.
Page 26 of 26 Pages