2007 - April 2
t d. '500. G. d 3
FINAL Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
2 April 2007
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Merino, Steiner, Whitaker
Commissioner Imboden
STAFF
PRESENT:
Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Mari Burke, Recording Secretary
INRE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
INRE:
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN:
(1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2610-06, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
NO. 4126-06 AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0464-06 -IAN AND MICHELLE
MACMILLAN.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The applicant has withdrawn the portion of the project
that would require CUP approval by the Planning Commission. No further action by the
Planning Commission is required for the subject project, as revised.
Vice Chair Steiner noted that there was correspondence received from Mr. Mel Vernon
indicating an opinion as to whether it was appropriate to withdraw this item and the
Commission had an opportunity to discuss with Mr. Vernon the avenue available to him
or any person that takes issue with any decision made by a subordinate body.
Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz advised the Commission it was not necessary to vote
on the recommended action for this item.
(2) MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 498-06, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2605-06, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 4127-06, AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 1787-06 - CLAYTON RESIDENCE.
A proposal to demolish three non-contributing buildings and construct a single family
residence with an accessory unit over a garage.
LOCATION: The site is located at 376 S. Center Street, within the Old Towne Historic District.
NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1787-06 has been prepared to address the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Continue item to the April 16, 2007 Planning Commission
Meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
2 April 2007
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to continue Minor Site Plan Review No. 498-06
,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2605-06, Design Review Committee No. 4127-06, and
Negative Declaration No. 1787-06 to April 16, 2007.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Bonina, Merino, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
Commissioner Imboden
MOTION CARRIED.
(3) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1786-07, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2565-05, AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4054-05 -
TOYOTA OF ORANGE.
A proposal to consider a revised project, previously approved by the Planning
Commission, and new environmental analysis to remodel an existing commercial
structure and its related site improvements to create a 52-bay service facility as an
ancillary use to an existing Toyota automotive sales business.
LOCATION: The site is located at 1485 North Tustin Street.
NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1786-07 was prepared to evaluate the
potential environmental impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 17-07, rescinding the actions
contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 24-06, adopting Mitigated
Negative Declaration No. 1786-07 and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2565-05
and Design Review Committee No. 4054-05.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to continue Mitigated Negative Declaration No.
1786-07, Conditional Use Permit No. 2565-05, and Design Review Committee No. 4054-
05 to May 7, 2007.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Bonina, Merino, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
Commissioner Imboden
MOTION CARRIED.
IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR:
(4) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
Page 2 of 17 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
2 April 2007
MARCH 5, 2007.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 5, 2007
meeting as written.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Bonina, Merino, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
Commissioner Imboden
MOTION CARRIED.
INRE:
CONTINUED HEARINGS:
(5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2604-06, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2634-07, AND VARIANCE NO. 2166-07 - ICONZ RESTAURANT.
A request for approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2604-06 to allow a Type 47 (On-Sale
General-Eating Place) Alcohol License, Conditional Use Permit No. 2634-07 to allow a dance
floor as an accessory use, and Variance No. 2166-07 to waive the development standards to
allow for a deficiency in parking. This item was continued from the February 21,2007 meeting.
LOCATION: The site is located at 2045 North Tustin Street.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1
- Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 01-07 denying Conditional
Use Permit No. 2604-06, and adopt PC Resolution No. 02-07 denying Conditional Use
Permit No. 2634-07 and Variance No. 2166-07.
Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Sgt. Bird was asked to elaborate briefly on over concentration and the particular crime
rankings. Sgt. Bird stated:
. The Police Department really focuses on two specific issues when looking at
applications for alcohol licenses-the crime rate and alcohol concentration levels.
. There are 89 reporting districts in the City of Orange. This establishment is within
district 87.
. The crimes in this area are 155.
. These are part I crimes and part 2 offenses, where arrests have been made.
. The average for all 89 reporting districts is 96 crimes in each district.
. This reporting district is ranked #14 in crime statistics out of the 89 in the City.
. This is over 20% of the average reported crime.
Page 3 of 17 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
2 April 2007
. The business is located within a census tract 758.11 that is considered over concentrated
with on-sale and off-sale licenses.
. The Alcoholic Beverage Control was contacted and asked for the current number of on-
sale establishments existing in the tract.
. The census tract lists lOon-sale licenses in existence with 4 being allowed.
. The census tract lists 7 off-sale licenses in existence with 2 being allowed.
. There are also some sensitive receptors in this area: the church and grade school that
borders the east perimeter of the location.
. Within 600' there are several other alcohol establishments.
Commissioner Whitaker asked Sgt. Bird if he had been able to do any research on the
applicant or other owners of the restaurant. Sgt. Bird responded that the applicant shown
at the time the application was submitted, Monica Lopez, did not show any criminal
history. Furthermore, any other requests for investigation would have come from the
public and those things were looked into.
Commissioner Merino asked Sgt. Bird for confirmation that this particular area is 14th in
the City in terms of the crime rate and if it was his professional opinion that ifthis facility
were to go forward that this situation would change. Sgt. Bird confirmed the ranking of
14th in the City and added that alcohol is known to have a direct correlation with crime
rates.
Commissioner Whitaker asked what the Police Department's experience has been with
establishments that have a large dance floor in terms of additional response calls or if it
was comparable to a regular restaurant. Sgt. Bird responded that a lot of people are under
the misunderstanding that you can go in and apply for a Type 48 license which would be
a nightclub license. He elaborated that in fact, you must first acquire a Type 47 and upon
getting the Type 47 then you would need to go back in and ask if you can acquire a Type
48. Sgt. Bird stated further that certain locations in the City that have tried to create a
Type 48 atmosphere without having to go through the process of acquiring it have created
undo burden on the Police Department to deal with the problems and issues that come
from those establishments.
Commissioner Merino asked Sgt. Bird if he had an opportunity to review the proposed
conceptual floor plan and operating documents that the applicant submitted. Sgt. Bird
responded affirmatively. Commissioner Merino asked Sgt. Bird if based on his
experience he perceived that the operation of this business was more consistent with a
full time Polly's type restaurant or ifit could be more accurately described as a nightclub.
Sgt. Bird responded that it is difficult to make a comparison as they are completely
different operations and the applicant of Iconz has asked for a dance floor that is
approximately 900 sq. ft. which would take away quite a bit of their serving area (tables
and chairs) from a bonafide eating establishment. Furthermore, the Type 47 license
indicates that not only beer and wine would be served, but also distilled spirits. Polly's
Pies is a location that does have a beer and wine license but does not have a dance floor,
would not be seeking a DJ or live entertainment and has a different demographic they
would be expecting to come into their location. Polly's Pies has more of a family
oriented or older crowd and there are not many issues or problems originating from that
location.
Page 4 of 17 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
2 April 2007
Sherrie Olson. address on file stated:
. She was in attendance on behalf of the applicant.
. They have read the Staff Report and they too are concerned with the findings.
. They therefore wish to withdraw the request for the dance floor, the zoning for the
additional parking and the entertainment.
. They are present to seek the alcohol license to operate a business within the community
and a Mexican food restaurant.
. They are not interested in having entertainment that is beyond the spectrum of what the
Police Department spoke about.
. They would like to be part of the community, be responsible within the community and
operate a responsible business.
. Tonite it was stated it was an over concentration and based on her 15 years experience,
every City is over concentrated.
. When you go to a restaurant you generally find alcohol and order a glass of wine or a
margarita with your dinner. Most people go from one drink to another drink.
. It is common to have a restaurant with an alcohol license.
. In Pasadena there is restaurant after restaurant and they all serve alcohol. They are well
over concentrated with licenses.
. They are here to ask for the Commission's support and a conditional license that won't
become a nightclub atmosphere.
. It will be something they can offer the community, not close their doors and not have
another vacant building within the community.
. It is something they can do and be responsible doing it.
. They want to be a good neighbor.
Commissioner Steiner asked Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz what impact the
representation made by the applicant's representative would have on the Commissions
ability to proceed. Mr. Sheatz responded that he wouldn't recommend that the
Commission try to go forward with an action on the item given there are two Conditional
Use Permits and a Variance that may no longer be applicable with an altered site plan.
Mr. Sheatz recommended that the item be continued to a date not specific to give the
applicant an opportunity to submit a new application.
Commissioner Merino asked the applicant if they are going to withdraw the entire dance
floor and if they intended to use the additional square footage for seating versus having a
quasi dance floor. Ms. Olson responded it would be used for additional seating and they
would absolutely not have a quasi dance floor; in fact, they would condition the license
not only at the State level but at the City level.
Ms. Olson stated they do have support from the community as they did reach out to the
neighbors.
Commissioner Steiner stated that a number of people came to speak based on an
impression that had been given to them from the current application. Ms. Olson
responded that she did respect that and she would be concerned as they are.
Commissioner Steiner offered admonishment to Ms. Olson to be conveyed to her client
Page 5 of 17 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
2 April 2007
that the time to make changes of this caliber would have been well prior to this meeting
to eliminate people from doing a lot of preparation work and to eliminate
inconveniencing citizens that have come to the meeting to make their opinions known to
the Commission. Ms. Olson responded that she was given this item at a rather late time
period in the schedule and she understood his point.
Commissioner Merino asked Ms. Olson if she was an attorney or an architect. Ms. Olson
responded, "No, I'm a Consultant."
Commissioner Steiner asked for a motion. No motion was forthcoming which caused
Commissioner Steiner to ask Mr. Sheatz if there was any advantage or disadvantage
associated with proceeding with the item. Mr. Sheatz stated that since the Conditional
Use Permit would still be required for the Type 47 license for the bonafide eating
establishment, it may be worthwhile to take input from the public that have taken the time
to show up (some on more than one occasion). Mr. Sheatz elaborated that the public
testimony may be beneficial for Staff, the Commission and the applicant. The discussion
ensued on a methodology for going forward and public input was provided as follows:
Eddie Sheldrake. address on file stated:
. He was really disgusted.
. He has owned Polly's Pies for the last 35 years.
. The City of Orange has been very good to them.
. Based on what he learned from the Planning Staff Report he read he felt it would be
very bad for their senior customers to have that type of operation next door.
. He felt it would cause tremendous parking problems.
. He is not opposed to having a legitimate restaurant at the location that would not create
problems.
. If the application stands as originally presented he recommends denial.
Siobhan Byrne. address on file stated:
. She appreciated the Commission opening the floor to hear their comments.
. She is frustrated as she had made two trips to be able to address the issue.
. She is the owner of the property occupied by Village Patio.
. Village Patio has been there quite some time running a quiet business that is fairly
successful and provides the community a service.
. She was taken aback as she feels she is now addressing a different issue than she
originally came prepared to discuss.
. She sent a letter dated February 21 st and as a neighbor directly adjacent to the property
they are not dissimilar to Polly's Pies in that they don't want a disruptive business next
door.
. Spoon's was a very good business because it was a family oriented business and ifthere
was an issue with parking it was dealt with amongst the tenants.
. With the applicants proposed withdrawal of the dance floor she still had a few concerns:
(1) She did a quick calculation and believes they are still short of parking spaces
(estimated 7-10 spaces or more, if they put a restaurant in). As a developer they
must protect the parking, it is a very important thing.
(2) Inebriated customers,
(3) Higher liability insurances,
Page 6 of 17 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
2 April 2007
(4) Crime.
. She would still request that based on a Type 47 license that the Commission deny the
request.
Ms. Olson stated she appreciated the comments and concerns expressed by the citizens
and reiterated that they do want to be a good community neighbor and be given the
chance to operate a business. They want to offer the community a nice relaxing
atmosphere to enjoy and have a restaurant in.
Commissioner Steiner asked Mr. Sheatz if there was any prejudice attached if the
Commission were to proceed with the entirety of the item per the agenda. Mr. Sheatz
responded that after meeting off-line with Planning Staff he learned that the location has
not had a business operating for quite some time so it has therefore lost its legal non-
conforming status which means it will have to comply with current Code. If the
Commission were to deny the packet in front of them, the prejudice to the applicant is
they would have to wait six months to resubmit. Since the applicant's representative has
stated they want to make significant modifications to the project, it was recommended
they be given the opportunity to resubmit.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he thought the application was poorly done and was
riddled with inconsistencies. For a number of reasons Commissioner Whitaker stated he
would not vote to approve the dance floor, the parking variance and the DJ music so he
would take action to deny all requests except the Type 47 application which he would
vote to continue to see if an acceptable application would be resubmitted.
Commissioner Bonina stated his opinion was the entire item should be continued to a
date uncertain to give all involved parties an opportunity to resubmit a significantly
revised application to the Commission.
Commissioner Merino asked Mr. Sheatz what would preclude the applicant from
continually amending the application. Mr. Sheatz responded that other than their
credibility there would be nothing.
Recognizing the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, Commissioner Bonina
made a motion to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 2604-06, Conditional Use Permit
No. 2634-07, and Variance No. 2166-07 to a date uncertain as the applicant's
representative requested the application not be considered as presented.
Commissioner Steiner stated he agreed with Commissioner Merino and commented that
the application as presented epitomizes sloppy procedural process. Commissioner
Steiner offered a second to the motion with the strongest form of caution to the applicant
that their credibility is at risk and informing the applicant's representative that the
Commission has limited patience as it relates to applicants not exercising responsible
business practices.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Steiner, Whitaker
Commissioner Merino
Page 7 of 17 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
2 April 2007
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
None
Commissioner Imboden
MOTION CARRIED.
After the vote a member of the public asked if they would be notified of the next hearing
on this item. Commissioner Steiner offered assurances that anyone who was notified
previously would be notified again when a date was set for the new hearing.
(6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2607-06, DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE NO. 4132-06; AND MINOR SITE PLAN NO. 0458-06 - ROYAL
STREET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC.
A proposal to allow co-location of 6 new panel antennas and one 2-diameter parabolic
antenna on a SCE lattice tower. The proposal includes installation of four new
equipment cabinets and power/telephone panels in a new chain link fence enclosure.
LOCATION: End of cul-de-sac at Shadow Ridge Lane (in SCE easement).
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303
(Negligible expansion of an existing public utility).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 16-07 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2607-06.
Associate Planner Doris Nguyen provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Commissioner Merino asked Ms. Nguyen if SCE would permit enhancement of any
existing landscaping. Ms. Nguyen responded, "No, I believe they would consider that
new landscaping." Commissioner Merino stated if SCE is being quoted as the reason for
prohibiting enhancements he would like that clearly delineated in subsequent
correspondence from them.
Commissioner Bonina asked Ms. Nguyen if SCE explained to her the reason why they
don't permit landscaping. Ms. Nguyen responded they did not explain to her but she
believes they did to the applicant.
The applicant's representative Laura Bishop stated:
. SCE submitted the letter because they do not allow landscaping underneath their
towers.
. They have a policy where they come in and clear brush regularly.
. This has to do with the strange qualities of electricity and the high current power lines.
. The power can arc and they don't want landscaping as it could create a fire hazard.
. The SCE towers are subject to burning.
. SCE towers can melt under high heat conditions.
Page 8 of 17 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
2 April 2007
. There are several towers where there are bushes (examples can be found in Irvine) but
after it gets to a certain height SCE will come through and wipe it out.
. There is an existing carrier on the tower (she believes it is Nextel) and they will be
going below their antennas.
. Landscaping really wouldn't be required at this location to screen the equipment as it's
not that visible.
. SCE' s easement runs through in an east/west fashion and there is residential to the
north/south; however, to the north there is a lot of mature landscaping.
. The residents don't look down into the tower site.
. The properties to the south are at a lower level.
. The cabinets can be painted a dull color to blend in with the landscaping.
Commissioner Merino asked Ms. Bishop to verify the antenna location on the photograph
provided and pointed out there is landscaping at the bottom of the tower. Ms. Bishop
responded there are existing shrubs that will be maintained; however, anything near the
tower will be mowed down. Commissioner Merino asked why SCE's policy as explained
is inconsistent with the photographs provided. Ms. Bishop responded it is not
inconsistent because she had explained they will let shrubs grow to a certain height
before they come in and mow them down. Commissioner Merino asked if the
Commission wanted to require that SCE allow the same height of vegetation for the
Orange installations if that would be an issue. Ms. Bishop responded that it is not a
height issue; SCE maintains a policy of no landscaping and in the case of the photograph,
they had just not been to the site recently for maintenance. Cornmissioner Merino stated
that henceforth he wanted to see the actual SCE policy (not just a letter) with each
subsequent Royal Street Cornmunications application that has any exclusion based on
SCE policy. Ms. Bishop responded she didn't know if they have written policy but she
would request a written document and submit it with any of her applications in the future.
No public comment was provided on this item.
Commissioner Merino stated this applicant has brought forth two applications recently
that have SCE exclusions so henceforth he would like to have the SCE policy referenced
included in their packages for review.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he thought it was an appropriate application and if the cell
phone providers could attach to an existing tower rather than creating a new one in town
he would probably not deny the application based on a third party landlord's
requirements.
Commissioner Bonina asked Ms. Bishop what the relationship is between SCE and Royal
Street Comrnunications. Ms. Bishop confirmed the tower was owned by SCE and Royal
Street is leasing space for the opportunity to put their antennas on. Commissioner Bonina
asked if there are occasions where SCE leases the ground and the carrier erects the tower.
Ms. Bishop responded, "Not on a high tension power line easement because SCE has the
easements allotted for future lines; but, they do have substation property where their
substation is fully developed and they have ended up with some extra space. At that
point in time they will lease space to carriers for a full pine tree, a monopine or a full
palm tree. SCE does not allow sub-leasing on their own property. The reason behind it
Page 9 of 17 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
2 April 2007
has to do with liability issues." Ms. Bishop stated she would request a policy letter which
will answer some ofthe Commissions questions.
Commissioner Merino asked Ms. Bishop if SCE could come in and add as many carriers
on to the existing high power line as they wanted. Ms. Bishop responded, "If it was tall
enough and structurally capable of doing that; however, typically you usually can't get
more than two carriers per tower. The carriers want to be as high as possible and there is
already one carrier currently and Royal Street will be the second."
Recognizing that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, Commissioner
Whitaker made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2607-06, Design
Review Cornmittee No. 4132-06; and Minor Site Plan No. 0458-06.
SECOND:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioner Bonina stated that he hoped in the future the City was able to realize some
sort of benefit on these type of SCE tower applications as the Commission continually
provides approvals for these which provides additional revenue for SCE; however, in his
opinion he doesn't see any huge benefit for the City in moving forward on these
transactions. He would hope that at some point the City and SCE could get together,
have a discussion and understand how they could be made more aesthetically pleasing.
Assistant Planning Director Ed Knight noted there were some minor changes submitted
to the Resolution just prior to the meeting and he asked if the rnotion included those
changes. Commissioner Whitaker acknowledged that his motion did include those
changes.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Steiner, Merino, Whitaker
None
None
Commissioner Imboden
MOTION CARRIED.
(7) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2616-06 - PAMPERED PETS DAY
SPA.
A proposal to operate a kennel (boarding facility) in association with an existing dog and
cat grooming/retail facility, upon property zoned C-l (Limited Business).
LOCATION: The site is located at 2508 East Chapman Avenue.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1
- Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 12-07 approving Conditional
Page 10 of 17 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
2 April 2007
Use Permit No. 2616-06.
Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Commissioner Bonina asked Ms. Thakur to confirm the hours of operation are Monday
through Saturday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and that therefore there is no human contact with the
animals from 6 p.m. Saturday until Monday morning. Ms. Thakur responded the OMC
requires that an employee is present at all times of the day so even though the normal
business hours for retail or the boutique are 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., in the event there is an
animal there using the kennel facilities then an employee would need to be present. Ms.
Thakur referred to Condition 4.
The applicant, Holly Cossavella stated:
. They arrive on Sunday at approximately 6:30 a.m. and leave around 8:30 a.m.
. The Sunday pick up times are 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
. They are there every 4 hours to take the animals for walks and give them snacks.
. Their runs are perforated so when the animals urinate or have a bowel movement it rolls
to the back and there are floor sinks so everything gets flushed down to the sewer.
. They are usually out of there by 7:30 p.m. or 8 p.m.
. She has cameras in the store so she can see and hear what goes on during the day and at
night, if boarding. She can even see the parking lot.
Commissioner Whitaker asked Ms. Cossavella if she realized that the Orange Municipal
Code requires that someone be on the premises at all times of the day and whether the
Code is applicable in today's world or not, she will have to comply with the Condition of
the Code the way it is written. Ms. Cossavella responded that she called about 15
veterinarian clinics (all within a 5 mile radius of her shop) and none of them have anyone
that stays overnight or gives medication through the night. She asked them further, what
happens if a dog dies, since many of them are hospitals. The response was it was maybe
their time; there is nothing we can do. She stated further she doesn't understand why she
would have to have someone there to operate a kennel when a hospital that boards sick
animals would be exempt. Commissioner Whitaker responded that all the Planning
Commission can do is approve a land use that is in compliance with the Code and that the
City Council is the body that would make any changes to the Code. He asked Ms.
Cossavella if she understood that until such time as the Code is changed, that she would
have to comply.
Commissioner Bonina asked Mr. Sheatz if the Condition in the Code could be modified
through language in the Conditional Use Permit. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz
responded negatively; the Commission could not change the Zoning Code through the
Conditional Use Permit, the entitlement that is being granted is for a kennel and the
Commission has no discretion over the Condition as written in the Code; they would
either approve the entitlement or not.
Commissioner Merino asked if there was another designation that would be of greater
benefit for the applicant that would resolve this issue. Mr. Sheatz stated he would have to
look to Plauning as this was brought along with the ancillary type use that exists there
Page 11 of 17 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
2 April 2007
now.
Commissioner Steiner asked Mr. Sheatz if due to the vagueness of the statutory language
if the applicants understanding was the facility was to be manned during all hours of the
business day what his analysis of that would be. Mr. Sheatz responded that she would
probably have an argument that it was attended. Commissioner Steiner added that the
camera is a good attendant.
Public input was provided as follows.
Marv Dargatz. address on file stated:
. She had a letter from a neighbor that was unable to attend as she has three small
children.
. She lives on the first street that you encounter after the apartments. They are the street
that has the grass.
. During the first couple of months this business was opened the dogs were walked in
their neighborhood and used their grass to be relieved. She complained and she credited
the owner as she spoke with her employees and now they don't see as many dog walks
into their neighborhood.
. She is part of the group that was fighting the dog park approval.
. The dog park is closed on Wednesday so she would like to know where the dogs are
going to be walked on Wednesday.
. The Ralphs Center does not have grass, it has shrubbery and the apartments have
shrubbery.
. Is the applicant going to be permitted to walk the dogs and use the black top in the
shopping area which won't be great for the neighborhood in general.
. Usually a kennel has a dog run and she doesn't think this business has one.
. She thinks the shop operated as a day spa is fine; however, she would be opposed to
allowing a kennel.
. She doesn't see the employees always going to the dog park. She frequently sees them
in the shopping center.
. Will there be any stipulations as to where the dogs can be walked?
. Is there a Condition on what this owner must do to alleviate any dogs from going to the
bathroom in the shrubbery in the surrounding neighborhoods.
. As a neighbor she would like to make sure there are some Conditions so that dogs are
not walked in her neighborhood.
. The applicant did a good job of responding to their previous complaints.
Maureen Benner. address on file stated:
. She has been a 15 year resident of Orange.
. She is a long time customer of Pampered Pet Day Spa.
. She knows Holly is very conscientious.
. Holly is very active in the community.
. This is where she goes for all her pets needs: grooming, supplies, etc.
. She thinks it is a real plus that day care is offered.
. She doesn't know of any other facility in Orange that offers all of these amenities.
. To have her dog boarded now she has to go out of town, over by the airport.
. It will be a benefit to the City of Orange to offer this type offacility.
Page 12 of 17 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
2 April 2007
. She likes that this is a small business as the animals get more individualized care.
. This is a very clean environment.
. She thinks it is a plus that it's located close to the dog park as the dogs can get some
exercIse.
. The City of Orange is very lucky to have a business like this.
. She would like to see the permit approved.
Ms. Cossavella stated the dog park is closed on Wednesday but it only takes up one half
of the area; there is an additional fenced in area (approximately 1-1/2 acre parcel) that
they use. Wednesday is the only day the dogs can't be let loose. If it rains they stay
inside and are picked up after.
Commissioner Merino asked if the animals are walked on public property if they are
cleaned up after. Ms. Cossavella responded affirmatively and added that she provides
blue bags at no charge for her customers to take in case their animals were to use the
sidewalk.
Commissioner Whitaker asked Ms. Cossavella if she had seen the Draft Resolution with
the Conditions. He quoted Condition #6 and stated that any violation of this could result
in revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Cossavella responded that she
understood. Ms. Cossavella stated there are five of them that walk the dogs and they
avoid the public areas.
Commissioner Bonina stated he wanted to reinforce that if the application is approved as
written, there is a requirement that the facility is staffed seven days a week. Ms.
Cossavella responded, "right".
Recognizing that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Commissioner Merino made a motion to Adopt
Resolution No. PC 12-07 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2616-06.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he would like to offer a second; however, he asked the
maker of the motion to reword Condition #4 to state: "At all times the applicant shall
comply with the Orange Municipal Code with respect to kennel operations." He
explained that this would give the applicant flexibility in the event the City Council
modifies the Code to make it more consistent with how they treat veterinarian hospitals
or other animal storage facilities.
Commissioner Merino stated he would be happy to modify the motion as suggested.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Whitaker
Commissioners Bonina, Steiner, Merino, Whitaker
None
None
Commissioner Imboden
MOTION CARRIED.
Page 13 of 17 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
2 April 2007
(8) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2639-07; DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE NO. 4193-07; AND MINOR SITE PLAN NO. 0487-07 - ROYAL
STREET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC.
A proposal to install six panel antennas on existing SCE tower, four equipment cabinets
mounted on a steel platform under tower, power and telecom box, GPS antenna and
microwave antenna.
LOCATION: Vacant land (Northeast corner of East Riverdale Avenue and North
Orange Olive Road)
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provlSlons of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303
(Negligible expansion of an existing public utility).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 15-07 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2639-07.
Associate Planner Doris Nguyen provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Commissioner Bonina asked how close the tower is to the public street. Ms. Nguyen
responded she wasn't sure of the exact measurement; it was setback but still quite close.
Commissioner Bonina asked if there are any unique requirements in terms of enhanced
landscaping or a manmade barrier if a tower is that close to the street and railroad. Ms.
Nguyen responded that other than for maintenance there should be no pedestrian access
to the site.
The applicant's representative, Trisha Ortega stated:
. She wished to thank Staff for all their hard work on the project.
. They have read Staffs report and they will comply with all Conditions of Approval set
forth in the report.
. She has heeded all the Commissioners commentary about the Royal Street application
heard earlier. She will keep the comments in mind for future applications in the City of
Orange.
. She did not have an exact measurement for the distance between the sidewalk and the
antennas but according to the site plans (Page A-I) it is between 80'-100' from the public
right of way.
No public comment was provided on this item.
Commissioner Merino stated that this site is screaming for landscaping on the side that is
visual from the street and he asked the applicant to push SCE for landscaping and
screemng.
Page 14 of 17 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
2 April 2007
Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to Adopt
Resolution No. PC 15-07 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2639-07 hoping that
after the Commission's comments SCE doesn't clear cut the brush around the site.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Steiner, Merino, Whitaker
None
None
Commissioner Imboden
MOTION CARRIED.
(9) ORDINANCE NO. 7-07 AMENDING CHAPTER 17.04 OF TITLE 17 OF
THE ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE.
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Chapter 17.04 of Title
17 of the Orange Municipal Code defining single-family and duplex residential units.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5
- Exemption-Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 18-07, recommend that City
Council adopt Ordinance No. 7-07.
Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz provided an overview of this item consistent with
the Staff Report which he had also provided and stated:
. He had done some research into the section of the Code that addresses the accessory
secondary units and how those are occupied and defined.
. A tie in between the use of the secondary unit into the use of the primary residence was
suggested.
. He found a case that came out of Santa Monica in 2001 where they tried to do
something very, very similar and the court struck it down stating you could not limit how
you define those users of the secondary dwelling units.
. Secondary dwelling units are supposed to be allowed to stand on their own and be
analyzed in the same manner as you would a single family residence.
. By virtue of state law you are allowed to limit the size and placement issues only.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if the decision was a California Supreme Court or
Appellant Court decision. Ms. Sheatz responded it came out of the Second District; he
did not find any California Supreme Court decision.
Mr. Sheatz encouraged the Commission to take action on this item so it can go before the
City Council. Furthermore, he offered assurances that his offices would do further
research to see if other cities have adopted or challenged similar proposals. He will then
Page 15 of 17 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
2 April 2007
highlight the results in the Staff Report that goes to the City Council.
Commissioner Bonina stated he was thrilled this was being put III front of the
Commission as he thought it would solve some issues.
Commissioner Bonina stated the definition of single family residence as written would
include no more than one kitchen and he has seen homes that have multiple kitchens (a
kitchen outside the home in the back and if it's a large home there could be a secondary
kitchen in the basement or recreation room). He suggested removal of that reference so it
doesn't eliminate some ofthose style homes. Mr. Sheatz responded with the definition of
a kitchen as stated in the OMC and added that in his opinion it would have to be the
totality of it all, looking at it as a whole, not just a component of it. Commissioner
Bonina stated he still could see several buildings being put at jeopardy. Mr. Sheatz
agreed and stated they could take another look at it.
Commissioner Bonina asked if there was going to be proactive enforcement and how
would it be enforced. Mr. Sheatz responded this was not the enforcement tool; however,
it would assist with enforcement, especially as the companion ordinance with the
boarding house ordinance.
Public input was provided as follows:
Tom Loughrey. address on file stated:
. He is President of Old Towne Preservation Association.
. He is very much in favor of anything that assists the boarding house ordinance and
Code Enforcement in making sure the rules and regulations are followed to the letter.
. The idea of pursing this with a focus on the use as the definition versus whether it has a
kitchen and outdoor kitchen will help in the enforcement issue.
. They are very much in favor of a bright line definition that will assist City Staff, City
Council and future City Councils in evaluating these things and assist homeowners and
people who want to start these kinds of things with knowing exactly what they can and
cannot do.
. Their position is very much in favor of this ordinance moving forward.
Commissioner Merino stated he appreciated the point Mr. Loughrey was making.
Commissioner Steiner stated he agreed with Mr. Loughrey and Commissioner Merino
and commended the City Attorney's office as the thinks there are too many loopholes the
way it is now; it is too easy to slip and slide ones way through the ordinance. He added
that it was very well grafted and well done.
Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Commissioner Steiner made a motion to Adopt
Resolution No. PC 18-07, recommending that City Council adopt Ordinance No. 7-07.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioner Whitaker
Commissioners Bonina, Steiner, Merino, Whitaker
None
Page 16 of 17 Pages
.
Planning Commission Minutes
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
None
Commissioner Imboden
2 April 2007
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Steiner made a motion to adjourn to the City
Council study session on the CIP budget on April 3, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. in the Weimer
Room.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioners Bonina, Merino, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
Commissioner Imboden
MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 9:20 p.m.
Page 17 of 17 Pages