2007 - April 16
~5co.~.J3
FINAL Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
16 April 2007
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino and Steiner
Commissioner Whitaker
STAFF
PRESENT:
Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Mari Burke, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session:
(1) FINDINGS OF RESEARCH REGARDING STEALTH CO-LOCATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
On February 2 I, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a study session regarding the
City's Zoning Ordinance provisions related to wireless communication facilities. The
Commission directed staff to research requirements in surrounding jurisdictions to
determine how Orange requirements and procedures compare with those of other cities.
Staff presented those findings to the Planning Commission at this Administrative Session.
INRE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
INRE:
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN:
(2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2565-05 & DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE NO. 4054-05 - TOYOTA OF ORANGE EXPANSION
A proposal 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: 1485 North Tustin Street.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The applicant has submitted a request to withdraw the
subject application. The Commission should accept by minute action the withdraw
request, acknowledging that said acceptance does not preclude a similar application from
being considered.
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
Commissioner Bonina made a motion to withdraw Conditional Use Permit No. 2565-05
& Design Review Committee No. 4054-05.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner
None
None
Commissioner Whitaker
MOTION CARRIED.
(3) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-248, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
NO. 407-05 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1775-06 - WIMBLETON
COURT (JOHN C. NGUYEN).
A proposal to subdivide a 1.57-acre parcel into four parcels for the future construction of
4 single-family dwellings with access from Wimbleton Road (a private street) to Old
Chapman Road (a public street). This item was continued from the December 4, 2006,
January 15, 2007, February 5,2007, March 5, 2007, and March 19,2007 meetings
LOCATION: The site is located at the north side ofWimbleton Court and 200 feet east
of Old Chapman Road.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The applicant has requested a continuance to May 7,
2007.
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to continue Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-248,
Minor Site Plan Review No. 407-05 and Negative Declaration No. 1775-06.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner
None
None
Commissioner Whitaker
MOTIpN CARRIED.
(4) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17088-06, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
NO. 451-06, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4120-06, AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 1781-06 - ROSEWALK.
A proposal to demolish 40 existing one-bedroom apartment units (Orange Villa Homes)
and construct 47 detached town homes. Continued from the March 19, 2007 meeting.
Page 2 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
LOCATION: The site is located at 715-793 North Lemon Street.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The applicant has requested a continuance to May 21,
2007.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to continue Tentative Tract Map No. 17088-06,
Major Site Plan Review No. 451-06, Design Review Committee No. 4120-06, and
Negative Declaration No. 1781-06.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner
None
None
Commissioner Whitaker
MOTION CARRIED.
IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR:
(5) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
MARCH 19,2007.
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 19, 2007
meeting as written.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner
None
None
Commissioner Whitaker
MOTION CARRIED.
(6) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING - SEVEN YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) - FISCAL YEAR 2007- 2008 THROUGH
2013-2014.
Review of Capital Improvement Program for fiscal Year 2007-2008 through 2013-2014
to determine program conformance with the City's General Plan, as required by State
Law.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Find that the projects identified within the proposed
Seven Year Capital Improvement Program are consistent with the City's General Plan
Policy.
Page 3 of22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
Commissioner Bonina made a motion to approve the General Plan Conformity Finding.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner
None
None
Commissioner Whitaker
MOTION CARRIED.
INRE:
CONTINUED HEARINGS:
(7) MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 498-06, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2605-06, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4127-06, NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 1787-06, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO.
136-06 - 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: Adopt Resolution No. 04-07 approving Conditional Use
Permit No. 2605-06, Design Review Committee No. 4127-06, Negative Declaration No.
1787-06 and Administrative Adjustment No. 136-06 to allow the demolition of three non-
contributing buildings and construct a single family residence and accessory unit over a
garage.
Senior Planner Historic Preservation, Dan Ryan provided a project overview consistent
with the Staff Report.
Commissioner Merino noted that in the Negative Declaration under the checklist of
Environment Impact issues there was one that jumps out that has to do with the design
(Item C, Aesthetics) and he asked Mr. Ryan if the fact that it is marked "Less than
Significant Impact" is because ofthe issue of the roof heights and its impact on the block.
Mr. Ryan responded affirmatively and added that the Negative Declaration looked more
directly at the cumulative impact and they felt that the project fit within the block group.
He added that it only increased the FAR of the block an average from .31 to .32.
Commissioner Merino stated "but it reached a higher threshold than no impact, correct"?
Mr. Ryan responded affirmatively and stated that Staff felt the changes requested by the
Design Review Committee were accomplished.
Page 4 of22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
Chair Imboden asked what was driving the need for the Administrative Adjustment. Mr.
Ryan responded that there was some assumption at the beginning that the alley in fact
was 15' but it was determined later that it was only 14' and a 25' backup is required,
even with a 10' setback off the alley. The minor adjustment of l' is the reason for the
Administrative Adjustment.
Chair Imboden asked if they were at the minimum separation of structures or if the
garage was moved could they eliminate the need for the Administrative Adjustment. Mr.
Ryan responded they were also looking at the eave overhangs between the two structures
and getting any closer would cause it to look too close.
Due to the similarity in designs, Chair Imboden asked how the height of this proposed
residence compares to the newly constructed residence at 365 No. Harwood. Mr. Ryan
responded they had compared the two projects and he provided the following
information:
Pro' ect lot size
1st floor - main residence
2nd floor
A artment
Gara e
TOTAL area (all
structures
FAR
Hei t
From ade to finished floor
Finished floor to rid e
Cia on Residence
6,275 s . ft.
1,349 s . ft.
770 s . ft.
6l9s . ft.
575 s . ft.
365 No. Harwood Residence
7,155 s . ft.
1,721 s . ft.
976 s . ft
557 s . ft.
699 s . ft.
3,313 s . ft.
.528
25'
2'6~'
22'7"
3,952 s . ft.
.55
29'
3'
26'
Commissioner Merino asked had the project not been designed with l' less if it would
have had "Significant Impact" and therefore would require mitigation. Mr. Ryan
responded he believed the l' difference would not make an impact based on the height
study of other buildings on the block and advised the applicant changed the roof pitch at
the angle of the porch which reduced the appearance of massing.
Commissioner Merino asked Mr. Ryan if l' really made a change in the overall design of
the project on the block from being categorized as "Significant Impact" to now being
categorized as "Less than Significant". Mr. Ryan responded it was the opinion of the
Design Review Committee and Staffthat it did make the difference.
Chair Imboden asked for an explanation of how the original request of a 2' -3' reduction
by the Design Review Committee came back with only ai' reduction and the Committee
ultimately approved it. Mr. Ryan responded there was quite a bit of discussion as to
where the ridge would be located, whether there should be a change in pitch between the
front and back roof, quite a bit of discussion on how to change the floor plan and what
changes the applicant wanted to make that would work with that. There was a very
strong feeling that the changes, even though they seem minor as far as ai' reduction, did
make quite a bit of difference in the elevation as viewed from the street. In addition, the
l' also changed the window configuration on the attic because you had to reduce things
Page 5 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
as well so the overall appearance changed as well.
Commissioner Bonina asked what was on the other side of the 14' wide alley. Mr. Ryan
responded he wasn't sure but he believed there was another garage that is setback from
the property line.
Craig Clayton stated:
o They raised their family in Huntington Beach.
o They are very fond of the City of Orange; the charm and everything about it.
o They have a lot of close friends in Orange; their daughter went to Chapman University.
o His wife taught at the law school for a while.
o They want to build a home here.
o They want their grandkids to come here.
o He thinks they will be an asset to the community.
o The project is historical.
o They looked for approximately 2 years to find a place to restore but that didn't work
out.
Rose Clayton stated:
o The studio apartment over the garage in the back is strictly for their use. It is not a
rental in any way.
o Craig has his own business and when she retires she will have her own business
(consulting type) that she will run from the home also.
o If family comes to stay it will be used but it was never intended to become a rental.
Commissioner Bonina asked the Clayton's if they currently lived at the project site. Mr.
Clayton responded, "No." Mrs. Clayton added they are living in a rental right around the
corner.
Commissioner Bonina asked the Clayton's the same question as he had asked Mr. Ryan,
"What's directly behind the house on the other side of the alley?" Mrs. Clayton
responded she thought it was a block wall or a wood fence and Mr. Clayton stated he
didn't know, he would have to go look.
Jon Califf introduced himself as the project designer and stated:
o His associate that made the presentation to the Design Review Committee could not be
at the Planning Commission meeting so he wanted to expand a little bit on what Dan had
said of the process oflowering the roof.
o They got the feedback that the Committee wanted to see what could be done to drop the
roofifpossible 2'.3'.
o The biggest issue was what that would do to the second floor plan.
o They weren't trying to hit any magic number but get as low as they could and still have
the closets that are tucked under that portion of the roof be usable without trying to
expand the dormer area.
o They also felt if they could take some of the room out by lowering the roof over the
porch which is a common feature of Craftsman homes, it would push the ridge back
further from the street as well as reduce the mass of that portion of the roof that faces the
street.
Page 6 of22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
. In pushing everything down as much as they could they hit the l' reduction.
. They felt confident they could keep the distance between the finished floor and the
grade at 30" or less and they feel they could even bring in another 6" just by lowering the
basement somewhat. This would allow you to still keep the desired effect of a Craftsman
that you have a couple of steps up from the street to the porch.
Commissioner Bonina asked Mr. Califf if with respect to the line of sight, if the wood
fence from the back of the garage to the alley is 6' and ifit is fairly common that you see
a 6' high fence in such a narrow alley. Mr. Califf responded that a lot of the parking
adjacent to the alley immediately abuts the alley. It is a little unusual to have the rental
house parking separate from the residential unit; that was done to provide some security
since it opens up into the back yard. They could pull it back if necessary. It may be that
they will chose to not put a fence there at all. Mr. Califf concluded stating it was a good
concern and one that they will certainly take another look at. He added that perhaps they
could cut the corner as well, which would provide a sight triangle without messing with
the gate too much.
Commissioner Bonina stated that the alley is so narrow that he is concerned with a
reduction in the back up ability. Commissioner Bonina asked if there was any
opportunity to take I' off the building. Mr. Califf responded it is deeper than the
minimum for the garage and when the width ofthe alley came up it was admittedly pretty
far down the road and they felt that if possible they would prefer not to move it. He
clarified that it is possible and that it was also possible to shrink the garage.
Commissioner Bonina stated the auto gates further aggravate the situation and potentially
impact the line of sight. Mr. Califf responded that they had considered pulling the gate
back further because the parking is considerably further inside the gate. He also offered
that they could still do that and have it be closer to where the parking space is thus leave
more maneuvenng area open.
Commissioner Bonina asked if the perimeter walls were block walls. Mr. Califf
responded there is an existing block wall to the north and a fence to the south though he
could not recall the material.
Commissioner Bonina asked how the 20' setback was measured. Mr. Califf responded it
was to the pilasters (the porch pillars); the wing walls and the steps are within the
setback.
Chair Imboden asked if the 11' auto gates are manually operated. Mr. Califf responded
affirmatively.
Commissioner Merino complimented Mr. Califf and the applicant on having a beautifully
designed project that will certainly compliment (if not enhance) the block.
Commissioner Merino asked what the roof pitch is. Mr. Califf responded he believed it
was 7 & 12. Commissioner Merino stated that he thought it was within the
Commission's responsibility to take a look at the CEQA requirements and make a
determination on that. He thought it was clear in reading the issues brought up in the
Staff Review and Design Review Committee meetings that potentially there may be a
Page 7 of22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
mildly "Significant Impact" by the height of the project on the block. He acknowledged
they made an effort to drop the pitch to do a little bit to bring it down; however, there are
other ways to still keep the floor plan relatively intact and drop the pitch. He stated if
there are citizens that come up and say there are significant impacts on the block based on
the pitch of the roof, he would want to know if there are further opportunities in the
project to re-address the pitch. Mr. Califf responded that the CEQA determination was
made prior to the original Design Review Committee meeting where the pitch was
discussed and ultimately dropped. It was not done in response to anything in the CEQA
determination; it was merely in response to the comments from the Design Review
Committee meeting. He elaborated that what they originally set out to do in terms of
height was they wanted to come in at or below the Craftsman home across the street
because that is the closest representative of that style. Once they got the survey they
learned the home across the street was 2' higher. They could in fact lower the pitch but
to keep the head height and keep the rooms usable and similar to what they have they
would have to raise the front of the roof a little bit. Ultimately they decided they would
achieve more bang for the buck in terms of perception from the street by lowering the
pitch over the porch and pushing the ridge back 2' from where it was originally.
Commissioner Merino summarized by stating that in hearing the concerns at the Design
Review Committee meeting, that l' was the best they could do and still meet the
applicant's requirements. Mr. Califf agreed and added that they were also asked to keep
the ground to the finished floor at a maximum of 30" and they felt confident they could
keep that well under that threshold.
Chair Imboden asked if the square footage of the second story included the entire floor
area or only those areas 7' and higher. Mr. Califf responded they actually went to 5' as
they figured that was about the minimum usability.
Commissioner Bonina asked if there was an opportunity to shift the parking area to the
south and further into the lot allowing for some level of relief off the alleyway for the
auto gates. Mr. Califf responded they could move the gates to be in alignment with the
garage and have them open out (an example of what could be accomplished was
pinpointed on the drawings for the Commission). This would mean there would be a full
10' for maneuvering and the sight line would be unobstructed.
Public input was provided as follows:
Jim Blalock. address on file stated:
. He and his wife bought their home about 30 years ago.
. He is an English Professor at Chapman University and has been there for about 15
years.
. The Clayton's are old friends of his family.
. They are going to make great neighbors.
. Craig is a graphic artist and a master craftsman.
. In his home in Huntington Beach he built his own kitchen cabinets and they are
gorgeous.
. He himself was a finish carpenter and built mission furniture for a while because he is
very dedicated to Craftsman architecture.
Page 8 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
. Craig is unbelievably good.
. The house they build will be a showcase.
Janet Crenshaw. address on file stated:
. She feels like they spent the whole last year studying and speaking with various
interested parties and panels regarding this project.
. Both the architect and the applicants are planning an artful infill reflective of the
neighborhood.
. She certainly will not miss the existing stucco box rentals on the property; however, the
Design Review Committee has looked at the project twice.
. The first time the Design Review Committee made statements with regard to what they
considered "too massive a project for the neighborhood".
. The FAR and the lot exceeds the average on this street of modest, historic homes and
therefore raises the overall FAR on the whole block.
. They were asked to bring down the roof of the two story front house by 3' and only
came down l' on the return visit.
. Much time and money was spent by the City concerning FAR, density, building height
and bulk and mass when they did the Grand Street R-l study which was to be a
preliminary study regarding this zoning change for the entire district.
. Now there is another problem project and the City has failed to put any safeguards in
place.
. A similar project in the northwest quadrant near her home was planned, brought
forward, approved and built and much to their consternation it exhibits such bulk and
mass that many in Old Towne refer to it as "Hotel California".
. Please spare us of another example of "Hotel California".
Jeff Frankel. OTPA stated:
. They do appreciate that the applicant and the architect invited them to meet for a
preliminary review of the project prior to the Design Review Committee hearing.
. They expressed the same concerns at that meeting that they currently have with the
project.
. The applicant said they would be willing to reduce the size of the project and they were
hoping they would reduce it to an acceptable size.
. They still feel that the project has not been mitigated to "Insignificant Impact" on the
block.
. They have no problems with the general design; their issues revolve around the bulk
and mass of the project.
. At the initial DRC review the DRC requested that the applicant reduce the bulk and
mass and fAR suggesting they bring the height down by 2-1/2' - 3' .
. The applicant came back with a revised plan that brought the height down by l' and
reduced the FAR from .53 to .528, a very insignificant reduction.
. The applicant made other design changes that would possibly reduce the appearance of
the existing bulk and mass of the project but it is yet to be seen.
. They hope that the architect being a DRC member would consider his fellow members
direction as he himself would appreciate that other applicants would do the same with his
recommendations.
. This project will be the second tallest on the block and is being compared with the
tallest which is an inappropriate backyard infill project.
Page 9 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
. New infill projects need to be compared to appropriate projects, not unsympathetic
backyard units.
. The DRC criticized this project at its first meeting as to the bulk and mass to the point
where one member compared this project to a similarly designed DRC approved project
on Harwood Street and said he now wished he had not voted in favor of that particular
project.
. Even with that criticism, when the project came back with very little change, they were
disappointed to hear the DRC praise the applicant on their minor revisions.
. If the Grand Street Study Building Guidelines were implemented district wide and
included in the design standards per City Council direction, this is one more project that
would most likely not be approved as proposed.
. Among other things the Guidelines included a bulk angle calculation to limit height,
bulk, massing and FAR.
. They feel this project will stand out within the context of the existing streetscape.
Craig Clayton stated:
. The house across the street is 2'-3' higher than what they are proposing so he doesn't
see where the previous speakers are coming from whatsoever.
. They are here to make the community a better place to live.
. They think they will be a real asset to the City.
. Their house will be beautiful; he will make it beautiful.
. The discussion of mass has gone totally way too far.
Commissioner Merino asked Staff if the Grand Street Study was applicable and if it had
been implemented or if it hadn't been implemented should it have been? Assistant
Planning Director Ed Knight responded that the studies had been presented to the City
Council and the changes proposed were to be implemented through the Old Towne
Design Standards update which hasn't occurred yet.
Chair Imboden stated he thought there was some clarification necessary for the
Commissioners. He asked Mr. Knight, "When did the City Council review the Study and
Guidelines that were brought before them and send direction to City Staff to implement
them?" Mr. Ryan responded, "Approximately two years ago."
Chair Imboden asked if he could recall if the City Council gave any recommendation as
to when it should be implemented. Mr. Ryan responded that his understanding was they
wanted something done fairly quickly; however, the available Staff limited part of it and
also they were looking at the feasibility of collectively updating them with the Old
Towne Design Standards.
Commissioner Steiner asked if the Standards were already in place if Mr. Ryan would
have arrived at a different result with respect to his recommendation. Mr. Ryan
responded that based on his interpretation of the Standards possibly the dormers would be
impacted as they would be a little smaller and perhaps the roof height would have been
adjusted somewhat.
Chair Imboden and Mr. Ryan discussed how the cumulative impact was assessed. Mr.
Ryan ultimately clarified that the increase from .40 to .53 averaged out for the block only
Page 10 of22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
resulted in a .01 FAR so Staff felt that was a minor amount for a threshold. Mr. Ryan
stated that he broke out the FAR for the two stories in the back and the one story in the
front and looking at that there is a very minor difference. Chair Imboden stated his
interpretation of cumulative effect looks not only at the development of the project before
them but the potential affect if it were cumulative i.e. if you had two, three or four
projects in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Knight inteIjected that cumulative impact is the
incremental increase in the impact based on the body as a whole. It really doesn't look at
the future as other projects would look at it. He explained further that you can add a
cumulative impact to the block, the area, the surrounding, the District and the City and
not have it considered to be a cumulative impact if: (I) the area is not impacted itself
which is what Mr. Ryan was saying--that the area isn't impacted and (2) the additional
amount (being .1 FAR) does not push the impact of the area beyond the threshold of
being a "Significant Impact". In summary, cumulative doesn't really look at what you
anticipate in the future, it is your contribution to what is currently there.
Chair Imboden then asked what would be the threshold that would be unacceptable. Mr.
Knight responded he couldn't say whether .2, .3, .4 or .5 would be considered a
cumulative impact; he thought it would be based upon the analysis. Assistant City
Attorney Gary Sheatz added that to the extent that you do look at a future project for a
cumulative impact, the future project has to be reasonably foreseeable. Mr. Sheatz stated
that CEQA is telling you to take into consideration if it is imminent or reasonably
foreseeable that it will also develop at the same time, which will give you your
cumulative impacts. In conclusion Chair Imboden stated he saw the potential for more
rear second units that could drive up FAR in the block and he thought it was important
that everyone have the same understanding of the process.
Commissioner Bonina asked if there is typically a deed restriction or covenant included
covering the leasing of an accessory second unit to a third party. Mr. Sheatz responded
they cannot be restricted. Mr. Knight interjected that you would typically see those
where you have a detached structure i.e. a game room or a garage where they want to
have a toilet and Staff is told they will not be used as an accessory second unit.
As it related to visibility for backing out of the driveway, Chair Imboden asked for
clarification that the ordinance prohibits any obstructions over a certain height from the
property line. Mr. Ryan responded that was correct; the height is 42" and the rear setback
is 10'.
Commissioner Steiner asked Mr. Sheatz to what extent the Commission was to be bound
by the General Study. Mr. Sheatz responded that the Commission is not bound by it at all
at this point and he would be uncomfortable with speculation as it relates to this project.
Commissioner Bonina made a motion to adopt Resolution 04-07 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2605-06, Design Review Committee No. 4127-06, Negative Declaration
No. 1787-06 and Administrative Adjustment No. 136.06 subject to the additional
conditions:
(I) The auto gate located at the rear of the property will be moved into the property to
align with the back of the garage allowing some additional space for maneuverability
to park vehicles offthe alley.
Page 11 of22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
(2) The removal of any fencing within that area.
Commissioner Merino stated he would be offering a second to the motion but wanted to
comment that:
. Since the subject of the Grant Street Study was raised he would like to request that Mr.
Knight revisit (perhaps through City Staff) with the Council for a determination as to
whether they want to move forward with the Standards or not. If the Council's intent
were that it would not be adopted until the General Plan is adopted he would like to know
that.
. He would hope that this applicant is not the type of applicant that would present himself
or herself in opposition when someone else on the block comes forward with a project
that would change the density. He would like to see the applicant, Staff and all the
Commission be consistent in the application of all legal standards that are available
presently and in the future.
SECOND:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioner Steiner stated that he didn't even think this was close to being a CEQA
level project. He stated there was an interesting discussion about reasonable versus
reasonably foreseeable and in his opinion the test is not whether it is reasonable that there
will ever be a change on the street. The question is whether it is reasonably foreseeable
or imminent as Mr. Sheatz stated. The answer to that question in his opinion is it is not
reasonably foreseeable that there is an imminent similar change that should be considered
with respect to the cumulative impact. Furthermore his opinion was that under the
analysis offered by Mr. Sheatz, Staff correctly adjudged the cumulative impact. In
conclusion he added that this is a significant improvement to the area and any concerns
that he may have are more than alleviated by the quality of the proposed project. He
agreed with the observations made by Commissioner Bonina with respect to the proposed
alterations in the parking configuration and offered his support of the project.
Chair Imboden stated he was a little mixed on this project as there were a lot of questions
that still require answers but acknowledged the necessity to move ahead with the project.
He stated he asked the questions about the structure on Harwood because he was
concerned about the bulk and the mass of this project and added that if this project were
as large as that structure, he would not be supportive of it. He wished the direction ofthe
DRC to bring the roofline down 2-1/2'-3' would have been adhered to; however, the
slight reduction and design changes do help. He stated he thought this project was at the
threshold in terms of size and to expect people to come to Old Towne, use high quality
materials and expect them to build a 1,200-1,300 sq. ft. home is not going to make sense.
He stated he wished it didn't have the two story accessory unit in the back. He too
agreed with Commissioner Bonina regarding the backup issue and the modifications
proposed to the fencing. He concluded stating he thinks it is important for the
Commission to understand where City Council stands on the Grant Street Study.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner
None
None
Commissioner Whitaker
Page 12 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
MOTION CARRIED.
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS
(8) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2621-06 - ROYAL STREET
COMMUNICATIONS
A proposal to co-locate and operate a wireless telecommunications antenna facility on a
non-stealth existing monopole and associated equipment cabinets on a property owned by
Southern California Edison (SCE).
LOCATION: The site is located at 4725 E. Chapman Avenue
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 20-07, approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2621-06, allowing six (6) antennas (I antenna per sector with a total of 6
sectors), one (1) microwave dish and associated equipment cabinets, subject to
conditions.
Associate Planner Robert Garcia provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Commissioner Bonina asked for clarification as to why SCE was reluctant to do a stealth
installation. Mr. Garcia responded that they are concerned that during a heavy wind one
of the antenna branches could blow into one of their conductors and cause a power
outage. Commissioner Bonina stated he would be very curious to see what the
construction methodology is for the branches on a stealth pole, as he believed they were
steel or heavy metal.
Chair Imboden stated the plans show landscaping along the parking lot to the west, along
the eastern side of the property and on Chapman Avenue and he wasn't sure what type of
screening exists between this property and Pearl Street. Mr. Garcia responded there are
some trees along the Pearl Street property line similar to the way they are on Chapman
A venue.
Commissioner Merino asked Mr. Garcia if he asked the SCE representative that signed
the letter what he meant by the statement in his letter that referred to SCE's opposition to
stealth design that may result in faux branches, which may blow into conductors and
cause an outage. Mr. Garcia stated that he did not ask nor could he speculate on what his
understanding was of the meaning of the sentence. Commissioner Merino asked Mr.
Garcia if he was familiar with the construction of one of the poles and he inquired if it
seemed logical that a branch could blow off one of the poles. Chair Imboden inteIjected
that perhaps the question should be ifhe had ever previously heard of this concern being
expressed. Mr. Garcia responded, "No, I have not in my past experience."
Page 13 of22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
As the second carrier is on the pole already, Commissioner Merino asked Mr. Garcia to
interpret the next paragraph in the SCE letter: "However, any future collocation approval
would be subject to the size, elevation and # of proposed antennas for the second carrier."
Commissioner Merino pointed out that the letter did not have a signature and
Commissioner Steiner pointed out that it was addressed to the City of Orange Planning
Department in Ontario, California. Commissioner Merino stated his line of questioning
was due to the fact he was the one that had originally requested a letter to go along with
these types of installs and his request stemmed from a justifiable concern he had with a
previous Royal StreetlSCE installation. Chair Imboden inteIjected that it was a good
point but rather than asking City Staff it may be more appropriate to ask the applicant.
Commissioner Bonina asked Mr. Garcia if the City solicited the information directly
from SCE. Mr. Garcia responded affirmatively, that it was based on the comments
received by the Staff Review Committee. Commissioner Bonina asked if there was any
request of SCE for a more descriptive letter based on the Planning Commission
discussion that had taken place at the previous meeting. Mr. Garcia responded that he
had asked the applicant to try to provide more clarification with regards to SCE's policy;
however, the applicants are sub contractors that work under the Royal Street umbrella.
For that very reason Commissioner Bonina pointed out that it is prudent for the City to
solicit the information directly from SCE (including the development standards) and have
that as the bright line so everyone understands what is achievable and what limitations
may exist.
The applicant, Mr. Ryan Hammersmith stated:
. The site is commercial representing Royal Street.
. Regarding the other site and some of the confusion about SCE policy, he is vaguely
familiar with that site. He has dipped into as a result of what he expected at this meeting.
. He didn't want any confusion as part of his project is based on SCE policy.
. He has done hundreds of stealth installations and yes it does happen that faux branches
blow off the trees.
. The branches are generally connected with a lug and a bolt.
. They are a very lightweight steel.
. They do blow like any normal tree to give the effect of an actual pine tree.
. The faux needles are not steel and there is potential that they will catch wind.
. Typically they just drop right next to the pole; however, in this case the substation is so
small that if it does happen it could potentially cause an outage through half of Orange.
SCE is taking precaution against that risk.
. If the pole were to be changed out into a stealth pole, it would not be a simple process.
. There is a caisson that could be 15'-20' wide in the ground supporting this pole.
. They are not sure of the depth either; it has to be at least 10' (that is just an estimate).
. They cannot construct a new pole 10' anywhere around the existing pole.
. It is called a drop and swap which means they drop one pole and swap it out with the
other.
. The only option would be to go even closer to the power lines.
. In his experience, no faux trees are allowed in substations.
. The reason there are faux trees in the Serrano location is that substation is significantly
larger.
. This pole will not be up for 5 years, it could possibly be up for 50 years.
Page 14 of22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
. These things could become dilapidated and it is SCE's right to have the concern.
. He doesn't really seem to think there is much impact considering the poles are already
there and the Royal Street antennas are located closer to the pole than the existing
antennas.
. The Royal Street equipment matches.
. He did speak with SCE and specifically asked if Royal Street could switch it out. SCE
considered it and was not comfortable with that.
. In his professional experience he thinks it could be done but his landlord has a valid
concern and he would like to represent them as such.
. He did read all the Conditions and agrees with all of them. He wanted to comment on
Condition #3, "The non-stealth antennas shall not exceed 48'." The height they came up
with is 45' to the rad center, which is the middle of the antenna. That is based on
industry standard, which is 10'-15' separation as far as interferences is concerned. In the
time they designed this project, the inter-mod study was completed and the existing
carrier (Sprint-Nextel) has allowed them to locate closer to their antennas so they would
like to be permitted to have the rad center located at 50'.
Commissioner Merino stated this Commission approved one of Royal Street's monopine
applications previously and he asked if they needed to be concerned that the faux
branches will start blowing off in a strong wind. Mr. Hammersmith responded, "No."
Commissioner Merino asked if the applicant had any additional data specifically from
SCE that addresses this particular project, other than the letter that was erroneously
addressed. Mr. Hammersmith asked that the one typo be excused.
Commissioner Merino asked how the Royal Street antennas are attached to the pole. Mr.
Hammersmith stated that they probably have ten different styles of mounts for the
antennas, which will specifically come through in the building permit phase. In this
particular case they custom designed a mount because Staff had asked that they bring
everything closer to the pole.
Commissioner Merino stated that perhaps if the Planning Commission really wanted to
have a stealth pole at this particular site because they felt the aesthetics would be a
concern, maybe there could be a custom branch attachment that would alleviate the
concern of them blowing off. Chair Imboden pointed out that this is the first time the
Commission has been told that the branches can fly off and he stated that ultimately
whether it is a stealth tower or non-stealth, it needs to be designed to withstand the same
type of rigor. The applicant stated he understood; however, it was not a concern of his.
He elaborated that he has seen branches on the ground next to a pole but the likelihood of
them blowing 20'-30' is not great. He added that it is more of a concern of SCE to
protect the City. The discussion ensued on the construction of the branches with
Commissioner Steiner offering an explanation that the real issue is culminating from the
history of the company Mr. Hammersmith represents and the representations made of
SCE policy. He suggested that the applicant do further diligence with SCE in the future
before presenting to the Commission. The applicant responded that he fully understood
and that he had expected a lot of confusion. He added that he was prepared to take his
project home, get some of the issues resolved and be better prepared when he returned.
With respect to limitations and where else they can go on this property, Mr.
Page 15 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
Hammersmith stated he would check with SCE again as to where they could permit a
monopine or get confirmation that their position is that they won't permit it.
Commissioner Bonina asked for an explanation as to the process Royal Street would
follow to replace this pole, if permitted. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the majority
of the difficulty would be coordinating with the other carrier because they would have to
be taken off line. Commissioner Bonina asked the applicant if the hurdle he would have
to overcome is the location of the new pole with relation to the power lines and the
existing pole. Mr. Hammersmith responded that SCE has a blanket policy of no faux
trees in substations but he will ask them if they would consider a tree in a location he will
propose. If they will not consider it he stated he would definitely bring more
documentation as to why.
Chair Imboden asked the applicant since they are willing to do a tree if they had looked at
other locations where this wouldn't be an issue. Mr. Hammersmith responded
affirmatively but the properties are small, commercial ones and there is not a lot of space
where they could fit both the pole and their equipment. He did not have addresses of the
other properties they looked at but he stated he would bring those to the next hearing.
Commissioner Bonina asked if Mr. Teran, (the SCE representative whose name appeared
on the letter) was present at this meeting. Mr. Hammersmith responded, "No."
Commissioner Bonina stated that given the depth of the questions and the concerns
expressed by the Commission it may be prudent to request a SCE representative be in
attendance at the next hearing to go through their philosophy and get some clarity around
the SCE processes as relayed over the past few months.
Commissioner Merino told Mr. Hammersmith that he was the most sincere representative
that has been present and he expressed his appreciation to him for his willingness to
really listen to the Commission's concerns. Mr. Hammersmith thanked Commissioner.
Merino and stated that he thought about bringing SCE to the meeting; however, he knew
there were some lingering issues and he didn't think they would have cleared them up as
there had been some miscommunication internally and no one was quite sure of what the
Commission or Staff was looking for as a result of the other hearings. He stated that
getting them to the meeting is somewhat of a chore and since he knew they would be
required to come back, his preference was to bring them to a session where he could
provide clarity as to what was expected.
Commissioner Bonina questioned Staff as to whether the comment in Condition #3 was
applicable to the overall antenna or just to the new addition. Mr. Garcia responded, "to
the top of the new antennas."
Chair Imboden asked Staff if this were an entirely new tower coming on to this site if the
applicant could propose non.stealth under the current ordinance. Mr. Garcia responded
he believed they could. Mr. Knight confirmed. Chair Imboden asked what the height
maximum would be. Mr. Knight stated there isn't any precise height maximum on these
per se but it would be a Conditional Use Permit ifit were over the height of the District.
Mr. Garcia added that this is commercially zoned so the height would be 35'.
Page 16 of22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
Public input was provided as follows:
Luis Pena. address on file stated
. He is a long term resident of El Modena.
. He is against the modification of the monopole as it is already an eyesore to the local
residents on the El Modena side of Orange.
. If you lived there you would not want to see an addition to this pole.
. He is definitely for a stealth pole.
. He has yet to hear of any freak accidents with branches falling off.
. He is definitely against this project as it creates more blithe for the community.
. He is sure there are some sites nearby (such as the old Vons supermarket site off of
Chapman and Hewes) where a tower could be built.
David Cortez. address on file stated:
. He took some photographs of the site as there weren't any when he went to the Planning
Division.
. He walked the community with an El Modena Community Group.
..There is litter at the facility (he took pictures of the front of the facility).
. There is graffiti at the front entrance of the gate which has been there for over a year. It
is not cleaned up. (Photographs were provided to the Commission.)
. A photograph was presented showing how close the antenna is to residents on Pearl
Street.
. He is against the project.
. He has lived in El Modena most of his life.
. He knows the community well.
. He doesn't want an unsightly antenna in his neighborhood.
. He will not benefit from it.
. The present antenna is the tallest structure in El Modena.
. The present antenna is directly visible by the residents in the surrounding area.
. Since the project will be on land owned by Edison he felt it was a good opportunity for
Edison to make improvements.
. There should be conditions placed on Edison such as a requirement to clean up the
graffiti, groom the lawn and clean up the litter.
. Their community needs trees planted, not unsightly cell towers.
. He urged the Planning Commission to view the location and consider alternate sites
prior to making a decision.
Mr. Hammersmith stated:
. He meant no disrespect; however, he needed to state his case with respect to the validity
of his project.
. He couldn't confirm that this is the highest structure.
. He knows there are other 60' monopoles right down the street.
. If it is the highest structure, they are not changing the height of it anyway.
. If they try to do a pine tree and SCE cannot physically make it work, this pole will still
be there.
. Not allowing Royal Street to locate on this pole does not remove the existing pole; it
just causes his applicant to look for another site someplace else.
. As far as there not being any recorded instances of branches falling and causing power
Page 17 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
outages, he is sure they have fallen off one of the trees before. He doubts it caused a
power outage but SCE is just taking a safety measure and it is a genuine concern.
. Landscaping in SCE substations is prohibited, so regardless if they build at that site
there will not be any trees in the substation anyway.
Commissioner Merino told the applicant that he needs to pay as much attention to the
concerns of the citizens as to the concerns he brought forward. Mr. Hammersmith
responded that he is from the area and he offered assurances to the citizens that he would
definitely respect their concerns but stated that in the grand scheme of his project they are
ancillary as they are something he can accommodate; the bigger issue is he has other
things to work out at this point.
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 2621-06 to
May 21,2007.
Commissiner Bonina suggested to the applicant that when he returns, the Commission be
provided some written communication from SCE and a personal representative that has
authorization to speak on behalf of SCE in this regard be in attendance. He added that it
would go a long way with the community and the Commission if Royal Street and their
lessor would consider some landscaping around the entire facility.
In summation Chair Imboden provided the following commentary:
. He is not buying the distance to the houses with this proposal. He thinks the 50'
completely disrespects the view from the homes in the surrounding neighborhood.
. The applicant needs to meet the Commission half way with respect to the request to
provide some landscaping.
. He encouraged the applicant to look at some other sites.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner
None
None
Commissioner Whitaker
MOTION CARRIED.
(9) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2622-06, DRC NO. 4202-07 - SPRINT-
NEXTEL SCE TOWER.
A proposal to locate and operate a wireless telecommunications antenna facility on a non-
stealth existing Southern California Edison (SCE) tower and associated equipment
cabinets on a lot north of2333 E. Taft Avenue.
LOCATION: Lot north of2333 E. Taft Avenue.
NOTE: This project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California
Page 18 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3-
Negligible expansion of an existing public utility).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 21-07, approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2622-06, allowing 12 panel antennas (4 antennas per sector with a total
of3 sectors), one parabolic antenna and associated equipment cabinets, subject to
conditions.
Associate Planner Robert Garcia provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Ms. Barbara Saito representing Sprint-Nextel stated:
. She wanted to thank Robert Garcia as he has given her a lot of feedback on the project.
. She did not expect an Edison substation to have as much discussion as it did at this
meeting.
. What they are trying to do is pretty straightforward.
. There is a double tower run going through the area.
. They picked this tower as it sets fairly far back from the right of way.
. The shelter will go underneath the tower.
. The parcel is residential and there are homes adjacent to it; however, they don't expect
it to have any impact to any of the neighbors.
. They are trying to give better cell coverage in the area which is needed.
. In the long run due to the merger of Sprint-Nextel, it will eliminate the need for an
additional set of antennas and/or an additional tower.
. She noticed that the Commission is looking at the potential for an additional wireless
ordinance or discussing design guidelines and she suggested that the industry be included
in those discussions. She offered they could provide useful inputs as to what can be done
at various sites and what kind of stealth installations are better than others.
. She wanted to bring to the attention of the Commission that a pine tree would add an
additional 10' to the height of what is already there just to make it more of a pine tree
shape.
Commissioner Bonina asked the applicant if she had ever seen any antennas of the type
she is proposing inside the tower itself versus on the exterior. Ms. Saito responded "No,
and I don't think SCE would let us do it." She added that when they go on an existing
SCE tower, SCE actually engineerslmanufactures the brackets to be used to hang the
antennas and to go inside the towers they would have to shoot through the steel and that
would be disruptive to the radio waves.
Commissioner Bonina asked if historically they screen these. Ms. Saito responded she
wouldn't say it was impossible; however, she hasn't tried to do it. Her opinion was it
would add to the mass and make it more obtrusive than leaving it as it is currently.
Chair Imboden asked for clarification ofthe following points:
(I) that the antenna would be on 3 of the 4 legs of the tower. Ms. Saito responded
affirmatively.
(2) the parabolic antenna is 5' in diameter. Ms. Saito responded it should be 4'.
Chair Imboden asked what the reason was for the dish. Ms. Saito responded that she is
Page 19 of22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
not an engineer but that the SCE towers hold power and what happens is the telephone
company will not let them bring the telephone line within a certain distance (the demark).
The distance is subject to the property itself, based on GPR (the energy that is in the
ground). They do measurements that tell them how far away they have to be. It could be
that they can't put a telephone line within a mile so what they do is put up a microwave
dish, which provides the telephone service. The way cellular towers work is they not
only talk to the phones by the antennas, but they take the phone calls, put them down to
the radio equipment which puts it into the telephone company so when you make a call to
someone it goes through the phone company. The only ones that don't do that are the
push to talk on the Nextel system that goes from tower to tower to tower. Ms. Saito
stated it has not yet been defined as to whether they need the dish or not; however as it is
less expensive to not have it, if they don't need it they won't install it.
Chair Imboden asked where the coax cables will be and how they will connect. Ms. Saito
referred the Commission to Sheet A-4 for a diagram and walked them through how the
cables are run.
Chair Imboden asked if the cables would be underground from the structure to the tower.
Ms. Saito responded she would go by what the drawings say which is that they will be
underground.
Since the project site is currently being used as a nursery Commissioner Merino asked the
applicant to explain why a nursery can exist under the SCE properties but when the
Commission asks for landscaping to screen some of the sites they can't have it because
SCE won't allow it. Ms. Saito responded:
. You will see many nurseries under SCE towers because it's a great co-use of the land.
. Most of the nurseries do not have trees.
. They may have some small 24" boxes but no big pine or palm trees.
Commissioner Merino stated that assuming the Commission could put a height limitation
then they should be able to get low bushes to provide some screening. Ms. Saito
responded that you could beat them up a little bit and maybe get some perimeter
landscaping. She elaborated further that it depends on where the fence line is, as she's
reasonably certain they will not allow it inside of the fence line.
Ms. Saito stated that it is important that the applicant takes care of their installations and
if their tree starts to look unkempt then the City should go in and require that it be fixed
per the Conditional Use Permit. She added that SCE doesn't like live palm trees as they
seem to wreak havoc with their substations but she thought they would perhaps be
amenable to low growing bushes around the perimeters.
Public input was provided as follows:
Steve Hutchins. address on file stated:
. He lives just south of the property where the nursery is.
. As this was the first time he attended a Planning Commission meeting he wanted to
commend the Commission for the work they do.
. He expressed appreciation for the Commission protecting the citizens interest.
Page 20 of22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
. He expressed appreciation to Robert Garcia for answering his email promptly.
. He did not come with an opinion one way or the other.
. He is a ham radio operator that is currently off the air.
. He doesn't have any antennas on his property but he does love them so he thinks it
would be nice to see some.
. He sympathizes with the presenters and the grilling they went through at the meeting.
. As a radio engineer he believes this proposal seems to be a very good proposal.
Commissioner Bonina stated that typically the Commission gets a radius map showing
the coverage to be provided and he asked if there was a reason it was not provided. Mr.
Garcia stated it must have been omitted from the package but he did have one available to
share.
Commissioner Merino stated that the comments provided by the applicant included
information that would certainly help him in the future with the review of subsequent
applications.
Recognizing that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303, Commissioner Steiner made a
motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2622-06.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner
None
None
Commissioner Whitaker
MOTION CARRIED.
Chair Imboden asked that the minutes of this meeting be forwarded to City Council
making special note of the cell items as his concern specifically is that Council has given
Staff the direction to bring the cell ordinance back for reconsideration and it seems there
are a very large number of non-stealth applications coming through since that has been
called for. While he made it clear he was not making a determination, he stated he felt
that was information that should be passed on to the Council so they are aware of it.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Imboden made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, May 7,
2007.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner
None
None
Commissioner Whitaker
Page 21 of22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
16 April 2007
MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 9:57 P.M.
Page 22 of 22 Pages