2006 - August 7
Q.~500,Gt. ';;).3
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
INRE:
7 August 2006
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Steiner
None.
Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director
Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Mari Burke, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(I) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF
JUNE 20, 2005, JULY 5, 2006 AND JULY 17, 2006.
Abstentions for absenteeism were as follows:
June 20,2005: Commissioner Steiner
July 5, 2006: Commissioner Steiner
July 17,2006: Commissioner Enderby
(2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 28-06 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
AND COMMENDING BEN PRUETT FOR OVER THIRTEEN YEARS
OF SERVICE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Absention: Commissioner Steiner
Chair Bonina made a motion to approve the consent calendar.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Steiner
None
As noted above
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Planning Commission Minutes
7 August 2006
INRE:
CONTINUED HEARINGS: None.
INRE:
NEW BUSINESS:
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2589-06 - MUSTARD CAFE
A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine for
a Bona Fide Public Eating Place) license for an existing eating establishment and make a
finding of Public Convenience or Necessity. The site is located at 190 South Glassell
Street, Suite 'B'.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provIsions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 -
Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 31-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2589-06
A project overview was provided by Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry during
which she highlighted:
. The area is over concentrated which means if the Planning Commission moves to
approve the application it would need to make a finding of public convenience or
necessity.
. Staff recommends approval with one minor change: add a condition that any alcohol
could not be served or taken out to the patio area which means outside the front door of
the establishment. Consumption of any alcoholic beverage would have to be within the
establishment itself.
Tony Khamo, the applicant's representative advised the reason they want the license is
the other Mustard Cafe's already serve beer and wine and their customers ask for an
alcoholic beverage as an accessory to their meals. Further, Mr. Khamo commented that
as far as the additional condition, they have no issue with this requirement, as they have
never planned for that to happen.
Chair Bonina asked Mr. Khamo ifhe had read all the conditions and was in agreement to
all of them plus the additional condition stated by Ms. Roseberry. Mr. Khamo responded
affirmatively.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked for clarification where the patio dining area is situated.
Ms. Roseberry responded it is outside the front door on the sidewalk area. Commissioner
Bilodeau asked if there were tables out there. Ms. Roseberry responded affirmatively.
Chair Bonina interjected the tables are not stationary: they are brought inside when the
establishment is closed. The applicant confirmed.
Chair Bonina asked if there was also a patio area on the side of the building. Ms.
Roseberry responded she believed that was an entry way to the offices on the second
Page 2 of 10 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
7 August 2006
floor.
Commissioner Bilodeau cited the crime statistics-specifically the Part I and Part II
arrests at 570 and the citywide average of 299 and asked what distinguishes the
application for this particular location from others that were denied in the past with
similar crime statistics and license concentrations. Ms. Roseberry responded that Staff
(which includes the Police Department Staff) looks at each application on its own merits.
Further Ms. Roseberry stated that when they looked at this particular application they
realized it is in a plaza in an area where they are working diligently to inject continual life
and felt this was a good location for that type of use.
Commissioner Steiner asked if this location falls within the definition of a high crime
area. Ms. Roseberry responded that the definition is it must be 20% over the average and
with the stated average of 299 it would be considered to be a high crime area.
Commissioner Steiner referred to the first sentence in the second paragraph on Page 5 of
the Staff Report where it states the census tract is not considered to be a high crime area.
Ms. Roseberry apologized for the error, agreed with Commissioner Steiner that it is in a
high crime area and stated it was recommended for approval on the basis of its own
merit. Chair Bonina asked if this was considered to be a destination area and Ms.
Roseberry responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Steiner asked the applicant if all the other Mustard Cafe franchises sell
beer and wine. The applicant responded affirmatively.
Chair Bonina asked if the restaurant next door has an ABC license. Ms. Roseberry
responded affirmatively.
Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from CEQA, Chair Bonina made a
motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2589-06 with the added condition that
alcohol would not be served on the patio area.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2590-06 - POLLY'S BAKERY CAFE
A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine for
a Bona Fide Public Eating Place) license for an existing restaurant and make a finding of
Public Convenience or Necessity. The site is located at 2025 North Tustin Street.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I -
Page 3 of 10 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 2006
Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 32-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2590-06.
A project overview was provided by Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry during
which she highlighted:
. The area is over concentrated which means if the Planning Commission moves to
approve the application it would need to make a finding of public convenience or
necessity.
. Staff recommends approval with the tightening up of one condition and the addition of
another; specifically:
(1) Condition 22 should be modified to read: 'There shall be no entertainment of
any kind, live entertainment, amplified music, karaoke, or dancing permitted on
the premises at any time."
(2) A new Condition (#33) would read: "The premises are to be maintained as a
bonafide restaurant with food servers, waiters and waitresses tending to patrons
at individual tables."
Chair Bonina clarified the significance of adding Condition #33 would be to highlight
and confirm the interaction between the establishment and the consumer on an on-going
basis in terms of monitoring alcohol consumption. Ms. Roseberry acknowledged Chair
Bonina's clarification was correct.
Lorenzo Reyes, the applicant's representative stated:
. They have read the Conditions of Approval, heard the two conditions to be added and
they have no issues with them.
. Polly's Inc. operates thirteen (13) other Polly's Pies; nine (9) of them currently sell beer
and wine, two (2) additional applications are in the process.
. Polly's Pies is a family restaurant, serving family fare and an array of baked goods.
. Polly's Pies enjoy an outstanding reputation in the City of Orange.
. There is no intention to change the method of operation; they have no issue with the
additional conditions as stated.
Chair Bonina commented about the patio area noting it appears to be pretty well enclosed
and asked if there is control so there is no access from the patio. The applicant responded
"there is no direct access from the street or parking lot, you have to access it through the
restaurant, there is one controlled access."
Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from CEQA, Chair Bonina made a
motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2590-06 with the added conditions as
stated by Ms. Roseberry:
(1) Condition 22 should be modified to read: "There shall be no entertainment of any
kind, live entertainment, amplified music, karaoke, or dancing permitted on the
premises at any time."
Page 4 of 10 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
7 August 2006
(2) A new Condition (#33) would read: "The premises are to be maintained as a
bonafide restaurant with food servers, waiters and waitresses tending to patrons at
individual tables."
Commissioner Bilodeau noted the Staff Report has the same error as the previous
application relative to the area being a high crime area based on the statistics quoted.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
None MOTION CARRIED.
(5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2596-06 - ROYAL STREET
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
A proposal to allow the co-location of six (6) antennas to an eXlstmg non-stealth
monopole wireless communications structure and new ground equipment on the property
of an existing two-story office building. The site is located at 321 Rampart Street.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 30-06 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2596-06.
A project overview was provided by Assistant Planning Director Ed Knight during which
he advised:
. The City's wireless communication facility ordinance does encourage co-location of
antennas.
. It is an existing pole; if it was a new one Staff would be looking for a stealth solution.
. The addition of the six antennas should create a very small visual impact in regards to
what the current array looks like on the pole.
. After a discussion with the applicant, Staff is supportive of deleting Condition #6 from
the Draft Resolution.
Commissioner Steiner noted in the photo simulation (Attachment #4) there is proposed
equipment beyond the proposed antennas and as it is not shown, Commissioner Steiner
asked what the equipment is. Mr. Knight responded they will be building a small
structure and within that structure will be the computer equipment that permits the cell
site to work. It is on the ground and is about 225 sq. ft. The building occupies the
equivalent of one (1) parking space, which is the reason for the Administrative
Adjustment. Chair Bonina asked Mr. Knight if there is any ability to locate the
equipment where the existing equipment is located. Mr. Knight responded that as they
Page 5 of 10 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
7 August 2006
are two separate providers and the existing equipment is probably adequately used within
the existing structure, he did not believe that would be feasible; however, he deferred to
the applicant to clarify.
Chair Bonina asked by the removal of the parking space if there is concern that the
facility is now under parked. Mr. Knight responded that the Administrative Adjustment
permits the City to examine this issue and Staffs opinion was that the reduction of one
(1) space would not create a problem.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked if the square footage of the office building was known and
if the reduction of the one space would put the building out of compliance with the
Zoning Code. Mr. Knight responded that the function of the Administrative Adjustment
is to review the situation and permit minor changes to occur.
Commissioner Imboden asked Staff for clarification "is the parking lot over parked?"
Ms. Roseberry responded "no, it is just parked, the requirement is for 43 spaces so they
meet the Code at 43." Commissioner Imboden stated he was not seeing on the Plan
where the parking space is dimensioned. His concern was typically if the parking space
is next to a permanent structure it is required to have a different width. The question was
posed of Staff if they know this requirement has been met. Ms. Roseberry responded he
was correct that the width needs to be lOft.
Commissioner Imboden asked if any thought had been given to landscape screening or
enhancement of the structure. Mr. Knight responded that the landscaping had been
reviewed; however, based on the location of where the antenna is being placed on the
property, Staff wasn't requiring any additional landscape. Commissioner Imboden stated
he wasn't clear as to why it wasn't required in this case and perhaps the fact that it would
consume more of the parking space was the reason. Ms. Roseberry agreed that was one
of the reasons and she elaborated further that the Code indicates the equipment has to be
fully screened by dense landscaping or by locating it within a building, enclosure or
underground vault that complies with development standards. Staff thought the
equipment enclosure with the rod iron fence screening would be adequate. Chair Bonina
asked if one of the options would be to put the equipment in an underground vault. Ms.
Roseberry responded that is one of the options listed in the ordinance; however, she
wasn't sure of the logistics involved with that solution and what would still be required
above ground.
Commissioner Steiner asked for clarification of which of the three options listed in the
ordinance is being proposed. Ms. Roseberry responded the equipment would be within
an enclosure, which is a rod iron fence.
Chair Bonina asked if the width of the parking stall next to the structure was still unclear.
Ms. Roseberry responded it appears that the stall would have to be widened by I'.
John Koos, the applicant's representative provided an introduction to Royal Street
Page 6 of 10 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
7 August 2006
Communications and advised that with respect to this facility:
. It is a great location as it sees the 57 Freeway excellently.
. It sees the growth area in Orange and the Stadium area quite well.
. Their design is as tight as possible around the pole.
. Their hope is that once the antenna goes up the average commuter will not know it's
there - the appearance will only change slightly.
. They will be painting it green.
. With respect to the equipment, the existing shelter is approximately I2'x 20' and
generally it's about 10' tall.
. Royal Street will use 4 cabinets that are lined up: (2) are radio cabinets and (2) are
battery cabinets.
. There is a Condition of Approval regarding the rod iron fence - they are glad to comply
with this requirement and in fact will be removing the existing chain link fence and
replace it all with rod iron so it all matches.
. If there was a landscape berm added it would encroach upon another parking space.
. The line of sight changes will be minimal.
Chair Bonina asked if there is currently any landscaping around the existing Nextel
enclosure. Mr. Koos responded there are some trees within the direct vicinity of the
shelter and the tower. Chair Bonina asked if there was any lower growing vegetation.
Mr. Koos responded he wasn't sure. Chair Bonina asked for clarification of the proposed
height of the enclosure. Mr. Koos stated the plans don't depict the rod iron fence;
however, if the Commission chooses he would be glad to agree to another condition of
approval that the rod iron fence would be 7' high which is the height of the cabinets.
Commissioner Imboden asked about the existence of a 36' tree appearing on the
drawings and noted that the proposed structure is to be built within a foot of this tree.
Mr. Koos responded that they would not be digging much at all; however, they would be
willing to accept another condition of approval that would state they would be
responsible for maintaining the current number of trees and if the tree dies they would
plant a new mature tree in the same vicinity.
Commissioner Bilodeau stated he was pleased they were doing a co-location; however,
he wanted to note the actual entrance to the site is non-conforming to the Zoning Code.
As this was a pre-existing condition he stated it would be unfair to address it with this
applicant.
Chair Bonina asked if the access to the existing Nextel shelter is being impeded by the
proposed Royal Street structure. Mr. Koos responded they would be behind the same
fence and use a shared gate; the network operations staff of Royal Street would assure
this.
Chair Bonina asked if there is a minimum dimension the equipment must be to the wall.
Mr. Koos responded that in the industry they use a 3' rule to walk around it, barring
another door being in the encroachment area. Presently they are showing 6'3" between
Page 7 of 10 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
7 August 2006
their nearest cabinet and the wall of the Nextel shelter.
There was much additional discussion about the landscaping culminated with a
recommendation by Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz to continue the project. Mr.
Sheatz stated the reason for his recommendation was he was uncomfortable with the
number of variables and the mitigation imposed might be over the top in terms of
expense. The continuance would give the applicant an opportunity to work with Staff to
explore the most feasible option(s). Chair Bonina agreed that a continuance might be
the appropriate course of action if the Commissioners agree more definition is required.
Commissioner Steiner asked what the area is zoned. Ms. Roseberry responded "C-2".
Commissioner Steiner asked if this area is described as residential. Chair Bonina
responded there is some residential currently with additional residential construction
occurring. Commissioner Steiner stated the reason for the question is prior to saddling
the applicant with potentially significant alterations with respect to the landscape which
may potentially further reduce the number of parking spaces available, he would want to
understand the impact of that reduction. In conclusion, Commissioner Steiner stated he
was satisfied with the proposal as is with respect to the landscape but he would certainly
want assurances the parking is in compliance.
Commissioner Imboden stated he was not happy with the aesthetics of the last Royal
Street proposal that came before the Commission and he was even less happy with this
one. He didn't feel there was a strong effort to blend in with the existing fabric of what is
presently on the sight. Specifically he was troubled with:
(I) the loss of the parking space
(2) there doesn't appear to be adequate landscaping
(3) it is apparent the existing tree will be lost---the canopy of the tree is much larger
than what is shown on the plans
Further, Commissioner Imboden added he understood there are always constraints but his
belief is there is room to do this project on this site without infringing on the other
development requirements for this type of site. He cited that with commercial properties
landscaping is required at the back of the property, architectural elevations of the
buildings are required and the aesthetics of the back of the property are a concern. He
was not comfortable with a rod iron fence that provides visibility and then planting
vegetation that eliminates the visibility. He encouraged the project to be continued
giving the applicant an opportunity to bring some creativity to it and improve the
aesthetics. He stated there are different options that could be explored including
perhaps, putting the equipment on top of the building and using the open space to put
large trees around for screening.
Chair Bonina proposed having the item continued to the next mutually acceptable hearing
with to make sure the adjacent stall is a minimum of 10' and get further clarity around
the fencing and landscape options.
Page 8 of 10 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
7 August 2006
SECOND: None offered
Commissioner Bilodeau asked what is the status of the parking space-is it going to be
worked out? Is it compliant with the Zoning Code? Ms. Roseberry responded if the
Planning Commission wanted to approve the project as it stands they would ask for a
condition that states the adjacent parking space would have to be a minimum of 10'.
Commissioner Steiner stated assuming hypothetically the approval took place, to what
extent would the determination with respect to the 10' parking space be able to be made
subsequent to approval? Ms. Roseberry responded prior to issuance of building permits.
Chair Bonina asked Ms. Roseberry if this item was approved with a condition that the
adjacent parking stall be a minimum of 10' how would Staff assure this could be
accomplished. Ms. Roseberry responded the applicant would be required to go back and
adjust the drawings, which would be reviewed at the Staff level prior to issuance of any
building permits.
Commissioner Imboden asked for clarification that one parking space would still be lost.
Ms. Roseberry responded affirmatively; however, without the approval of the
Administrative Adjustment there is no loss of the parking space and she wasn't sure
where they would put the electrical equipment.
Chair Bonina asked if the existing Nextel enclosure was a block wall enclosure. Mr.
Knight responded the fence around the building is chain link as indicated on the plans.
With the understanding Staff is confident they could work out a standard 10' wide
parking stall adjacent to the facility Chair Bonina recommended approval of Conditional
Use Permit No. 2596-06 with Administrative Adjustment No. 0115, recognizing this is
categorically CEQA exempt and with an added condition:
(1) The chain link fence should be removed and replaced with rod iron.
and with
(2) The removal of the existing Condition #6 in Resolution No. P.C. 30-06.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Steiner
Commissioner Imboden
None
None MOTION CARRIED.
Chair Bonina transitioned the duties of adjournment to Commissioner Enderby.
Commissioner Enderby stated his eighteen (18) month tenure with the Commission had
been extremely informative and although being part of the planning processes for the
City of Orange has been quite rewarding; unfortunately, he would not be able to continue.
Page 9 of 10 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
7 August 2006
He offered thanks to Staff for their support, Councilwoman Cavecche for the
appointment and his colleagues he was able to serve with and Chairman Bonina for his
expert leadership and guidance.
Commissioner Enderby made a motion to adjourn the meeting to the next regular meeting
on Monday, August 21, 2006.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Steiner
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:27 p.m.
Page 10 of 10 Pages