2005 - January 3
APPROVED
MINUTES
January 3,2005
Monday -7:00 p.m.
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Dorner, and Pruett
ABSENT:
None
STAFF
PRESENT:
Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary
INRE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
INRE:
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.
INRE:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1)
THERE WERE NO MINUTES AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THIS
MEETING.
(2)
ZONE CHANGE NO. 1228-04, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2409-02,
VARIANCE NO. 2124-03, AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 223-02 -
ARCO (BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC)
A proposal to redevelop an existing gas station with new mini-market and gas pump
island. The proposal includes: Zone Change 1228-04 to change a portion of the
site to C-TR (Commercial - Tustin redevelopment) from C-l (Limited Business),
CUP 2409-04 to allow the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption, Minor
Site Plan Review 223-02 to allow the construction of a building smaller than 10,000
sq. ft., and Variance no. 2124-03 to allow a reduction in on-site parking.
NOTE:
Negative Declaration 1690-02 was prepared to evaluate the
potential environmental impacts of the project in accordance
with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Chris Carnes, Senior Planner, introduced the item. He explained that the applicant was proposing
the demolition of an existing mini-mart gas station and the construction of a larger facility. The
proposed mini-mart building is approximately 3,000 sq. ft. and the new gas facility has eight gas
APPROVED
Planning Commission
January 3,2005
pump islands with a larger canopy. The proposal includes the incorporation of what was formerly
the Villa Park right-of-way into the project site and will create one larger project site.
The existing facilities presently sell beer and wine, but at the time that they received approval for
that, the City did not require a Conditional Use Permit, so it is presently a legal non-conforming
use. Mr. Carnes noted that Staff is recommending approval for the item to go forward to the City
Council, noting there are 53 Conditions of Approval.
The public hearing was opened.
Chair Pruett invited the applicant to present their project.
Leslie Burnside, 9089 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, San Diego, represented BP West Coast
Products. She noted that there were several other individuals from her project with her at the
meeting, and while they had no prepared presentation, they were available should there be
questions - Kent Allen and Craig Yamasaki with BP, and Gary Weisberg with Palmieri Tyler. Ms.
Burnside noted that they were happy to present before the Planning Commission, as the project
had been underway for approximately three years. She felt the project was aesthetically, a much
higher quality project than currently existed, and included a substantial amount of landscaping
(approximately 7,200 sq. ft. oflandscaping). She stated that there was much better circulation on
the property for cars, which allowed servicing the customers in a much more expedient manner.
She acknowledged a good give-and-take relationship with Staff and the Design Review
Committee. She stated that she had read all 53 Conditions of Approval and were in agreement
with them, including the 15 items that are directly related to the sale of beer and wine.
Chair Pruett invited the Commissioners to direct questions toward Staff, and stated that Staff may
then ask the applicant to come forward for response, if necessary. The Commissioners noted the
following questions/concerns:
. Does the Planning Commission normally look at issues of shared access between
properties? Mr. Hohnbaum: Usually no. In this case when the City abandoned the road it
reserved an access easement between the multiple properties that were taking access
through that little roadway, and this was done quite some time ago. The issue that came up
between the adjacent property owners was the amount of traffic that would go through
there, particularly the large vehicles. The gas station is going to need access to that
abandoned road which is now an easement for their large tanker trucks to be able to
navigate in and out of the property safely. There was a study done to just determine the
amount of traffic that could be coming into that private easement from the gas station, and
typically the City would not do that. Circulation between properties is not something that
the City would be concerned with, that would be a condition of the easement.
. In a September 10, 2004 letter from Palmieri, et aI, it says one of the conditions
recommended by the Staff Review Committee requires BP to provide "proof that legal
access rights exist from the subject site to Tustin Street prior to the issuance of any
building permits." Has this been done yet? Gary Sheatz: One thing, which is unclear with
this issue, is whose satisfaction has to be shown at this point. We know that access exists,
we know the easement is valid that is in place, and we also understand it is tied up in
2
APPROVED
Planning Commission
January 3,2005
litigation right now, as well. It is unclear where we are on this at this moment. Mr.
Hohnbaum: It was Public Works that imposed the condition because of the litigation that is
ongoing on the property with the easement. The City Attorney has looked at it and feels
there is a decent claim that there should be access by the ARCa people through that alley,
and there is a claim that there may be a 'change of use' to that access point, and therefore it
is in court for litigation. The intent of the City is to see that claim to completion and to see
the results of that litigation to determine whether or not reasonable access in the type that
they need is provided. The biggest concern is not the vehicles going to and from the
station, but for the tanker trucks that supply the gas. If the courts determine that BP cannot
use that easement, then that would not be satisfactory to Public Works, it would not be seen
as 'reasonable circulation' on the site. That is the reason that condition exists.
. There is an issue with line-of-sight for cars that are pulling back out onto Katella with cars
that are coming off the southbound 55 off-ramp and are making a turn westerly onto
Katella. In the plans, the eastern-most driveway approach has been moved. How many
feet has that been moved over to the west? Ms. Burnside: Very roughly, it appears that the
driveway has been moved approximately 15 feet. Also, as a matter of information, the
trees that have been chosen are the canopy type, as BP really wants to make sure there is
good visibility and safety entering and exiting the property. And, if Mr. Hohnbaum could
also address the left-turn pocket in front of the property, please? There will not be any
changes at this time. The turn pocket must remain the same because it controls turning
movements from properties on both sides ofKatella.
. Could you describe the deliveries that take place at the site? The majority of the deliveries
are for food products, etc., that go into the mini-mart, and as such, generally are confined to
daytime deliveries.
. The fuel drop, as I understand, there are two per week? Kent AllenlBP: It is BP's desire,
obviously to sell a lot of fuel. A tanker, typically, holds 9,000 gallons. If a store is selling
around 240,000 gallons, deliveries are a little less than once per day. Currently volume is
approximately 210-230,000 gallons. Hopefully, this site will sell more, and we hope that
maybe we'll be delivering maybe one and a half times per day. Deliveries are planned
around the customers and neighbors, we don't want to upset either. Safety is also
considered. Deliveries are mid-morning or early afternoon. We don't like to deliver at
night, but in some cases it is necessary. Merchandise/food sales are in the neighborhood of
$85,000 per month and we're hoping that we'll be doing far greater than that, once we are
rebuilt.
. There is concern about the over concentration of alcoholic beverage licenses in the
neighborhood. The staff report stated that the cooler where the alcoholic beverages are
displayed would be inaccessible to the public between 2:00 A.M and 6 A.M. is this
correct? Yes, the cooler where these beverages are stored is locked up during those hours.
. According to the Staff Report, some of the parking is being allowed under the canopy, and
where there is traffic coming and going, is there any kind of discussion and thought being
given to the traffic flow? Mr. Hohnbaum: This issue has been looked at in detail.
Typically, we would provide a 25-foot back-up space to the perpendicular parking spots,
and if you'll note through the first-pump island and the nosing of the concrete surrounding
it, we have provided 35 feet. So the City has actually worked with the applicant to provide
for some overhang, and vehicles that are at the pump station, and to ensure that the 25-foot
minimum back-up space is met and then some.
3
APPROVED
Planning Commission
January 3,2005
. Condition #25 which states "no malt beverages ", I'm assuming that is beer? The
provision was initiated because they found that in Los Angeles, they found that by
eliminating malt beverages and 24 oz. containers, it cut down on that segment of the
alcohol-imbibing group that had a higher probability of abusing alcohol, and panhandling.
In our previous applications we've never used the term "malt beverages" - it's been beer.
Is this term redefining what we're dealing with? Ms. Roseberry: If its the desire of the
Commission that this be clarified to include beer to make sure there's no question about it,
the condition can certainly be changed to no malt or beer beverages or fortified wine in 24
oz. containers.
Public is invited for comment.
Opposed: Siobhan Byrne, GVD Commercial Properties, 1915 E. Katella, Orange, owns the parcel
of land that directly faces the new project before the Commission. She introduced John
McClendon, Attorney, with Van Blarcom, Leibold, McClendon & Mann who accompanied her.
She stated that first she wanted to address Resolution 4228 states that there is a 42- foot easement
that runs the length of the abandoned Villa Park Road. This easement was a requirement by the
City of Orange to permit free access and to maintain adequate circulation for the abutting property
owners. This easement should be reciprocal, and that her property should have as much access to
the Villa Park Road. In the paperwork that she has seen, it appears that ARCO wants to remove
their easement requirements from their project. So they will be building over the easement, and
expand their building into the easement area. And they want to continue to burden the adjacent
property owners by utilizing the easement down to Villa Park Road. What they're basically saying
is "we can go ahead and abandon the easement on our property, but you abutting property owners
cannot abandon the easement on your property because it doesn't benefit us." Resolution 4228
does not state that the easement ends at ARCO's westerly property line. It says that there is an
easement through the length of the street. It is very specific. Further, not enough study has been
done to show that only 12 parking stalls is adequate.
John McClendon, 23422 Mill Creek Drive, Laguna Hills. Mr. McClendon noted that his firm is
known as the CEQA.com law firm. He asked the Commission to pay particularly close attention
to the letter that they presented. This was a situation where there was initially a mitigated negative
declaration that was prepared by Staff. Included in that were a bunch of mitigation measures. His
firm filed a complaint on that, making several arguments that there was still unmitigated
environmental impacts, and that an EIR needed to be prepared. Following the submittal, was what
you see before you, a negative declaration, all mitigation measures deleted, no longer a mitigated
negative declaration. Under CEQA, Section 15065, Subdivision G of the State's CEQA
Guidelines, it basically says that when there is a disagreement among experts in whether or not
there's an environmental impact, that an EIR should be prepared. This is a situation where the
City itself has gone on record, saying that there are significantly potential impacts unless
mitigation is incorporated into this project.
Chair Pruett invited the applicant to respond.
4
APPROVEl)
Planning Commission
January 3,2005
Craig Yamasaki stated that he believed that Staff had thoroughly examined the issue, and when
clarification is given by Staff on the various points noted, they will be able to address them quite
fully. He stated that the case will be duly adjudicated in a court oflaw.
Ms. Roseberry spoke on the issue of the negative declaration. She stated that Staff did release a
negative declaration for review and comment some months ago. After that, a negative declaration
was released that included some indicators that were referred to as mitigation measures. Staff re-
reviewed the project and realized that a Zone Change was, indeed, necessary for the project. The
step in the process that was missed by Mr. McClendon in his statements was that the reason why
the negative declaration was reissued to begin with was the project description needed to be
revised to include a Zone Change. It was imperative that the negative declaration indicates each
step in the process, and each entitlement that was being sought by ARCa. It was determined that
no need to indicate standard conditions or code requirements as mitigation measures. For instance,
in the hydrology section, the "mitigation measures" refer to NPDES requirements. That's not a
mitigation measure, that's standard practice, so that's not necessary. It's not necessary to indicate
that following the UBC is necessary. So that was removed, as well.
Mr. Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney, spoke to the "mitigation measures," stating that those are
code requirements and state law and are not mitigation measures. Those haven't gone away.
Those are still requirements for this project.
The Commissioners stated that the right-of-way issue needs to be resolved in order to receive final
approval. Mr. Sheatz stated that one key thing that had been excluded from the previous testimony
is that it is stated in the easement that adequate circulation be maintained by the abutting
properties, and the intent was for circulation purposes. The City has looked at this matter. If
you're going towards the ARCa site from the GVD site, where are you going to? The City never
gave anybody the right to go across another person's property or parcel and access ingress and
egress from that site. It doesn't appear that there is a need for circulation between those two sites.
The intent originally was to get people out from the ARCa site along Villa Park Road to Tustin
Boulevard. The court has the jurisdiction to ultimately resolve this issue.
The public hearing was closed.
Chair Pruett opened the topic up for discussion or action by the Planning Commission. The only
comment was made by Commissioner Domer on C.u.P No. 23 to make sure that Staff understands
the issue regarding "no malt beverage, beer, or fortified wine products of greater than 15% in
volume" are included to reflect the opinion of the Commission. It was noted that a modification
would be made to both c.u.P. conditions no. 23 and 25, which dealt with this issue.
Commissioner Bonina moved to adopt Resolution No. PC 25-04 recommending to the City
Council adoption of Negative Declaration 1690-02 and approval of Zone Change 1228-04,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2409-02, Variance No. 2124-03, and Minor Site Plan Review No.
223-02. Commissioner Domer seconded the motion.
5
Planning Commission
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, and Pruett
None
None
None
APPROVED
January 3,2005
MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Brandman moved to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Monday,
January 17, 2005. Commissioner Domer seconded the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
ABST AIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, and Pruett
None
None
None
The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
6
MOTION CARRIED