2001 - July 16
d "
L~....~
eA~n. G. A. 3-
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
INRE:
INRE:
July 16,2001
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
r->
=> "
=>
".. ")-i
~ ---<
~j:S ..j
",/0
I ''"'
-.0 n
.-0
e ;." ::0
- ;oJ>
AZ
C"l
.s:- rn
..
Karen Sully, Planning Manager,
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney,
Jerry Bailey, Design Manager - Public Works
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED - None
CONSENT CALENDAR - None
CONTINUED HEARINGS - None
NEW HEARINGS
1. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATIONS 105-99, 106-99, 107-99, AND 108-99 -
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 2377-01, 2378-01, 2379-01 AND 2380-01, AND FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1612-01 - EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST
(SPIEKER PROPERTIES)
A proposal to allow the construction of four new office buildings totaling 1.2 million square feet in "The
City". MSPR 105-99 is a site located at the northeast comer of Chapman Avenue and Manchester Place.
MSPR 106-99 is a site located on the west side of The City Drive approximately 400 feet south of
Chapman Avenue. MSPR 107-99 is a site located at the northeast corner of Lewis Street and
Metropolitan Drive. MSPR 108-99 is a site located on the north side of Metropolitan Drive between
Lewis Street and The City Drive.
NOTE:
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 1612 has been prepared to analyze the
environmental impacts of the proposed project and is on file with the Community
Development Department.
Chair Smith asked if anyone opposed the application and with no response, a full reading of the report
was waived.
Ms. Sully stated that the recommended action was for the Planning Commission to recommend to the
City Council to approve FEIR 1612-01, MSPR 105-99 and CUP 2377-01, MSPR 106-99 and CUP 2378-
01, MSPR 107-99 and CUP 2379-01, MSPR 108-99 and CUP 2380-01.
Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner, added to staffs presentation that if the Planning Commission should
recommend approval of the FEIR, the decision should include the City of Anaheim's response to the
comments that the applicant should participate in fair share funding for future street projects required to
mitigate the proposal's impact on public streets. Specifically, Anaheim requested that the project
proponent pay fair share costs associated with the widening of the Orangewood Avenue bridge over Santa
Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 2001
Ana River and possible re-striping of Orangewood Avenue travel lanes in the vicinity of the Orange
Freeway. The applicant, the City of Orange Traffic Division, and the City of Anaheim Traffic Division
have come to agreement with adoption of these conditions as a mitigation measure. Mr. Carnes also
added that the applicant has indicated a 10-year phasing schedule for the construction of the requested
entitlements subject of conditional use permit and major site plan review applications. However, the CUP
will expire within three years (2 years plus one year extension) and the applicant may have to re-submit
each application after expiration. If the Final Environmental Impact Report 1612-0 I is approved, it
remains in effect unless conditions change or a project proponent substantially changes the scope or scale
of the projects.
Commissioner Carlton questioned mitigation measures 5.8-1 through 5.8-5 on how the City staff
calculates the fair share costs the project proponent would have to pay in the distant future in 2005, 2010,
and 2020.
Mr. Carnes responded that the fair share amounts are calculated by the applicant's traffic engineer in
consultation with the City's Public Works Department. The estimated fair share amount is a pro-rated
portion of the total cost of the project with the project proponent responsible for payment of the cost
associated with the projects.
Chair Smith requested an explanation of how the City's Zoning Ordinance determines maximum building
height.
Mr. Carnes responded that the Zoning Ordinance established for the commercial zone has a maximum
building height of 2 stories or 32', with additional height allowed subject to the building height not
exceeding y., of the distance between the building and any residentially zoned properties. Projects are
allowed to build higher than the y., ratio subject to issuance of a conditional use permit. The purpose of
requiring a conditional use permit is to review the impact the building's shadow and size would have on
nearby residents. Of the four properties involved, the applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to
allow for additional building height for each parcel. Mr. Carnes explained that the FEIR reviewed the
height and resultant shadows for each building and found that the projects would not have a significant
impact on any residentially zoned properties. The applicant was required to obtain a conditional use
permit for the tallest building because the UCI Medical Center site, which is across The City Drive from
the subject site, is zoned residential, however, the site is developed with an institutional use.
Mitch Ritschel, 19700 Fairchild, Irvine, is the applicant for the project. He explained how on July 2,
200 I Spieker Properties and Equity Office Properties merged. From 1996-1997, six buildings totaling I.3
million square feet were constructed. No attention had been paid to the 10.5 acres of vacant land and now
they were coming back for approval of additional office development. They now have a master plan and
would like to move forward with that plan and approval of the EIR. Mr. Ritschel stated he agrees with
the resolutions (conditions of approval) and thanked Mr. Carnes for processing his application.
Dwayne Mears, 15580 Metro, Costa Mesa, is with the Planning Center who authored the EIR. He
explained how the air quality was not less than significant and could not be mitigated. There are two
pollutants which exceed the threshold; however, the project is still consistent with the General Plan. Air
Quality is significant, but unavoidable, and overriding considerations must be adopted.
Joe Foust, 2020 N. Tustin, Orange, is the Principal at Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., and is the traffic
engineer on the project. Mr. Foust addressed Commissioner Romero's concern about the increase traffic
flow on an already dangerous westbound "The City Drive" off-ramp. Mr. Foust indicated that the
westbound on- and off-ramp at The City Drive is about to undergo major reconstruction and the ramps
will be relocated to Metropolitan Drive. He also explained that fair share is a relatively simple process
2
Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 200 I
and mitigation would not be needed for 20 years. He further explained how the calculations for fair share
were developed and indicated that the present day cost of the project would be placed in an interest
bearing account and the money would accumulate over the next 20 years.
The public hearing was opened.
Roy Shabbazion. 3808 E. Palm Avenue. Orange, was in favor of the project but has a concern about the
transportation demands. He would like to see money put into shuttle services to help reduce the number
of auto trips to the area. He said that currently UCI Medical Center has shuttles to and from the Orange
Depot train station.
Mr. Ritschel responded to Mr. Shabbazion' s concerns by saying the potential traffic impacts have been
addressed as well as the parking demands. Each resolution has a requirement (conditions of approval)
that mass transit be promoted and encourages the work schedules of the tenants to use mass transit.
Commissioner Carlton asked what the estimated time of completion for the reconstruction of the on- and
off-ramp at The City Drive would be. Mr. Foust said the time frame is 5 years, with a completion date in
2005.
Chair Smith wanted to explore the use of shuttle services from the Depot. Mr. Ritschel said he was open
to exploring it. There would be various occupants and they would be encouraged to use the shuttle but
they could not require them to use it. Chair Smith appreciated the openness to explore this option and
that a condition of approval should be added to address this concern.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Pruett would like follow up in regards to the shuttle service. He felt the tenants would
know best and not the property owners. He would like to know from OCTA what will happen in 5, 10,
15 years. Chair Smith thought it was too big of a responsibility for each tenant to provide shuttle service.
She felt nothing would happen if the responsibility was given to the tenants and that the property manager
would need to assist in getting the employees to the site. Commissioner Romero was in agreement since
it seems the property manager would be able to pool the large buildings.
Chair Smith wanted to know from staff how the height of these proposed buildings would fit in with
Uptown Orange. Ms. Sully indicated that "The City" is a regional business center and that the thresholds
for development are consistent with the General Plan designations. She also indicated that Uptown
Orange is currently on the back burner as City staff is looking at the development of a specific plan for
that area.
Chair Smith wanted to ensure that everyone was noticed about this project in the area including
residential. Ms. Sully confirmed that property owners within a 300' radius of the site were noticed as
well as typically, the property managers of rental property.
Chair Smith had a concern that the proposed building height was precedent setting and would have an
adverse impact on the potential Uptown Project.
Ms. Sully responded that the Uptown project is being restudied and it is still being planned and designed
as a regional commercial, office, and residential center and its proposed uses would be compatible with
the proposed buildings and uses.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 200 I
Mr. Carnes explained that the proposed sites for the four buildings are adjacent to sites already developed
with high rise buildings of similar size and height.
Commissioner Romero has driven around the area noting how nicely kept the area is and he has no
opposition to the height of the proposed buildings and feels it would be a benefit to the City.
Commissioner Carlton wanted to know ifthe proposed building next to the Doubletree is in the line of the
flight path and if it would have an impact on the VCI Medical Center helipad.
Jim Beam, 3745 W. Chapman Avenue, Orange, representing the applicant and UCI, indicated that this
building is not in the flight path and eventually the helipad will be relocated to another area of the hospital
grounds.
Chair Smith was not opposed to the height, noting the height of the Crystal Cathedral to the west, and
finding the sites are appropriate for the proposed buildings. They would otherwise be built outside the
City and it is preferred to have them in Orange to ensure proper mitigation measures.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Romero to recommend to the City
Council to approve FEIR 1612-01 finding that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on
the environment or wildlife resources.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Romero to recommend to the City
Council to approve Major Site Plan Review Applications 105-99, 106-99, 107-99 and 108-99 and
Conditional Use Permits 2377-01, 2378-01, 2379-01 and 2380-01 with conditions I through 36,
modifYing condition 18 by adding to the end of the sentence, and "the applicant shall explore the
possibility of providing a shuttle or the use of shuttles from the Orange Depot Train Station to the project
site to the extent feasible" and replacing Condition #33 with "The applicant shall pay its fair share of
improvements for the future widening of the Orangewood Avenue bridge over the Santa Ana River to add
an additional eastbound through lane at the intersection of southbound SR-57 and Orangewood Avenue".
The Major Site Plan Reviews [would be] granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to
services required by the community. [The project] will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or
create special problems for the area in which the site is located. [The project will be] considered to its
effect on the community or neighborhood plans for the area in which the site is located. [Project approval
will be] made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual
welfare of any particular applicant.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2374 - ZITO'S PIZZA
A proposal to allow on-site sale and consumption of alcohol and up to 10 amusement devices within a
1,576 sq. ft. expansion into an adjacent tenant space at an existing restaurant in the Orange Villa
4
Planning Commission Minutes
July 16,2001
Shopping Center - Zito's Pizza - 2036 N. Tustin Street. The subject site is zoned C- TR (Commercial _
Tustin Redevelopment Project Area).
NOTE:
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
Chair Smith asked if the applicant's were present. Upon seeing no one in the audience in opposition to
the project, a full reading of the staff report was waived. Staff was asked to give an introduction to the
item.
Ms. Sully, City Planning Manager, presented a brief description of the project.
Chair Smith asked the Commissioners if there were any questions of Ms. Sully and also asked if there
were any additional comments or clarification Staff could give.
Assistant Planner Mr. Eastman clarified a minor typo in the staff report, on page 8 under the sub-heading
Design Review Committee. A sentence reads "because there is exterior alterations..."; that sentence
should read in full "because there are no exterior alterations associated with the applicant's request, the
project was not reviewed by the Design Review Committee". Mr. Eastman also wanted to clarify briefly,
the majority of conditions in the staff report are standard conditions that have been adopted on previous
projects by policy. As indicated on the Draft Resolution, there are 6 additional conditions for this project
to address specific issues that relate to the proposal.
Steve Silverstein, 2776 N. Roxburv - Orange, is the applicant for the project and stated that Zito's has
been a fixture in Orange for 13 years. They attract customers in Orange and surrounding communities.
The success of their longevity can be attributed to the ability to satisfY the needs of customers, and they
have found there is a need for more interior space which has brought him here today. Their establishment
is an asset to the City of Orange and he requests approval of this CUP.
Chair Smith states there is a number of conditions connected with this project and asks Mr. Silverstein if
he is in agreement with them?
Mr. Silverstein states he is in agreement with all but one. Conditions #10 and #27 which seems to go
hand and hand and deals with stools in the beverage area. At the present time they have 6 stools in front
of the counter where beverages are poured and picked up by customers. These stools are provided for
customers who are waiting for an order which is not ready, dining alone, or picking up orders to go, They
have the same arrangement at 2 of the other 3 locations, one at 156 N. Glassell, and another one in
Anaheim with a similar arrangement. Both locations in Orange and Anaheim were approved with no
conditions. They have had this arrangement in Orange for 9 years with no problems with the Police
Department, the City or anyone else. He would like the Commission to give consideration to this
position. Ifnot, he would like a reasonable explanation as to why not at this location and why it's okay in
the other locations.
Chair Smith states they have heard his concerns and will take them into consideration and will ask staff at
this time to give clarification as to why these conditions have been included.
Commissioner Pruett would like clarification from Mr. Silverstein if the set-up in Orange (the new
location) has the same type of set-up that is being proposed.
5
Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 200 1
Mr. Silverstein describes the counter where they prepare the orders and states it is also an area where you
would pick up your order. You would pay and go to the back counter where drinks are prepared and
given to you over the counter, which is the same set-up in all 3 stores.
Chair Smith wanted clarification of the location. The downtown location is considerably smaller than the
site being addressed. Her opinion is that the downtown location does not present itself as a bar and the
location on Tustin is more like a bar since it's a bigger place.
Commissioner Pruett wanted clarification of Phase I and Phase II.
Mr. Silverstein stated that they realized after approximately 4 years of being in the building that they
needed more space, this is part of Phase I which exists now. The store next door (Van's Electronics) was
getting slow on rent and they were going to give up some of their space. Zito's removed that part of the
devising wall and took over that space. He had received some bad advice that this wasn't a bearing wall
and was told by the contractor that no permits were needed through the City. When an ABC license was
applied for (they incorporated) with a new layout of the building as it exists, the ABC Investigator said
the floor plan had not been approved and that they would have to re-apply with ABC and apply for a CUP
for the new area. Phase II is another area where the tenant could not pay the rent, and moved out of the
building. A new tenant came in and Zito's asked them for more space. They were given the back part of
the existing store, and now are waiting to do Phase II when they get approval. Mr. Silverstein says all the
video games will be relocated to the back area.
Chair Smith asks staff where condition #10 on page 2-7 came from (Type 41 License)? And also would
like clarification of Police Department's letter saying there shall be no bar or lounge area.
Mr. Eastman stated that Condition #10 on the draft resolution is a standard condition. All requests in the
past (particularly those less than 10 years old) typically have these conditions. In addition the Police
Department specifically recommended the inclusion of certain conditions, many which are already
included in the standard conditions. The Police Department has recommended conditions they
specifically want applied to this project, including Condition #10. Additionally, Condition 27 was added
which requires Zito's to remove seats or bar stools. This ensures that Condition 10 is properly addressed.
Mr. Eastman also responded to the question regarding why some facilities have or do not have these
conditions in place. They may not be in place at other City establishments because I) the nature of the
other establishment encourages food service more so than this location, whereas the Police Department
feels that Zito's bar is more conducive to alcohol sales 2) other establishments may have had their CUP's
issued at a time when standard conditions were not in place, or at a time when the sitting Planning
Commission felt that a standard condition was not relevant.
Chair Smith also wanted to point out that this is a "Type 41" ABC License which allows on-site alcohol
at an eating place, which is spelled out on page 2-7.
Commissioner Romero had a concern about the bar stool being an invitation to "sit down and have a
beer".
Mr. Silverstein stated that alcohol sales, at the location, are very, very low. They've had the business
there for 9 years.
Commissioner Romero responded that he could understand Mr. Silverstein's position, but when the police
give a viewpoint and a position of what they would like to see, it's taken as gospel, because they have
more experience in that area.
6
Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 200 I
Chair Smith states they have the information they need to help them in making their decision. In addition
Commissioner Carlton has a question.
Commissioner Carlton wanted clarification on procedure they have in the restaurant for serving beer and
wine. For example: Do servers bring dinner and beer/wine to the tables, or do servers pick up order at the
bar and serve to patrons at their tables?
Mr. Silverstein responded that they do not have servers. All orders are taken at the counter and picked up
at the bar area. If someone wants another beer, they walk to the bar area and if they hadn't ordered beer
or wine previously they will get carded (ID'd) and then take their drink back to the table.
Commissioner Carlton states she has never ordered and stayed there to eat, she has always done take-out.
She also wonders, in the location where drinks are served, is it the job of one employee to check all ID's?
Mr. Silverstein responds that this is correct and that he doesn't know what item it is on the report but the
Police Dept. wants them to be ID'd at the counter when they place their order (if there is alcohol
involved) and ID'd at the bar from the person who serves it.
Commissioner Carlton asks if a patron could place their order at the front, go to the bar, and actually have
their food served to them at the bar?
Mr. Silverstein responds that this is correct and that this is the only area that they have unless you want to
sit by yourself at a table. But he finds it nice to be sitting at a bar like that where you can still have
conversation and watch what's going on and not feel like your by yourself. To him it's a comfortable
arrangement.
Chair Smith asks if there are any other questions for Mr. Silverstein and with no response asks Mr.
Silverstein for any closing comments.
Mr. Silverstein responds that he doesn't know a lot about how decisions are made and if the decision
might be put off to another time, he prefers that's not done because he wants to get back to the ABC so
they can finish the work. He would like this to be resolved at this time. And if decision isn't to his
satisfaction, he feels he has other appeals he can go back to. That is his only request.
Chair Smith states this will be a final action unless appealed.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Chair Smith states that a request for a CUP is before them, which includes on-site sale of alcohol and 10
amusement devices and is categorically exempt from CEQA.
Commissioner Carlton doesn't see any problem with eliminating the 2 conditions. As the applicant stated
he could put in high top tables and stools and would still have the same affect. She would like to put forth
a motion approving this CUP.
Commissioner Romero states that in reading the letter again from the vice unit regarding conditions #10
and #27, he is ofthe position to approve CUP as requested with conditions 1 through 27.
Commissioner Pruett holds a similar view as Commissioner Romero. Beer and wine licenses have been
approved where the gross sales of alcoholic beverages have not exceeded the gross sales of food and other
7
Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 200 I
commodities in the same period are an interesting issue. With your typical restaurants where you have
the food, beer and wine sales, the food always exceeds the alcohol consumption. What we have here is a
business that has a lot of take-out. When you take that take-out away and only look at the food that was
sold in the establishment on-site and the alcohol consumed on-site you have a different equation of
balance in terms of the alcohol consumption verses the food. Commissioner Pruett believes there is an
issue there that is a concern. He thinks that by approving the condition as laid out, that it makes certain
that it is mitigated to some extent. In the future the City may want to consider food sales on-site
consumption verses take-out. This may have a major impact in terms of how it is calculated.
Commissioner Carlton wanted to add to her earlier comment. She sees no difference in someone going in
and placing an order for food and deciding to have a beer while they are waiting as they sit at one of the
tables. What's the difference ofthat or sitting at the bar? Or if they don't order food, they can still go in
and order a drink and sit at the table and drink it. There is no requirement that they have to order food.
So sitting at the bar or sitting at a table is really irrelevant.
Chair Smith thinks that it's a visual thing that one presents as a place where you can just go in and order
alcohol, without food, by the presence of the bar stools. Whereas, when only tables are there you might
just order alcohol, but you don't have the visual invitation. One of Chair Smith's concerns is that the
Police Departments memo sites that there shall be no bar or lounge area. There are a couple of issues
with this application that weren't touched upon, such as why the construction was done with no permits,
why a proper CUP was not requested when the site moved. Chair Smith feels the Police have been
extremely lenient in limiting it to only this. They could have canceled the whole recommendation, which
has happened in the past on approximately one third of the applications that have come before them, The
police could have recommend against them. And if the Police Department is saying there shall be no bar
stools, she feels it's a small price to pay. Chair Smith would like to support the conditions in the staff
report for that reason. Hopefully with the understanding of the applicant that several other major pieces
have been dealt with in a very kind manner, a very soft glove approach because the business was out of
compliance in a few areas.
Commissioner Pruett states it is also important to recognize that how this Conditional Use Permit is dealt
with sets a precedent in terms of other requests which may come forward that would have the request of
the bar stools and this condition would go to future uses as well. While in this situation, the applicant
may make a good argument that this type of activity is appropriate in his establishment, the next tenant
who would be able to operate under the same CUP, might have a different operation that could be
problematic. The idea of following the policies that have been set out by the Police Department is
reasonable.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve Conditional Use
Permit 2374 with Conditions I through 27, as listed in the draft resolution. The Conditional Use Permit is
granted upon sound principles ofIand use and in response to services required by the community because
sale and consumption of alcohol and amusement devices are ancillary to a bonafide restaurant. It will not
cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located
because conditions of approval ensure the use shall remain ancillary to a bonafide restaurant. It has been
considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans for the area in which the
site is located. The ancillary amusement devices at a restaurant are compatible with land uses in the
surrounding area. It is being made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare,
and not the individual welfare of any particular applicant.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
8
Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 200 I
ABSENT:
None
MOTION CARRIED
INRE:
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to adjourn to a special joint
study session with the Design Review Committee regarding St. John's Lutheran Church on Tuesday, July
17,2001. The meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
9