Loading...
2010 - October 18Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 18, 2010 Page 1 of 16 Planning Commission October 18, 2010 City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Whitaker opened the Administrative Session at 6:50 p.m. with a review of the agenda. He asked on the minutes from the September 20, 2010 meeting if they could be approved with only 2 Commissioners. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz stated 2 of the Commissioners who had been present at the September 20, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting could approve the minutes. Item No 2 CUP 2771-09 -Henry's Grill. Chair Whitaker stated he had been absent from the previous meeting and he had not reviewed the tape. He would abstain from the vote on the item. Mr. Sheatz stated if there was a majority of the quorum present who had heard that item those Commissioners could vote. Commissioner Merino stated he was absent from the September 20, 2010 PC Meeting and would abstain. Item No 3 CUP 2794-10 - EM & M Guns & Jewelry. Chair Whitaker stated he would have questions on the item. Commissioner Steiner asked if the site of this application was next to the rib place. Associate Planner Robert Garcia stated no; it was located on Chapman. Commissioner Merino asked if the Orange Police Department had an opinion on the application. Mr. Garcia, stated the Police Department was in support of the application. Item No 4 CUP 2795-10 -Inter-Coast International Training. Associate Planner Doris Nguyen stated there was information in the Commissioner's hot file. Commissioner Steiner asked if that was the document that stated opposition to the application. Ms. Nguyen stated that was correct. Commissioner Merino asked if the document had any legal standing. Ms. Nguyen stated the Dean of the school would be present. Item No. 5 CUP 2796-10 - JS Black Belt. Commissioner Merino asked if there were any concerns received on the application. Assistant Community Development Director Ed Knight stated no, it was a pretty straight forward application. Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010 Page2of16 Commissioner Steiner asked if teaching massage therapy was a violation of a CUP. Mr. Knight stated no, it was a legitimate business and persons in that trade had to be certified and there were legitimate schools that taught massage therapy. Chair Whitaker stated a license was also needed to practice massage therapy. Mr. Knight stated he assumed there was also a requirement for some form of certification to teach it. There was no further discussion. Administrative Session closed at 6:55. REGULAR SESSION: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None Consent Calendar: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2771-09 -HENRY'S GRILL On September 20, 2010, the Planning Commission approved a proposal for a new Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine -Eating Place) at a new 2,018 square foot restaurant. The restaurant will include a new 400 square foot outdoor dining area at the rear of the building. The Planning Commission directed staff to draft Conditions of Approval for the approval of the request. Staff has drafted Conditions of Approval which have been reviewed by the Police Department and by the applicant. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the draft resolution based on the facts set forth in the staff report and administrative record presented to it. The Planning Commission can add and/or remove conditions as needed. LOCATION: 149 N. Glassell RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 29-10 approving a Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine -Eating Place) Alcoholic Beverage Control License for a new restaurant. Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 20, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting as written, and to adopt PC 29-10, approving CUP 2771-09 Henry's Grill, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report. SECOND: Commissioner Steiner AYES: Commissioners Cunningham and Steiner Planning Commission Meeting NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners Merino and Whitaker ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden October 18, 2010 Page 3 of 16 MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting New Hearings: October 18, 2010 Page 4 of 16 (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2794-10 - EM & M GUNS & JEWELRY A proposal to operate a pawn business at an existing gun and jewelry shop. LOCATION: 1124 W. Chapman Avenue RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 37-10 approving a pawn shop in an existing commercial building. Associate Planner Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Whitaker opened the item for any questions to Staff. Chair Whitaker asked if a pawn shop required any other State licensing, other than the CUP under the City of Orange's Municipal Code. Mr. Garcia deferred that question to the Orange Police Department's representative, Sergeant Peterson. Sgt. Peterson stated the business required a secondhand dealer's license. Chair Whitaker asked if the applicant had obtained that license. Sgt. Peterson stated the applicant had the license. Chair Whitaker invited the applicant to address the Commission. Michael Hein, address on file and Emily Atkinson, address on file came forward to address the Commission. Ms. Atkinson stated their business was by the book and they were clean and ran a good solid business. They generated income for the city and their business would be a great asset. Mr. Hein stated they had quite a number of years of experience with their particular type of business. He had 30 years of experience with jewelry, firearms and the pawn business. He never had any complaints or bad marks. They ran their business by the book, by the law. Chair Whitaker stated the applicant's previous location on Tustin had not had the pawn license and now they were wishing to add that. He asked why they wanted to add that license. Mr. Hein stated in the previous location they were in a C-1 Zone and in planning they were not zoned for it. The new location was a freestanding building and when the proper Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010 Page 5 of 16 zoning became available, they moved to the new location with the idea that they would add the pawn license to it. Chair Whitaker opened the hearing for public comment. Kimberly Bottomley, address on file, stated she was never notified that a gun shop was going in. She had basically seen it when she was driving home one day and then a neighbor told her a pawn shop was going in, and that was when she heard of the meeting. She wished something else had gone in at that location. There was an elementary school one block south and another one just one block west. The area was single family residences, they walked their dogs and there was another elementary school on Main Street and a middle school over at Portola. When the kids would walk up to the circle where many of their activities took place, they would see the gun shop and the pawn shop and it would have been nicer if there had been something else put there. She appreciated the medical building that was now on Citrus and Chapman that made the area look really nice. She was hoping that in the future, being in front of the Planning Commission, if any businesses went up for sale, such as the used auto shops, that possibly they could support St. Joseph's and their expansion and Choc's to get more medical buildings. She lived in the neighborhood for 20 years and raised her kids in the neighborhood. Her son came home from Cal Poly Pomona and stated look mom now we have a gun shop. For her 22 year old son to make that statement, it was not the greatest thing. She thanked the Commission. Mr. Hein stated the manner in which the building was located, they were walled in from all sides and the only part of the building that was visible as to what was in the building, would be from Chapman Avenue. The building was completely self-contained. There was a cinder block brick wall surrounding the building; and for the children's protection, they would not be able to see inside anyway. Ms. Atkinson stated the pawn part of the business would be mostly jewelry. There would be no radios or drum sets on the ground; it would not be the epitome of a pawn shop. The majority of the business would be jewelry. Mr. Hein stated it would not be a full blown pawn shop. They dealt in firearms and jewelry and the pawn was intended mostly for the jewelry. Most people that owned guns would not pawn them anyway. As far as stereos and other merchandise sitting around, they would not deal in those types of items. Commissioner Merino asked Sgt. Peterson if there was any activity, and he felt the resident's concern was that perhaps if there was activity such as criminals attempting to fence goods and that element became prevalent at the proposed site, would there be recourse or would that be an area that the Police Department would become involved in? Sgt. Peterson stated the Police Department had a Pawn Detail and they investigated all pawns; they were identified by a driver's license anytime there was a pawn transaction they would know who was conducting business. Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010 Page6of16 Commissioner Merino stated he understood that if a negative element became present at the proposed location, the Police Department would be able to deal with it. Sgt. Peterson stated that was correct. Chair Whitaker closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or action. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to adopt PC 37-10, approving CUP NO. 2794-10- EM & M Guns & Jewelry, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, and noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA. Chair Whitaker asked if the motion also contained the Conditions of Approval that Staff had added regarding the hours of operation. Commissioner Steiner stated his motion included Condition No. 15. SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham. AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010 Page 7 of 16 (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2795-10 - INTER-COAST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING, INC. A proposal to expand into 9,582 square feet of the second floor by converting existing office space into two classrooms, break room and offices to provide additional classes for an existing college on the first floor. LOCATION: 3745 W. Chapman, Suite 200 NOTE: This proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 -Existing Facilities) because the project includes no expansion of the existing building. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 37-10 approving a pawn shop in an existing commercial building. Associate Planner Doris Nguyen presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Whitaker opened the item to any questions for Staff. Chair Whitaker asked if the current hours of operation that existed with Inter Coast were those that were being requested with the proposed application. Ms. Nguyen stated they were not; the hours on the first floor were Monday through Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday through Sunday. The applicant was requesting longer hours and to be open 7 days a week. Chair Whitaker asked what was Staff's analysis of how the change in hours would affect the parking? Ms. Nguyen stated it was concluded that if they had 42 persons on site in Suite 200, the parking would still be under-parked by one space. There were currently 102 parking spaces provided and with only 42 students, faculty and employees in Suite 200, there would be 101 spaces provided, with one additional space. Chair Whitaker asked if there had been an investigation into the allegations by the other tenants regarding the number of students being more than what was permitted. Ms. Nguyen stated the written letter was received on 10/19/2010 at 1:00 p.m. She had a conversation with the Dean of the school on Wednesday and she had driven by the school on Thursday. She had driven to the site 3 times and had seen people standing outside, but she had not seen any trash around and she could not speak to the sexual Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010 Page8of16 harassment issue or the other points that were brought up in the letter. There was no trash in the front. Commissioner Merino stated those were future attorneys that were doing all those nefarious things. Ms. Nguyen stated no they were speaking of Inter Coast College. Commissioner Merino stated he was just being humorous. Commissioner Steiner asked who occupied the second floor of the building. Ms. Nguyen stated the property owner was in Suite 200, but his business had downsized and he had not had as many employees as he had previously had in the 9500 square foot area. It was an equipment leasing and finance company and they apparently worked east coast hours and there were very few employees. The space would be converted into the school. In Suite 250 was the law school. Commissioner Steiner stated he understood the American College of Law had no CUP. Ms. Nguyen stated that was correct, and they also had no business license and there was currently a code enforcement issue with the site. Commissioner Steiner asked if the City was taking action on that. Ms. Nguyen stated the City had been working with that business since February. Commissioner Cunningham asked if the law school was there illegally. Ms. Nguyen stated the American College of Law had no business license or CUP. Commissioner Cunningham stated with the students smoking outside, was there any prohibition against that? Ms. Nguyen stated not that she was aware. Commissioner Cunningham stated it was just that the law school was complaining about that. Ms. Nguyen stated that was correct. Chair Whitaker invited the applicant to address the Commission. Geeta Brown, address on file, stated she was the President of Inter Coast Colleges and the location in Orange was their oldest location. They used to be located in Santa Ana, but moved to Orange in June of 2004. They were with the previous landlord and had a Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010 Page 9 of 16 wonderful relationship with him and they now had a great relationship with their current landlord. They were planning on having a practical or vocational nursing program on the second floor. There was such a need for nurses all over California but particularly Orange County and it would not be a registered nursing program as the letter indicated; it would be a practical nursing program that would be 14 months in length. A lot of their programs that were on the 1St floor and definitely on the 2"d floor were programs that students would be involved in didactic training on site and then they would go out to complete clinical training off site. It was the same for their alcohol and drug counseling studies program; which was a very popular program. They produced more CADAC Certified Counselors in Southern California than any vocational school or even the Universities in the area. They had a wonderful reputation for that program and for all their programs. There were some comments made about the restroom use and the trash. The upstairs restrooms were part of the common area and they had access to both restrooms upstairs and downstairs; and she was not certain what other comment to make about that issue other than it was common area space. The students and other tenants smoked in a specific area of the site. It was not the most ideal location; but she was working with the landlord to locate a better spot for that use. In terms of the parking, there had been a comment made about spots marked by Inter Coast. Ms. Brown stated that the previous landlord had done that in 2004 and there had not been any modifications made to those designations. If there were spaces that were marked for Inter Coast and adjustments were necessary, they were not opposed to that. Ms. Brown stated as pointed out, the American College of Law had not had a CUP. They had wanted to be on the second floor and had been working on the project for 19 months and they knew they had to go about it in the correct manner. They understood they needed a CUP and had been working with an architect on the building and gaining the necessary approvals from various bureaus and regulatory agencies that governed Inter Coast; and there were many. She was pleased to be in the City of Orange and looked forward to a long term relationship with the tenant and with the City. Chair Whitaker opened the hearing for Public Comment. Dr. Weleed Akleh, address on file, stated he was the Dean of the American College of Law. Before they moved into the building they were told that they had a CUP in place and he had not found out that they needed a separate CUP until he came to the City to apply for a simple license. He was told he needed a separate CUP for the second floor and they were working on that. They had a 3 year lease in place, with options. Inter Coast had not had a lease. They were a law school and it was not the law school students that were doing things. They had only lawyers and judges teaching and the law school was the second oldest law school in Orange County and they brought a good element into the City. They had a limited student body and they were an evening part time school. They would not create waste; they would not allow their students to camp on every corner of the parking lot and certainly would not trash the building. He felt the building was being trashed and Inter Coast had outgrown the building. Before he left Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010 Page 10 of 16 that site he counted 84 cars in the parking lot, none of which were the law schools. His students and professors came to him to ask where do they park. What Inter Coast had done was order signs and posted them on every single parking space, leaving a few next to the trash. Inter Coast had no management what so ever; he doubted that they had managers on site. One of his female students came to him very scared; she stated she could not enter the front by herself. Inter Coast had 8 campuses and they catered to former alcoholics, drug abusers, and maybe some of them needed a certificate of completion to go back to court to show a judge that they had served a sentence and they had not looked like students to him. He was familiar with the building for six years and the former owner was his landlord in Anaheim. During the past year, Inter Coast must have recruited well over 100 students and his facility had no room to be there and no parking. There was trash and smoking everywhere and not to mention the noise. He had the paperwork on file and his CUP should have no problem getting approved. Commissioner Steiner stated he had a question. Chair Whitaker turning to Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz stated they generally only asked questions of applicant's and not the public speakers. Mr. Sheatz stated unless they had a question that required an answer; most of the time that was the case, however, it would be acceptable. Commissioner Steiner stated for clarification he asked Dr. Akleh how long the law school had been at their current location. Dr. Akleh stated they had been there for a year. Commissioner Steiner stated he understood that the CUP was a misunderstanding and he was attempting to remedy that, but asked why had he not had a business license? Dr. Akleh stated he had a copy of the existing CUP that he thought they could be on and then the City told him they needed a 2°d one to be on the 2°a floor and he had needed a letter from the landlord which he just received. The landlord's business had been reduced which helped the law school with their parking situation. Commissioner Steiner stated his question was why was the law school operating without a business license? Dr. Akleh stated he had applied for one, but the City stated that he needed a CUP and not a license. Commissioner Steiner stated a business license was separate from a CUP. Dr. Akleh stated he applied, the application was on file and his deposit was on file. Chair Whitaker asked the next public speaker to come forward. Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010 Page 11 of 16 Brij Patel, address on file, stated he was the owner of the property and they had also been a tenant of the property. They had a great working relationship with Inter Coast College overall as a landlord. In fact, Ms. Brown, the Principal of Inter Coast, had brought to his attention the need to create a smoking area to clean up the building's image and he had not had any problems with the students or faculty of Inter Coast College. They were an anchor tenant and his business had disappeared. He was looking, as part of their strategy, to allow the college to expand into the upstairs space and he would move to a smaller lease space somewhere else in Orange. He had been in the building since March of 2008, about 2 %2 years with Inter Coast, and they had not experienced any problems and he was supportive of their expansion. Chair Whitaker stated it appeared that Mr. Patel's other tenant had some issues and he asked if he had worked with that tenant on those issues. Mr. Patel stated he had explained to Dr. Akleh that in order to expend capital to create a space for smoking and leisure; he had needed a lease in place as their landlord. Part of it had been the chicken and the egg to invest in that; both in additional restrooms and clean up measures to secure an anchor tenant. His strategy as a landlord with Ms. Brown, in writing, was that he would improve the tenant space to improve the general overall building's appearance and for her space once a lease agreement was in place. Commissioner Cunningham stated the Dean had brought allegations of parking signs being posted. Mr. Patel stated he was in commercial and industrial finance and he should have stuck with that and not gone into real estate, but that was another issue. The prior landlord had each space designated with the tenant's name, it was a physical iron sign. As his business took over the space, they had removed signage that belonged to tenants who were no longer there. The only signs that remained were those of Inter Coast College and it was just something that he had been grandfathered into and he was not certain why they had been placed there by the previous landlord. Chair Whitaker invited the applicant to respond to the public comment. Ms. Brown stated in terms of the leadership of her organization, Christine Sanchez was the Director who had been there for about 3 years and prior to that both herself and her husband had been based at that location. Ms. Sanchez was present in the audience and knew her students quite well and could attest to any of the comments made. The signage had been placed their by a previous landlord and most of the old signage had been removed; it was done in 2004. In response to the comment about there not being a lease; she had not felt comfortable signing a lease without having a CUP in place, unlike the person who had opposed her CUP. It was the correct manner in which to do things, to secure the right to be in a location and then sign a lease. The lease would be signed upon the CUP's approval. She had all the other approvals from the various accrediting agencies. She had gone through the appropriate channels to get that all done. In terms of their pride in that space; her company had personally invested lots of money in capital Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010 Page 12 of 16 improvements in their space. They took pride in their space and they spoke with their students and staff about that. She wanted to have a smoking space designated and she had been talking to the landlord about that for years. The law school was upset about Inter Coast being in that space, but just a few weeks ago the Dean of the law school had approached Inter Coast to use some of their space. She was concerned that once the CUP was submitted what would occur there. Just for the record, her students were not attending Inter Coast for any specific program; they were not taking courses to submit a completion certificate to the Courts or anyone else. They were not that type of program, but an accredited program and they were very proud of their programs. Commissioner Steiner asked if she was aware of any incidents involving harassment of one of the attendees of the law school. Ms. Brown stated she had only been made aware of that through the letter, but nothing prior to that. Chair Whitaker stated it appeared that there was a perception that there was more parking being used than what was allowed. If Suite 100 and 200 would be operating at the same time, they would probably have 88 spaces occupied and would the applicant have a problem if there was a condition that there would be no parking space designation and that all parking space signage would need to come down and that would allow common access to all of the 102 spaces that existed at the site. The perception was that when the other tenant was there, it was difficult to find a space to park. Ms. Brown stated where there were no parking space designations currently, those spaces were very close to the building. Those were not marked at all; and she felt they would have no opposition to the spaces being un-marked. She turned toward the audience and asked two other members of the school if they had any opposition to that request? The response was no opposition. Chair Whitaker stated the other tenant would be entitled to 9 spaces based on their building's square footage. Chair Whitaker closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion. Commissioner Merino stated they had what appeared to be potential issues between two tenants on a piece of property with "x" amount of parking. If a conditional use permit was brought forth with the amount of students that could potentially attend, and he was speaking about the law school, he asked if it was possible for the law school to have the required amount of parking spaces with the number of students who currently attended. Ms. Nguyen stated there would be 10 spaces left for the law school and last session the law school had 19 students who were not there at the same time. Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010 Page 13 of 16 Commissioner Merino stated based on the math in table D, there would only be one spot leftover. Assuming Suite 250 received their 9 spots. Ms. Nguyen stated they would get their 9 spots, plus the one extra, which would be 10. Chair Whitaker stated the law school had a variability of 19 people including staff. Commissioner Merino stated the math had not come out correctly, if all students attended there would be a parking deficiency. Ms. Nguyen stated she understood that not all students would be there at the same time. Very similar to what they were doing now was they would limit the number of students who could be there at one time to 10. Commissioner Merino stated the subsequent application and applicant would then need to deal with any parking issues with their application. Ms. Nguyen stated that was correct. Inter. Coast College had applied for their CUP in June and they had been able to get their application in within 24 hours; and the City had been working with the other applicant since February. Chair Whitaker brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or action. Commissioner Merino stated there were two applicants and issues with the property that required discussions between the landlord and the applicant before them and a potential future applicant. He felt it would be the right thing to have it be a win win for everyone to perhaps continue the item to let the issue settle and a discussion to occur with the landlord and the tenants and City Staff to come up with a better solution and to allow the situation to be de-conflicted. He felt they would place the law school at a disadvantage if they would move forward with Inter Coast, as the law school would be following behind that application. He was not confident that all the parking issues had been worked out to the satisfaction of all the applicants or potential applicants before them. Commissioner Steiner stated it appeared that Inter Coast College had followed the rules and had moved forward constructively and to tie the Commission's actions to having some issues worked out would be adverse to the applicant and he would not support that. Commissioner Cunningham stated there were issues between Inter Coast and the College of Law and the landlord; those were issues to be worked out amongst those parties and he had not felt they involved City Government. Inter Coast had appeared to be going through the process effectively and quickly and he got the strong impression that the American College of Law was not. He was not of a mind to penalize Inter Coast for the law school's lack of action. He would be supportive of adopting the recommended action. Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010 Page 14 of 16 Commissioner Merino stated they had two legitimate and positive members of the community and he looked to the applicant and landlord to see if they would be amenable as it would be an issue with the next application that would come before them for that location. He looked to the applicant to see what their thoughts were. Chair Whitaker stated he understood Commissioner Merino's thoughts. In reviewing the Staff Report, he noticed that in Suite 200 Inter Coast College would only be allowed to have 42 students and faculty at any one time. There was one space per person required for trade schools. They would have the same occurrence if the law school had been before them with their own CUP and they would also be designated that at any given point in time, they would need to break up their allowable student and faculty ratio to accommodate the parking situation. He felt it could be worked out at the Planning Commission level when a subsequent CUP came through and that the landlord needed to work together to resolve those issues. He agreed more with Commissioner Steiner and Cunningham in that the applicant had presented their information and there was nothing wrong with that application and he was in favor of approval. Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adopt PC 36-10, approving CUP 2795-10- Inter Coast International Training, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and noting that the item was categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: Commissioner Steiner AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2010 Page 15 of 16 (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2796-10 - JS BLACK BELT, INC. A proposal to operate a martial arts school within an existing commercial center. LOCATION: 655 N. Tustin Street NOTE: This proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 -Existing Facilities) because the project involves the operation of a martial arts school in an existing building. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 38-10 approving a martial arts school in an existing commercial building. Associate Planner Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Whitaker opened the item for any questions for Staff. There were none. Chair Whitaker invited the applicant to address the Commission. The applicant had no further information and there was no public comment. Chair Whitaker brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action. Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt PC 38-10, approving CUP 2796-10-JS Black Belt, Inc., subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting (6) ADJOURNMENT: October 18, 2010 Page 16 of 16 Adjournment to the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, November 1, 2010. Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on November 1, 2010. SECOND: Commissioner Merino AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Meeting Adjourned @ 7:53 p.m. MOTION CARRIED