Loading...
2007 - September 5 Planning Commission Minutes ApPll 5 September 2007 Minutes OJ..);l) Planning Commission City of Orange 5 September 2007 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Assistant Planner, Chad Ortlieb Assistant Planner, Doris Nguyen Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary INRE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Cheryl Hansmann 446 S. Tustin #31 Orange, Ca 92886 Representing Val Verde Estates development Cheryl Hansmann addressed the Planning Commission. She is representing the tenants of Val Verde Estates and states that the owner wants to develop the park. She states that the displacement of the people of Val Verde Estates is an injustice. It is an injustice to hire a third party to tell us that the owner has no responsibility to the tenants and to present to our neighbors that we are less than desirable. It is unjust to use divide and conquer routines with our residents, pitting one resident against another. We are now facing a rent increase to cover for the empty spaces that are now in the park. In closing Mrs. Hansmann quoted from Stanley E. Jones, a famous missionary, three of the deadly SIllS. INRE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2662-07 - WESTOAK CHEVRON Commissioner Steiner made a motion to pull Item #1 Conditional Use Permit 2662-07 Westoak Chevron to be continued as requested by the applicant. This item to be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting on October 1, 2007 Assistant Planner Chad Ortlieb clarified for the Commission that this was the second continuance on this item. SECOND: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None Page 1 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED (2) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 16,2007. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 2,2007 meeting as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED (3) ADOPT GENERAL PLAN NO. 2006-0004 - CASA FLORES APARTMENTS A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use from the existing designation of Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. This site is zoned Residential Multi- family (R-3). LOCATION: 250-276 S. Flower Street ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Negative Declaration No. 1766-06 was prepared to evaluate the Potential environmental impacts of this project in accordance With the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 32-07 Assistant Planner Doris Nguyen provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment on this item. Chair Imboden opens the item to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Whitaker asks how does the General Plan amendment support the conceptual General Plan scenario that we have seen in our study sessions? Also, there was no proposed development where we have an owner spending significant funds on Page 2 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 environmental documents to get this done, what is driving the need to clear this up. Ms. Nguyen explained that there is a Citywide General Plan amendment and then there is a consistency issue between land use and zoning. This would have been picked up in the second phase. To answer your second question; I do not want to speak on behalf of the owner and I would like to address this question to the owner. Assistant Planning Director Ed Knight clarifies that when the owner came in to discuss the project we discussed the general plan at this time as updating the general plan. The reason they went through with this and incurred the cost is that they could not wait for the general plan update from the City. Chair Imboden asks about several questions that were posed by the public, and if you could restate those and give us the answers for the public. Ms.Nguyen states that in general the residents of Casa Flores Apartments ask what is the purpose, and also would they construct anything new. The answer is no, there is no proposed construction. The residents also had concerns over the density at this site. I explained that there is no proposed construction that it involved paperwork only. The neighbors have asked if there will be construction on site, and again I told them that there is no proposed construction on this site. Commissioner Bonina asks for clarification that this is not a proposal for a precursor to condominiums. Ms. Nguyen states no, that again it is just adjustments on paper. There is some concern about eviction, that the apartment would be converted to condominiums. There is one person who went to the counter with a concern about condominiums impacting this area. Commissioner Merino questions if this zoning would allow for condominiums. Ms. Nguyen states yes, it is multi-family zoning. This is the existing zoning and not what is being changed. Commissioner Merino asks if the new zoning is consistent with what the General Plan process is anticipating for this location? Ms. Nguyen answers that the new General Plan Land Use is consistent with what we would have changed to in the second phase. It would be changed to medium density residential in the second phase of the update. Commissioner Merino clarifies that essentially the owner is bringing this in, in advance of finishing that process. Commissioner Steiner has concerns that with this application changes to the site could be made. Ms. Nguyen clarifies that if changes were being made a whole new proposal and application would be required. Commissioner Steiner asks how did this density designation arise. Ms. Nguyen states that there are several locations within the City that do not match their density zoning and during the second phase update that this did arise. This location has been this way since the 1960's. Page 3 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 Mr. Knight adds that for whatever reason the last time this area was updated it had a low density residential as its land use and it still had R-3 zoning at that point. We are talking about two different documents and State Laws says that your zoning must be consistent with your General Plan. How this happened we don't know. During updates to the General Plan we would be able to capture those and bring the General Plan and zoning into consistency. Commissioner Merino asks if any of the residents had a desire to see this area zoned completely different, such as a single-family residence zoning? Ms. Nguyen states that no they did not mention anything about changing the land use destination; they just sought to understand what is being proposed. Commissioner Whitaker asks when was the zoning done on the current apartment building. Ms. Nguyen believes it was done in the 1950's or 60's. Commissioner Bonina clarifies that this is not setting precedence for future applications and it is just solely for this application and not to be used for other applications moving forward. Ms. Nguyen states that this is correct. Chair Imboden asks if there are any further questions for Staff. There are none, and the session is open for public hearing. The applicant, Michael Chu, representing L'abri Management residing at 8141 E. 2nd Street Suite 300, in the city of Downey. He states that when the property was refinanced they acquired the property and noticed the inconsistency in the zoning and the General Plan Use Map. They also discovered that the City would only allow for the replacement of 29 units in the event of a fire, earth quake or some other natural disaster. The 34 units that are in existence have been in existence since the late 1950's; with the last units being completed in 1968. The primary purpose in why we are seeking this change now is that the inconsistency negatively affects the property value and it affects our ability to refinance. If there is a natural disaster we would not be able to rebuild the 34 units that are there. That is the primary purpose of what is driving this application right now. He also states that there is no plan to add additional units or to make any conversions. Commissioner Whitaker clarifies that he incurred higher interest rate because it IS considered legal non-conforming. Mr. Chu states that this is his understanding. Commission Steiner asks is there any secondary purpose? Mr. Chu states that there is not. Chair Imboden closes public comment and opens the meeting any further discussion from the Commission. He directs a question to Staff, we have heard that part of the basis is a concern for rebuild in the event of a disaster; is this the case if it is a legal non- conforming, existing situation? Ms. Nguyen states that the legal non-conforming code is very specific in that it states that there is a certain percentage, which is 75%. If the building would be demolished over 75% that they could not build with the current units. If it was 75% or less they could Page 4 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 build to what they currently have. Commissioner Bonina states that he feels the applicant gave a very plausible reason for the application and I will support this with a motion to adopt Resolution No.32-07, General Plan No. 206-004 Casa Flores Apartments. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2665-07 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4250-07 - THE AULD IRISHER A proposal to establish an Irish pub and restaurant with an "On-Sale General-Eating Place" (Type 47) ABC license and live entertainment in 4,622 square feet of a vacant 10,177 square foot building located in the 157,834 square foot commercially developed entertainment center known as the Stadium Promenade. Fa<;ade additions and outdoor seating is proposed to the exterior portion of the building that would be occupied by the business. LOCATION: 1547 W. Katella Avenue NOTE: This proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I-Existing Facilities) because the project consists of the operation and licensing of an existing private structure. There is no public review required. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 34-07 Assistant Planner Chad Ortlieb provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden asks for clarification on the usage of chain link and block. Mr. Ortlieb explains that there is a combination of the two, one being a solid block wall with a plaster finish and the other would be a chain link fencing with slats intermingled in between. The solid block wall would occur on the west elevation and the chain link on the east. Chair Imboden opens the item to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Merino asks for clarification regarding the condition of the no special promotional event requirement, is that condition placed on other businesses in the complex. Mr. Ortlieb states that this is a very common condition, and it is on several of the other alcohol serving venues within this center. He checks his records to verify if it is on all of the venues, and finds that it is not placed on all of them. Page 5 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 Commissioner Merino questions what made Staff feel it was appropriate to place this requirement on this particular business. Mr. Ortlieb states that with the application it was noted that they would have special events, such as musical entertainment and host larger crowds. Based on the Police Department's recommendation Staff made the determination. Commissioner Merino also asks about condition 25 and how Staff arrived at a 4 person or less band and how did the number of band members make a difference. Mr. Ortlieb for fear of speculating will refer this to the Police Department. Commissioner Merino continues with: is the alcohol service stopping at 11 :00 p.m. consistent with the other establishments in this complex. Mr. Ortlieb states that this varies within the complex. Commissioner Merino asks why the inconsistency and how an 11 :00 p.m. time was chosen for the stoppage of alcohol service and not the one hour before closing for this venue. Mr. Ortlieb explains that they did not want to create an establishment where everyone would congregate because it had the longest alcohol serving time. If there are others that are closing at 1 :00 a.m. then you are correct. Sergeant Bird comes forward to answer additional questions from the Commission. Commissioner Merino states that if Sergeant Bird could give some further background on the issues discussed with Staff. Sergeant Bird states that he pulled C.UP.'s for all the other establishments that serve alcohol in this location and looked at the times that they stayed open and presented his findings to the Commission. To stay consistent with the other restaurants in this area and the provisions of the C.UP. that states that alcohol sales will not exceed the food sales in any given quarter throughout the year. Our belief based on information received from the current owner of the Long Beach Irish Dubliner location that they were exceeding the 50% mark. My fear is that this establishment would become a pub and not a bonafide eating establishment if they remained open until 2:00 A.M. Commissioner Merino states that we cannot hold an applicant to practice; we can only hold them to the written requirement. Sergeant Bird states that we have businesses that are 20-30 years old in the City of Orange that have no C.UP's at all, and we have found that back then they did not think of those types of things. Now with the concentration of alcohol and the crime rates we started to enact C.UP.'s. In this particular complex, 2 of them have minimal C.UP.'s and we are learning that we need to establish more rigorous standards of our alcohol establishments in our City. Commissioner Merino asks Sergeant Bird about the inconsistencies in districts and how we are applying them now. Sergeant Bird explained that the new mapping system that they use determines in which boundary and census track the business lies. I do actual drive bys to verify that they fall within the correct census track. Commissioner Steiner asks about the Long Beach location's business hours. Sergeant Bird believes that they are open until 2:00 a.m. and there have been 36 calls for service over a three year period. Commissioner Steiner asks if the Orange Police Department is supportive of this application. Sergeant Bird replies that they are, even when we are Page 6 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 looking at a higher crime rate based on Business Professions Code 23958.4 and over concentration on this particular census track. This location has been vacant for over a year and it does contribute to blithe in the sense of economic hardship in this complex. The theater does have 24 hour security and this establishment would be the only traditional Irish Pub and Restaurant in the City of Orange. Commissioner Steiner states that one of the reasons the Police Department does not oppose this business is because it will be a restaurant and not a bar. In your experience people who frequent these restaurants that stay open until 2:00 go in to drink and not eat. Sergeant Bird agrees with this statement. Commissioner Steiner states that I do not have a problem with the hours of operation or the special events requirement, but I do have a problem with the happy hour condition. Some of the businesses were allowed to have happy hours while others were not. In the interest of not doing anything further to encourage further economic downturn by putting a particular business at a disadvantage, how serious are you committed to this provision. Sergeant Bird clarifies that this provision does not disallow a happy hour it just states that there will be no drop in price in alcoholic drinks. They will be allowed to sell food at a lesser price. Commissioner Steiner states that he recalls that there was no distinction made regarding happy hour when the application for Lazy Dog was being reviewed. Mr. Knight responds that the word happy hour was taken out and another provision was made regarding the sale of alcohol beverages and receipts. Commissioner Merino states that since he was not on the Commission at that time he would like to review that application. Sergeant Bird states that he has the provision for Lazy Dog before him. It is provision #15 and states that there should no time when alcoholic beverages should be sold at a ratio of two for the price of one, no stacking of beverages, and no sales to an empty chair. Commissioner Steiner, speaking to Sergeant Bird states that if the language in condition #13 was reflective of condition #15 from the original application from last year would you find this acceptable. Sergeant Bird states that he cannot speak for the chief, but because we have that condition on another establishment in that particular complex I would say yes. Chair Imboden opens the meeting to the public hearing. Applicant, Terrance Branley co-owner of the Irisher, address on file, comes forward to address the Commission. Mr. Branley states that they have five other locations and I think I have a pretty good understanding why the conditions are there and much of it has to do with public safety. Most of my family is in law enforcement, we have many investors there and my point being that I had a very good understanding why these conditions are put into place. The most important thing that I want to state is that we understand, and we agree with many of the conditions. Some of these conditions are not conditions that we have at our other locations, but that is fine. He also stated that there are three conditions that he would like to discuss with the Commission. The first one, Page 7 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 being the hours of operation and that first and foremost this is a restaurant. I want to be sure that we are not slanted in the direction that we are a bar. We have leather bound menus, linen napkins and we serve high quality foods. Another issue is the conditions that are being applied to our establishment and not the other venues in the complex. We seem to be the first location to have an earlier set hour of operation time. I want to express that we would like to be on an equal level with our co-tenants. The second condition is the happy hour that was discussed. Mr. Branley stated to be perfectly frank it is not a big component of their business concept. We are a restaurant and not a pub. If we are held to that condition that we will be accepting of it. On the third issue is the entertainment piece. Irish music is a huge component of the restaurants and pubs in Ireland. Another big component is the ability for people to have conversation and at any point if the music would overpower the conversation it defeats the purpose of a social hub of the community. When we looked at the number of band members, sometimes on Sunday afternoon we have sessions. There are folks that come in, on their own, with flutes or fiddles and sit off in the corner to provide background music. Some of the other bands that we have may have five members or more. These are the main areas that we would like to work with the Commission on to come up with a workable solution. Commissioner Steiner states that regarding the hours of operation Sergeant Bird had given us the Police Departments concern about staying open until 2:00 a.m. Ifthere was some area between 11 :00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. what would be workable for this estab lishment? Mr. Branley states that one of the issues is the stoppage of the serving of alcohol one hour prior to the close of business. We have no problems with that. Normally we would ask for at 2:00 a.m. close and stop the serving of alcohol 1 hour prior to that. Understanding the ABC Laws and the logic, I think we would be fine to close at 2:00 a.m. and stop the alcohol service at 1 :00 a.m. Commissioner Steiner asks if you could pick a time for alcohol service to end what would that be. Mr. Branley responds 12:59. Mr. Branley states that often times, and this happens to be at this location, there are other restaurant staff members who come into our establishment to eat a meal at the end of their night. This is a huge component for a potential here as we have seen at our other locations. Commissioner Steiner states that he understands the Long Beach location has a SO/50 split, would you agree with me that in all likelihood that maybe in some way that this would contribute to the fact that they are open to 2:00 a.m. Mr. Branley counters that location is everything and while we could talk about the Long Beach location being a SO/50 split at our other locations we do not have this ratio. I do believe it is predicated on location. This location will be heavy on lunch and dinner, far more than any of our other locations. I do not know if I would agree with you but I do understand your logic. Commissioner Steiner asks are you at all persuaded by the fact, as Commissioner Merino noted, the market factors seem to suggest that things are not happening after midnight and is it critical that you remain open this late? Mr. Branley answers as a business Page 8 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 person, this is one of the first things that they teach you about market demand and as a business person we would be wasting money. I personally think that there is a demand there and this is why we think it is so important. Commissioner Merino has a follow up question. One of the understandings is that if you are going to stay open that long and maintain the food service, you would assume that the kitchen would be fully staffed. If someone was to come in from the Police Department or Community Development to do a spot check that the kitchen would be in full operation, even if there was no demand that you would be keeping the kitchen open. Mr. Branley states that we intend to have the kitchen open. If the demand was less than what we anticipate than we would have a smaller menu. I understand the reason for the condition, and we would not be looking for a loophole to meet the requirement. Commissioner Whitaker states that there doesn't appear to be any set place in your floor plan where the music will be performed. We have seen instances where a restaurant has taken all the chairs out of a particular section when the stage was to be a limited area and suddenly the entire restaurant becomes a stage and a dance floor. My concern is that without a specified area of where you will have the music I am getting visions of an entertainment venue. Mr. Branley states that typically for the sessions there are five to six performers that come over to find a comer to blend in with the rest of the patrons. I feel we would be willing to specify a specific area if this would make the Commissioners feel more comfortable. Chair Imboden adds that with the request for amplification you would need to have a specific area designated. Mr. Branley states that what we typically do is have areas around the restaurant, however if you would be more comfortable with a designated space for it, we would not have an issue with that. Commissioner Bonina states that it is my understanding that you are requesting closure at 2:00 a.m. with alcohol ceasing one hour prior. Mr. Branley states yes, this is correct. Chair Imboden asks about the special events and something was mentioned about games over in Anaheim. What is your idea of the number of special events you would have? Mr. Branley states that the one event would be St. Patrick's Day; I am not sure where the rest of the events came from. -Even with the events from the other areas we would not be doing anything differently. Unless I am missing something, the only event we spoke about is St. Patrick's Day. Commissioner Merino asks if Mr. Branley is familiar with the Harp? He responds yes. Commissioner Merino adds that this establishment will push the tables out of the way and create a large dance venue and this is a concern here. Is the dance factor anything that you are going to encourage/discourage? Mr. Branley responds that the Harp is one of the visions of an Irish Pub and it is far from what our establishment will be. We have spent a lot of money building the interior in Ireland and shipping it here. We will be staying true Page 9 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 to our concept with music more of a blues, folksy music. Sometimes we do have some of the Irish Dancing schools that on a Sunday afternoon session may have two or three performers come into the restaurant. Commissioner Merino states that what we do not want to see is a problem with having an establishment that states they are one type and then becomes another. The stage and the dance floor are all very critical components to this Commission. Commissioner Whitaker asks how the applicant came up with a 90 decibe11evel. I am looking at the chart and I don't think a heavy truck is highly conducive to conversation. I would think if you wanted an atmosphere more in the conversation level you would want a 75 decibe11evel. Mr. Bran1ey states that the reason that came up was that it came up in our Squaw Valley location. At that location there is a decibel restriction and this is what the developer proposed to us. I just printed this chart to see what was 90 decibel. Looking at this chart 90 was in the middle, more of a classical music type of noise. Chair Imboden asks where this chart came from. Mr. Bran1ey responds that it was printed off an internet site. I was trying to get a baseline establishment for the noise. Commissioner Bonina looks to Staff to get clarification on what a 90 decibel reading is and the accuracy of this chart. Mr. Knight reviews the chart and stats that this chart is fairly accurate. Chair Imboden asks for any further questions for the applicant, there are none. He opens the hearing to public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: Robert Atkinson, 150 Pelican Way, San Rafael, CA - came forward to make a statement. He states that I represent the property owner, I appeared before the Commission about two years ago and at that time the Planning Commission approved the redevelopment for the Stadium Promenade. Over the last 18-24 months I have worked closely with different agencies in the City and we have opened some very successful business. We've worked closely with our Economic Development Team to identify tenants that would be a proper choice for this location. The Auld Dub1iner is an excellent choice. They are a very upscale restaurant and I offer my support to the applicants request for the modifications. At the Happy Dog location those negotiations for happy hour were very fair and they have the ability to stay open until 2:00 a.m. I have looked at the Police Departments crime data and it was a little disturbing to me that we are in a zone that has a crime rate of 20%; I would like to see the crime stats relative to the types of crimes this 20% represents. We have a 24/7,365 security program. We have spent a lot of money on our lighting system. I think what we have done at this center in bring more energy to the area that we have made it safer. I would like to request that we work with the applicant to seek a solution to his questions relative to entertainment, hours of operation and happy hour. Brenda Locket, 2246 E. Locust, Orange, CA - came forward to make a statement. Page 10 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 She states that she is the General Manager of the movie theatre in the Stadium Promenade. My staff doesn't get off until 1 :00 a.m. and they are always looking for something to eat, I am looking forward to having places for myself and my staff to eat. I look forward to The Auld Irisher coming to our center. Chair Imboden asks if there are any further questions for the applicant. Commissioner Whitaker asks if there is any outdoor seating area and that it be service only, not an area where people can just go out and sit. Mr. Branley states that the concern we have is what people can do, and when the bar gets busy to get a drink and go out to the patio. We do not have an issue with a host/hostess serving out on the patio. We do not have a problem with it, and I just want to note that sometimes it is hard to be in 100% compliance. Commissioner Whitakers asks if it would ever be a seat yourself area? Mr. Branley states no, that this is one of the conditions that we are more than willing to comply with. Chair Imboden closes the public hearing and brings it back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Bonina asks staff if they could remind him of the Lazy Dog Cafe conditions for their patio area and service outside. Mr. Ortlieb responds that the Lazy Dog conditions of approval #19 states that patrons on the patio may be seated by host/hostess only and there is no self seating permitted. Condition #20 states alcoholic beverages on the patio shall be sold by a waiter/waitress only and only to patrons seated at tables. With regards to applicants on the three past locations and I have had a chance to look through those and did not see any specified hours. Commissioner Steiner states that he has a concern that the last three applicants have not had an hour's restriction placed on them and I think it would be unfair to impose it on this location. In regards to happy hour that we adopt language similar to the Lazy Dog condition #15. Commissioner Merino states that he echoes Commissioner Steiner's statement and he has one additional concern on the limitations on band membership. I do not see the connection of the number of band members and alcohol consumption being a logical argument. I feel that we are getting a venue that would be a magnet of getting folks to the complex and making this area safer. Commissioner Whitaker states that I have an issue with the live entertainment, I believe that limiting the number of band members is not appropriate. I do have a concern with the decibel level and the idea that you would have no amplification. If you had a 70 decibel limit and a specific area inside the restaurant for live music then I could buy into that. Commissioner Bonina clarifies that you want to identify an area inside the restaurant. One issue being the location and the other being the decibel level. Commissioner Whitaker responds yes, and that there would be a condition that chairs Page 11 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 would not be moved out to create a dance floor. Commissioner Merino states that I think we are crafting condition #25 to meet this intent. Commissioner Steiner speaking to Commissioner Whitaker; is it your intent to identify an area to be designated to entertainment and that the area could not be changed? Commissioner Whitaker states that I am suggesting a specific area so that you do not have the tendency when you had a larger band to move the chairs out and create a space. I want to see the restaurant establishment stay fixed. Commissioner Merino states that we could craft language that would require staff to work with the applicant to achieve this. Chair Imboden states that he is in agreement and that he wants to be sure that these items we are crafting are acceptable to the applicant. He added that this project aesthetically has changed and I would like to add a condition that upon our approval that they are based on DRC approval of the changes. To me it has not had adequate review. Commissioner Steiner asks council for clarification on the impact ofDRC approval. Mr. Sheatz responds that if there were things that fall within the purview of the DRC, regarding exterior modifications and if there were additional things done then the Chair is correct it can be sent back to the DRC for compliance. I will refer back to Mr. Knight to get clarification on what has changed. Chair Imboden explains that he feels that this has not had adequate review if it has had changes since it has been seen by the DRC. We only received these tonight and it is difficult for us to evaluate and I would rather that go back to the DRC for their decision. Mr. Sheatz states that he sat through the DRC review and they were very, very thorough in their criticism for modifications and suggestions for the exterior work. What are the new elements here that might fall back to the DRC? Mr. Knight states that staff uses their discretion in taking it back to the DRC based on the scope of the changes. If the Commission is uncomfortable in the changes that you have seen this evening you can place a condition on this item that it should go back to the DRC for review. Commissioner Merino asks if there has been sufficient review to see that there are significant changes that would require this item to go back to the DRC? Chair Imboden states that there is a change to the elevation that we have not been supplied with and it is hard for me to make this determination. We do not know what the application is for the fence material. Commissioner Steiner states that it would not be unreasonable to go back to the DRC. Commissioner Merino adds that it would not be fair to penalize the applicant. Mr. Knight states that he agrees with Commissioner Merino and I suggest that those Page 12 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 aspects not seen by the DRC should be and you could craft a condition in a way that these new aspects could be reviewed and still permit the project to move forward. Commissioner Merino states that he feels this would work. Chair Imboden agrees and asks for any further discussion. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to adopt Conditional Use Permit No. 2665-07 and DRC Committee No. 4250-07, The Auld Irisher with the following conditions: · Condition #25 be stricken · Condition #10 modify the language to be not inconsistent with the Lazy Dog regarding the hours of operation. · Condition #13 modify the language to read no stacking, no two for ones. · Incorporate the suggestions by Commissioner Whitaker to work with staff to designate an area for live music and to change the language to 75 decibels. · Add a condition that any proposed changes since the DRC review go back to the DRC for final review Chair Imboden asks the applicant to come forward to verify that he understands and accepts the modifications. Mr. Branley states that he understands and accepts these conditions. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED. (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2621-06 - ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS A proposal to co-locate and operate a wireless telecommunications antenna facility on a non-stealth existing monopole and associated equipment and cabinets located on a property owned by Southern California Edison (SCE). On July 16, 2007, the Planning Commission denied the project. On August 6, 2007, the Planning Commission voted to reconsider this item. LOCATION: 4725 E. Chapman Avenue NOTE: This project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per state CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - Negligible expansion of an Existing public utility) because the project consists of adding antennas to an existing monopole. There is no public review required. Page 13 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Final determination on Conditional Use Permit No. 2621-06. Assistant Planner Robert Garcia provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. He read from the arborist letter: the trees located on the Pearl side street for the most part are mature and they would be damaged if additional landscaping would be added to this site. Chair Imboden asks the Commission for questions to staff. Commissioner Bonina asks what has changed on this project since last review. Mr. Garcia states that the antennas will be flush mounted, the microwave dish is no longer being requested and the fence will be at 6'6". There is an administrative adjustment for this fence. Chair Imboden questions the administrative adjustment for the fence. Mr. Garcia states that with a screen for the equipment which is 6'4", it requires a 6' 6" fence. Chair Imboden ask if an 8' fence is permitted in a commercial zone, this was my understanding. Mr. Knight states that it varies by district. An industrial zone can be 8' with request, a residential area is 6' within setback areas and commercial districts which this is, is only 6'. Chair Imboden asks the applicant to come forward with any information he would like to share. Applicant, John Koos, 2923-A Saturn Street, Brea, Ca comes forward and states that we have modified the design to be more aesthetically pleasing. The microwave dish has been removed and the cabinets sit lower, enough to be hidden behind the chain link fence. I would like to offer additional changes that we could do, we could paint the antennas to match the tower and add slats to the fence in the equipment enclosure. I have passed around the pictures of the poles to show that they are a more desirable design. Commissioner Bonina asks if the suggestion around the enclosure is to add green slats. Mr. Koos responds yes. Commissioner Bonina clarifies if the green slats would go around the entire perimeter. Mr. Koos responds no, it would go around the equipment cabinet enclosure, but we would be willing to discuss this further. Currently there are slats on the rolling gate area along Chapman. Commissioner Bonina states that it appears that there are slats on the Pearl Street side. Mr. Koos states that there are none, but we are willing to add these. Chair Imboden asks what the strategy is for the slats; there are areas with slats and areas without slats. The arborist report states concerns about adding additional landscaping. This is clearly a concern for this body and did you seek any other landscaping alternatives or just the adding of more landscaping at the base of the trees. I just want to follow your position. Page 14 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 Mr. Koos states that in respect to the Chapman frontage that there is ample room for additional ground cover. It is our position that the landscaping along Chapman will not mitigate the equipment enclosure aesthetics. Given the fact that the equipment is 150' off of Chapman and there are already slats at the gate, the average passer by would not be able to see our equipment from Chapman. On the rear this is entirely up to this body and we are willing to add slats to the chain link fence. We cannot add any landscaping without disturbing the trees on that side. Chair Imboden asks if a consideration was made to replace landscaping or to explore other options. Mr. Koos responds that based on the arborist recommendation it was not considered. It was our thinking that we wanted to maintain the existing landscaping and adding to it, which the arborist recommended that we should not do. Commissioner Bonina states that he agrees with the Pearl Street side and the arborist report and the alternative to add the green slats would be a good solution. With the trees on the Chapman side which are further apart, it looks like you would want to come back with some type of landscape plan for the Chapman side. Mr. Koos responds that typically we try to mitigate our impact. If it is the impression of the Commission that we should go above and beyond that we can talk about that. The Pearl Street side was sensitive because there are single-family homes facing it. To add slats on Pearl Street was an answer to the resident's needs. I think the overall impact with the antennas flush mounted to the pole, minus the microwave dish is an overall benefit to the environment. In this vicinity we need coverage. Chair Imboden opens the hearing to public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: David Cortez, address on file, states that I am against this project and I walk by this site several times a week. I live in this community. El Modena is changing daily with traffic and high density housing. It is affecting our town and we have a big problem with parking. It is very hard to maintain any quality of life and I do not see this project benefiting the residents. The pole is unsightly and I consider it an eyesore. Edison has not been a good neighbor. The graffiti on the gate has been there for a year. Graffiti is a big problem in our City. Commissioner Bonina asks if he is agreeable to the green slats on the property. Mr. Cortez states that this would at least block the view from looking into it. However there is still the potential for graffiti. Commissioner Bonina asks ifthere is community group in this area. Mr. Cortez responds that there is a Neighborhood Watch and we have formed our own group to discuss problems in our area and I am here representing myself as a resident. Chair Imboden ask the applicant to respond to the comments from the public. Mr. Koos states that he cannot do much about the existing equipment. In response to the Page 15 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 graffiti it would be entirely up to the Commission to add an approval of acceptance to remove graffiti within 48 hours of notification. He turns to the SCE representative for further clarification on the graffiti issue. Ken Landry, 4900 Rivergate Road, Irwindale, Ca representing Southern Ca Edison states I know that we are working on a graffiti removal policy. We have contracted with an agency which I need to get clarification on. We do inspect our sites for safety issues, weed abatement and graffiti removal, this is an annual inspection. Chair Imboden clarifies that this would be an annual inspection. Mr. Landry confirms yes it is an annual inspection. Chair Imboden asks if there is any turn around time noted in regards to the graffiti removal. Mr. Landry states that he is not clear on that and would need to refer to SCE's public affairs department. Commissioner Steiner thanks Mr. Cortez for his comments and states that there is no excuse for the graffiti not to be removed for over a year. Many of his concerns should be directed to SCE. Mr. Landry states that he can take the graffiti issue back to the correct division to address that issue. Commissioner Bonina states that as a responsible property owner that you would want to address this issue. Chair Imboden closes the public hearing and brings the item back to the Commission for any further discussion. Commissioner Merino asks for clarification on the vote I took on this item the last time this applicant was before us, I felt that the motion presented did not reflect the opportunity to the applicant on an up or down vote on the application that was before us. This all being said in terms of the issues brought forth, and based on my review on what is going on; we need to take the project as it is and not make it larger than it is. We have an application to co-install equipment in an existing location. It is difficult for me to see how we can mitigate a situation that is created by Edison, and they say it is created by regulations and rules by the PUc. I want to give this applicant a chance to receive an up or down vote on the item before us. Commissioner Steiner addresses the slat issue and states that I do not want to hold the applicant responsible for the graffiti issue. Commissioner Whitaker states that I have supported this item in the past and I will support it again. The applicant has made it less unattractive by having it flush mounted and removing the microwave tower. Edison is not going to clean up its graffiti or add further landscaping. I feel this application is as good as it can be. I would like to add a condition that slats be placed on the 6'6" fencing around the equipment, not on the Pearl side which would encourage graffiti and this would be my amendment to a motion. Commissioner Merino states that my concern is whether the slats are mitigating the view or creating a larger problem. The Commission discusses the issue of the placement of slats and a preference for the perimeter or on the equipment enclosure would be more Page 16 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 agreeable and the issue of graffiti. Chair Imboden re-opens the public hearing to direct a question to Mr. Cortez, he is asked for his opinion on the preference of slats. Mr. Cortez responds I would like to see a chain link fence with ivy. Commissioner Merino asks if he would like the slats or no slats. Mr. Cortez responds he would like to see slats on the fence; this would be a good solution. Chair Imboden closes the public hearing and brings the discussion back to the Commission. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to Adopt Conditional User Permit No. 2621-06, Royal Street Communications with the recommendation that the enclosure to the equipment to have green slats. Chair Imboden looks to the applicant to the motion just made. Mr. Koos states yes he is ok with the recommendation. Chair Imboden states that he is not in support of this project and he feels that not enough landscaping alternatives were explored. I do not feel this project shows enough sensitivity to its location. It is on a major thoroughfare through our City, but more importantly to the private residents that sit right behind it. I think it is very easy to say that it is easy to add more equipment to this site and more equipment to this tower unless your home sits right on this site. I feel there could have been a more creative solution that could have been brought back here to us tonight. Commissioner Bonina states that he will not support this project and he is disappointed with the response by the property owner in terms of the graffiti situation. Commissioner Merino states that we specifically asked the Edison representative about the graffiti and although I am disappointed in their response to our wishes that they are bound by the PUC and their regulations and I find it hard to hold an applicant and property owner above the regulations that they are subject to. I do not think that we can force this issue. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioner Merino, Steiner and Whitaker Commissioner Bonina and Imboden None None MOTION CARRIED (6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2661-07 - CREEKSIDE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL A proposal to establish a preschool in association with an existing private school serving kindergarten through eighth grade students. Including the preschool student, the total number of students is not proposed to exceed 150, which is the maximum number Page 17 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 allowed under the school's existing Conditional Use Permit 2511-04. Preschool instruction is proposed in existing on-site building and facilities. LOCATION: 1130 E. Walnut 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) because the project consists of leasing of existing private structures and facilities. There is no public review required. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution PC 33-07 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2630-07. Assistant Planner Chad Ortlieb provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opens the discussion for questions to staff. Commissioner Merino asks if there is a 150 student maximum and with the addition of these students how do they meet the 150 student cap. To clarify that the 150 students would be included in the total student cap. Mr. Ortlieb responds that they have not reached their cap and they have room for additional students. This includes students in the preschool grades and all other grades combined. There is no cap on preschool students. Chair Imboden states that there is an area listed as parking and it is also listed as a play area with a fence blocking it off, he asks staff for clarification of this parking area. Mr. Ortlieb states that the parking area is for services on Sunday for maximum use on the site when religious assembly occurs. There are gates that open up for cars to park in this area. During school time the gates are closed creating a hard surface play area for students. Chair Imboden opens the meeting for public hearing and asks the applicant to come forward. Applicant, Joanna Vogel, 12383 Lewis #103, Garden Grove, Ca, comes forward and states that we have many families with younger children and we want to add that alternative for families to have all their children in one place. Weare requesting to meet the needs of the families at this time. Chair Imboden asks if there are any additional questions, there are none and the discussion is brought back to the Commission. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to Adopt Conditional Use Permit No. 2661-07 Creekside Christian School. Page 18 of 19 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 2007 SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED ADJOURNMENT: Chair Imboden made a motion for adjournment to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting held here in the Chambers on Monday, September 17, 2007 SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED @ 10:28 P.M. Page 19 of 19 Pages