Loading...
2007 - November 19 ta~oo..G.;J.. .3 Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 1 of 28 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange 19 November 2007 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Jennifer Le, Senior Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Anna Pehousek, Principal Planner Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Administrative Session opened @ 6:30 p.m. The Commission reviewed information and letters received. Chair Imboden asked Staff if they could get information sooner or an email if information would be given to the Commissioners late. Mr. Knight noted when Agenda Item No. 3 came up for review it would be withdrawn from the agenda due to an address error. Chair Imboden stated that there would not be a vote necessary, just a recommendation when the item was reviewed. Mr. Knight inquired of the Commission if members would be available for a second meeting in December, as this is where the item would be continued to; Commissioners stated they would be available. Chair Imboden stated that the Commission had requested on several occasions a copy of the Southern California Edison policies, which was the reason for the variance on the item being withdrawn. Mr. Knight stated that the request to Edison had been made. Commissioner Steiner stated that he would have a spelling correction on the minutes that were to be approved. Item No.2 Depot Plaza - Commissioners stated that there would be questions on this item. Commissioner Whitaker stated that based on his GIS map he may need to be recused from the item. Commissioner Steiner stated that the alley area being discussed might be within his business address and Commissioner Merino stated that as a member of the American Legion, which was in the mapped area, could present a possible conflict of interest for him. Mr. Sheatz took into account all of the situations and excused himself from the meeting to gather information regarding the conflict of interest as it could affect the item from being reviewed. Page 1 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 2 of 28 Item No.4 Beacon Day School - Chair Imboden and Commissioner Merino stated they would have questions for the applicant. Item No. 5 E1 Modena Park Wireless Facility - Commissioner Merino stated that he would have questions on the item. Mr. Knight shared that this was the last Royal Street Communications up for approval, as there were no other active items in the works. Item No.6 Wise Guys Pizzeria - This is a revised request for a license and to eliminate the existing license. Item No.7 Bagel Me and First Class Pizza Corporation - No discussion on the item. Item No.8 City Wok - Commissioner Steiner stated that he would be recused from the item as he lived in the area. Commissioner Merino stated that the recommendation from Staff was to adopt denial. Chair Imboden asked Staff if the recommendation for denial could be noted in parenthesis on future agendas. Item No. 9 Shared Parking Agreement - Commissioner Merino stated that this item was coming back with one remaining issue to address. Chair Imboden stated that he would be moving this item up in the agenda as the applicant had waited last meeting until the end of the agenda. Imboden stated that based on the lengthy agenda he would be calling for a recess at approximately 9:00 p.m., and checking wi Commissioners throughout the evening as the meeting progressed. Mr. Sheatz rejoined the Administrative Session to discuss with Commissioners any conflict of interest, based on business, residence and association addresses that may arise on the Depot Plaza item. Meeting moved to chambers @ 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: (3) MAJOR SITE PLAN NO. 0405-05; MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1790-07; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2554-05; VARIANCE NO. 2173-07 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4220- 07 - CHAPMAN RV #4 A proposal to establish a Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility within a 13.48 acre Southern California Edison property that will continue to maintain towers supporting overhead power lines. A variance is needed to waive a requirement to install a solid wall or fence enclosure within a 20-foot landscape setback from the residentially zoned properties to the north of the site. LOCATION: 1518 N. Tustin Page 2 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 3of28 NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1790-07 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines (Attachment 2). The Mitigated Negative Declaration finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures. The 20-day public review period was initiated on October 15, 2007, ending on November 5, 2007. Copies of the document were available for public review at all City Libraries and at City Hall. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 46-07. Assistant Planning Director Ed Knight stated that the item was being withdrawn and re- noticed. After due consideration the address that was shown on the item was not correct and Staff would re-notice the item and bring it back at a future public hearing. Commissioners acknowledged that the item was being withdrawn. Chair Imboden stated that there were speaker cards received from George Tindail and Sam Miller and both would be notified when the item would be back in front of the Commission for review CONSENT ITEMS (1) APPROV AL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 2007. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve the October 15, 2007 minutes with correction as noted. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Merino, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED COMMISSION BUSINESS (2) DEPOT-PLAZA PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION STUDY A feasibility study that identifies design concepts for improving pedestrian walkways between the Sante Fe Depot and the Plaza Area. LOCATION: The study area is bound by Maple Avenue to the north, Almond Avenue to the south, Glassell Street to the east and the railroad Page 3 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19,2007 4 of 28 tracks to the west. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission 1) Discuss and provide comment on the Depot-Plaza Pedestrian Connection Study, and 2) recommend the study move forward to the City Council for review. Senior Planner, Jennifer Le provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Brian Hannigan, consultant on the project, stated that there were priority layouts and the overall plan exhibits for the Commissioners to review. In reference to the priority layout; the first phase would take place in the City right-of-way that ran along Maple, Lemon and Almond Avenue. Those areas would be the higher end improvements with sidewalk and trees. The City looked at safety in the crossing areas and utilized bulb outs and by reducing the crossing for pedestrians at the intersections along Maple, between Cypress, Lemon and Olive Street. The same idea was used along Almond Avenue. Phase two included the south alley. That area had a fairly direct connection from Glassell to Lemon Street; the design emphasized Lemon Street with its signalized crossing and safety for pedestrians. Some of the challenges with the design was trying to make the Depot connect with the Plaza through an east west connection, the best way to currently do that would be along Maple A venue and down through the north alley. The third phase would be improvements to Olive and Cypress Street for sidewalks, landscape and trees. The fourth phase would be to north alley, which was the most controversial area, due to public and private ownership that hopscotched through the connection. Commissioner Bonina asked for some information on the proposed lighting and if the lighting would be shut off at a particular time? Mr. Hannigan stated if lighting would happen it would turn on, and remain on throughout the night. There were two types of lighting noted in the Staff Report; one would be lighting on buildings and the other would be free standing pedestrian lights. There was parking lot lighting already in place. Chair Imboden stated that there was a reference to specialty paving and what would that consist of? Mr. Hannigan stated there were a couple of ideas for pedestrian use. The best paving was the smoothest paving and the recommendation was for concrete and not brick pavers. Many cities had used clay pavers that were not as durable. They would look at light colors and something made of concrete with visibility to vehicular traffic that would identify the area as a pedestrian crossing. Chair Imboden stated the he would like more information on the potential problems with property ownership, how many problems and which buildings were involved. Ms. Le stated that in the northwest corner of the Plaza through Cypress Street, the Paseo would cross a number of private and public properties. Between Cypress and Atchison Page 4 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 5 of 28 was the only place where there was an actual building. In the study the City had called out the property that would be in the way and when the project was up for redevelopment it would include the addition of a Paseo to complete the connection from Glassell to Atchison to the Depot. The other areas that the Paseo would cross public property would be through parking lots and drive aisles. There were also a few sections through the north alley that were publicly owned. The alley behind Omega Burger was in a public right-of-way and there might be one other. Chair Imboden stated that there was a building that presented a potential problem and had that building been identified as a Historic Building? Ms. Le stated it was identified and it was not an Historic Building. The property contained the Taco Bell building. Mr. Hannigan stated that there was a gap between the building and an out building that was not part of the original building. Chair Imboden stated that although it may not be part of the original building further research may be needed to identify its Historic significance. Commissioner Steiner asked, on the issue of private property and the need to obtain access, would the City need to obtain an easement? Ms. Le stated as the City moved forward they would need to obtain rights for public use of those areas through a form of an easement in order to implement all portions of the north alley that crossed private property. Commissioner Steiner addressing the City Attorney asked if there was any doubt that the project was public use? Mr. Sheatz stated that there was no doubt. Commissioner Steiner reading from Section 3, page 26, pedestrian actIVIty usually requires a type of destination activity along the route. He asked Staff for clarification of the paragraph. Ms. Le stated when you ask people to walk down Paseos and alleys you need to give them somewhere to go and points of interest along the walkways. These could be access to businesses and there were concepts of newspaper stands being placed in areas that had space. This would provide some type of activity along the way. Commissioner Steiner asked if there had been any consideration towards the potential issue of pedestrians crossing the railroad tracks? Ms. Le stated that the connection between the Plaza area and Depot Station would be taken care of with the Metro Link project. It was a separate project, and the hope was that pedestrians would be attracted to using the under crossing to cross the tracks. Maple A venue was focused on as a primary link with the planned under-crossing in mind. Chair Imboden stated that this item did not necessitate a public hearing, however, he did have speaker cards and would like to invite those present to address the Commission with their input. Page 5 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 6 of 28 Jim Owens, 1635 S. Cypress, Orange, came forward to address the Commission. He stated his recommendation would be limited to the south alley parkway. The overall study recommendation identified opportunities for the area, however, the 100 block of S. Lemon Street and the 200 and 300 block of W. Almond needed immediate short and long term help. Those areas were in need of curb and sidewalk repair and many of the driveway approaches needed to be replaced. The current area contained rock, dirt, broken cement and dead grass. The area has been neglected by property owners and the City for years. Simply planting trees, lighting and addition of more cement would not be sufficient or enough. We need to have an aggressive partnership program involving the City and property owners that would address the area. An approach that addresses property management and improvement which would include planning, code enforcement, senior planning, the Planning Commission and City Council. There would need to be some form of cost sharing. The area is Historical and, if not addressed, could be lost. President of OTP A, Tom Loughery, 259 N. Orange, Orange, came forward to address the Commission. He was concerned with the north alley and the appropriateness of what could potentially occur with buildings that were not historic. The concern was with "Disneyfication" and what that would look like in a long-term plan. The alley was Historic. There was a concern with Maple Street and Almond, in the removal and under grounding of utilities. In some communities that was done to achieve a look that was consistent with the rest of the area. It would not be a look that would be consistent with the Orange Community and the historic nature of the City. OTP A was in favor of overdue maintenance items and safety concerns such as lighting, curbing and walkways. OTP A wanted to insure that those things would be done with the Historic District in mind that it would be taking place in. He was pleased with the idea of concrete pavers as that was an historic material and an appropriate use for the area. The Commission was being asked to look at two recommendations and he wanted the Commission to keep in mind the nature of the Historic District in making their recommendations. Chair Imboden brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion. Commissioner Bonina stated he felt the project was a step in the right direction and there was a lot of community input on the item. The last speaker did make a good point in making sure the City maintained a sense of accurate historic reference during the improvement process. Safety was also an issue, and keeping pedestrians safe in the evening. In reference to the maintenance issues brought up, it would be important that the City address those concerns. Chair Imboden stated he agreed with the maintenance issues. Looking at page No.22, and the notation of property marked as historiclsensitive properties; when the issue of the building that stood in the way of one of the alleys was being completed he wanted to ensure that the building had been inventoried recently and would it be acceptable, even if the property owner was willing to demolish the building. He stated that it was not only historic buildings that needed to be considered, but the Historic District. In his opinion the entire map should be brown, it was not only the buildings and parcels, it was streetscapes, sidewalks and the entire area. The sensitivity of the entire area needed to be addressed. He had concerns with the use of specialty pavements and the word Page 6 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19,2007 7 of 28 improvements, as the City had issues with that in the past. Potentially it was a great project, and he could only support the project if it remained low impact. Echoing the comment by the OTP A, he could not support the project if it came back with "Disneyfication". He was surprised to see the archways over the alleys, he did not see the need or how they would fit into the historic character of the community. The alleys could be improved, however, they still needed to be alleys in order to preserve the area. Chair Imboden stated there was conflict, on page 54, in reading one of the captions to the photos. When possible, historic buildings should be restored to their original historic state. On page 52, looking at the side of the building located at Maple and Glassell, it read it had no openings and was in need of fayade enhancements. That statement would say that the City is not aware of the historic nature of the building, not only does it have a very prominent front fayade and because it was a theatre building, it does not have openings on the side. From a preservation standpoint, to place openings it the side would not be recommended and as the floor drops down below the street level it would not be feasible. Chair Imboden wanted these items to be looked at with greater sensitivity and not just asking property owners to create prominent street facades in an alley. He also recommended low impact elements that would be placed along the way. The streets now were polluted with signs. At a pedestrian level a more intimate, smaller signage would be encouraged. He was surprised that the City's Historic Planner was not present. Chair Imboden made a motion to refer the Depot-Plaza Pedestrian Connection Study to the City Council for their review. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: RECUSED: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Imboden, Bonina, and Steiner None None None Commissioners Whitaker and Merino MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS: (9) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2689-07 - SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO PARCELS (THIS ITEM WAS MOVED UP IN THE AGENDA AT THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION) A proposal to create a shared parking agreement between an existing office building occupied parcel that will contain a future parking structure and a future parcel that will contain a future medical office building. An approved conditional use permit for a shared parking agreement is necessitated because one parcel would have a 116 space parking deficiency without utilization of 116 surplus parking spaces from the other parcel. LOCATION: 999 Town and Country Road Page 7 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 8 of 28 NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1783-05 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 15, 2007, and included an evaluation of the shared parking agreement in combination with the consideration of buildings and structures planned for the site. The Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluates the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the local CEQA Guidelines. The adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 48-07 Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. There were none. Chair Imboden opened the Public Hearing. Applicant, Matt McKinlay, 925 Magellon, Costa Mesa came forward to answer any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Whitaker asked Mr. McKinlay if he understood all conditions presented and contained in the Staff Report? Mr. McKinlay stated that he understood all conditions. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit 2689-07, Shared Parking Agreement between two parcels, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 48-07. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABST AIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2535-05 - BEACON DAY SCHOOL A proposal to permit the installation of a six (6) foot high fence on the northwest portion of the building located at 576 North Glassell Street. Applicant is requesting approval of the existing chain link fence surrounding the school's sensory play area as it provides more security and protection for the autistic students. LOCATION: 576 N. Glassell NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the Page 8 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 9 of 28 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1- Existing Facilities) because the project consists of the approval of an existing chain link fence (and/or the removal of an existing chain link fence, to be replaced with a wood fence). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Final Determination by Minute Order. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Steiner stated with respect to the existing chain link fence that complied with the Commercial Development Standards. In addition to that compliance, the chain link fence that was an issue of safety; was not substantially visible from the street. Ms. Thakur stated correct. Chair Imboden asked for clarification on the question of the fence being visible from the street and the answer was no. Ms. Thakur stated the rear portion of the property was not substantially visible from the street. It also depended on which portion of Glassell you would be looking at the site from. Commissioner Merino stated the implication in the Staff Report was the approved wood fence would be similar to the fence in the picture provided in the Commissioners packets. The fence appeared to be wood slats with gaps in between. Would that in fact be the case, as the applicant stated the children could try to get their heads between the slats, and was it the type of fence the City asked the applicant to provide. Ms. Thakur stated in reviewing the file, a wood fence was to be constructed on the northwest portion of the property. There did not appear to be an actual design for the fence. Commissioner Merino stated the previous plans were not clear at that time. The appearance and how the fence would have been constructed were somewhat up in the air. Ms. Thakur agreed with the statement. Chair Imboden stated many of the current Commissioners were not present when the item had been previously reviewed, and he did not agree with some of the comments made. There had been some discussion regarding the historic significance of the structures. In reviewing the minutes, when the item had been before the Commission, it did indicate that Ms. Roseberry stated both were contributing structures. Ms. Thakur stated that was incorrect, in reviewing the historic inventory they were not listed as contributing structures. The buildings had the potential as being listed as landmarks, but never included in the study. Page 9 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19,2007 10of28 Chair Imboden stated the question whether they had been inventoried, which they had. Referring to the question whether the fence was visible from the street, the fence stood clearly between two buildings and was clearly visible from the street. Chair Imboden added when the plans had been previously brought to the Commission they felt the plans to be inadequate for a number of reasons. One reason being site circulation and ADA accessibility on the site, all geared toward the safety of the children. The safety being the ultimate concern all along. The fence for the sensory gym was simply called out as a fence on the first plans. The Commission specifically indicated they would like to see what the project would like from the street. The plans returned with a six-foot high wood fence, and those were the plans that were in the packets. He stated the minutes clearly indicated something different from the current discussion. Commissioner Merino asked if the plans they were looking at were the plans that had been approved for the original Conditional Use Permit? Ms. Thakur stated in the file it was the plan provided as an exhibit. There was not anything in the file that had been physically stamped. Commissioner Merino asked if the client agreed to provide a fence as was noted, a wood fence, as presented on the application? Ms. Thakur stated yes, that was her understanding. Commissioner Whitaker stated he had observed the November 20 meeting when the CUP had been modified to allow for extended operating hours. In those minutes there was discussion of the fencing, and how people would go back and forth across the parking lot. He would like to see the minutes of the November 20 meeting, as the Commission was discussing the fencing and its relationship to the previous approval. Chair Imboden stated he had concerns about the accessibility on the site. He had been to the site and was looking at a picture of a gate in the chain link fence. He had a hard time believing that it met ADA compliance for entry. Ms. Thakur stated she could not speak to the gate issue, however, a Fire Specialist had been to the site and had no issues with the gate/fence. Whether they were looking at it for ADA or building compliance was not clear. Chair Imboden stated he had concerns regarding the inspection as there had not been striping in the parking lot at the time, and it was approved. Commissioner Merino stated the applicant had made statements about their concerns regarding placement of the wood fence. As he understood it, there were not specific designs for the wood fence. Did anyone from Staff communicate the expectations for construction of the wood fence to the applicant? Ms. Thakur stated she was not aware of any communication. Commissioner Merino asked how they could address the fence concerns of the applicant and still be in compliance with the original permit? Page 10 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 11 of 28 Ms. Thakur answered that there was no specific design for the wood fence that was proposed, she imagined it would be similar to the fence that existed at the front of the building, except that it would be 6' in height. Commissioner Merino stated he had a concern that it might have been the applicant's assumption, as there was no specific design. The Commission could require a wood fence which addressed the applicant's concerns, and that would meet the intent of the CUP. Commissioner Bonina asked, in looking at the third set of photos, was there a wood fence located on the site? Ms. Thakur stated yes, there was a wood fence. It was located in the front yard setback, the photo was of the adjacent property. Commissioner Bonina asked if the children had access to the front yard? Ms. Thakur stated she could not answer that question. Chair Imboden opened the Public Hearing. Dr. Mary Jo Lang, 2117 Victoria Drive, Santa Ana, stated she leased the buildings from Dr. Leslie Nesbit, the property owner. Regarding the concerns about the fence, she would refer those questions to the project manager, Barbara McGuire, who worked with the City Planning Commission and was better versed in how it all came to be. Barbara McGuire, 701 E. Elizabeth Dr. Orange and Dr. Cy Estonatoc address on file, came forward to answer any questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Steiner stated from his perspective there were two issues he was weighing. One being design and the other being safety. Safety would be the priority. The applicant's position was that a wood fence would not work, as it posed a risk to the people who were at the facility. Would there be any type of wood fence or fence which would comply with the original conditions that would work, or was the applicant stating that under no circumstances no other fence would work, besides the chain link with slats? Ms. McGuire stated she had spoken with a few architects and contractors and she was not aware of another type of fence. There were vinyl fences that looked like wood. On the current chain link fence there were vinyl slats. Commissioner Steiner asked if that was the ultimate inquiry on the issue? If there was no other material that could be installed in the area that would weigh in favor of allowing the chain link fence to be permitted? If there was another material that would comply with the conditions, those materials needed to be pursued. The representation may be made that there was no other material and the motivation being more pivotal to the cost involved would be the reason it would not be legitimate. Ms. McGuire stated she believed a vinyl fence would not be as strong as the chain link. The children who use the area are strong. Commissioner Steiner stated he thought the concern with wood was the chance of injury to the children? Ms. McGuire stated yes, they could splinter and there was a visibility issue. Currently the staff in the school office was able to see the children, as well as parents when they picked up the children. The Page 11 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 12of28 current fence was by far the safest, and there had been no safety issues with the chain link. Dr. Estonatoc stated to answer Commissioner Merino's question, we went through agonizing hours to conceive of a wood fence design that would satisfy all the safety concerns. Collectively as a facility they were unable to come up with one. Commissioner Steiner stated there was no doubt that the requirement was for a wood fence. If you made such an effort to get a fence installed, would that not have been in compliance with the conditions? Dr. Estonatoc stated his involvement in researching a viable fence occurred after the chain link had been installed. Commissioner Steiner stated the wood fence was now installed, so what do we do now? Addressing Dr. Estonatoc and Ms. McGuire, in his position as an expert, there was no other fence that would insure the safety of the children. Ms. McGuire and Dr. Estonatoc agreed; there was no other. Commissioner Whitaker asked when the chain link fence was installed? Ms. McGuire stated prior to the school opening in 2005. Commissioner Whitaker asked if there had been a time frame involved in the approval process for installing the fence? Ms. Thakur stated when the application for modification came in the chain link fence was already in existence. Mr. Knight clarified that a Building Permit was not required on a chain link fence. Commissioner Merino asked Ms. McGuire, as the original project manager, had she understood that the requirement was for a wood fence? Ms. McGuire stated it was for chain link or wood. She misunderstood, in working with the City, the front was to be wood and that the material for the back fence did not matter. Chain link was noted on the contractor's plans. Commissioner Merino clarified that Ms. McGuire had not understood that there was to be a wood fence? Ms. McGuire stated correct, she did not think it needed to be a wood fence. She understood wood in the front with chain link in the back. Commissioner Merino asked as part of a CUP were there conditions that were confusing or gave an applicant an alternative between wood and chain link in the conditions? Mr. Knight stated in the instance of this item, there was not a specific condition that stated the fence would be wood. There was a condition stating the project was to be built in accordance with submitted and approved plans. There were copies of those plans, on those plans it noted the fence to be a 6' high wood fence. The expectation from the Planning Commission and Staffwas for a wood fence to be built. Page 12 of28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 13 of28 Commissioner Merino asked Ms. McGuire whether she had received and read the plans that noted the wood fence requirement. Ms. McGuire stated the contractor had the plans and that she was not a true project manager. She assisted in gathering materials and she did not see the details of the plan. Commissioner Bonina stated it was approved for a wood fence; the construction was of a chain link fence. Commissioner Merino asked if the decision for a chain link fence was made by the contractor, or were other involved? Ms. McGuire stated there were several people involved in the decision process. Commissioner Bonina stated it came down to three things for him. The aesthetics of the site, and clearly the fence was visible from the street. On the issue of safety, vinyl was mentioned, and it was suggested that vinyl was not viable. There was strong vinyl fence material and he felt the applicant could find a wood looking vinyl fence that would accomplish the goal. It would look good and provide safety. Ms. McGuire stated she looked at other buildings in the area that had chain link. The friendly center had chain link and a new preschool that had chain link (she presented photos to the Commission). She stated that most schools had chain link as it was a safe fence for children. Imboden asked if any of the schools were located in small historic homes. Ms. McGuire stated no. Commissioner Steiner asked if a vinyl, wood appearance fence could be considered. Dr. Lang stated if there were no other options and it was considered safe for the children it would be considered. Commissioner Steiner asked Dr. Lang what her PHD was in? Dr. Lang stated neuropsychology. Commissioner Steiner asked in Dr. Lang's opinion, would the current chain link fence be the only option that would ensure the safety of the children? Dr. Lang stated she relied on the contractor to keep her informed on the plans. She had not personally looked at other options. The fence that was installed was the safest for the children. Commissioner Steiner asked if a vinyl fence would be considered? Dr. Lang stated she did the best she could for the safety of the children. In looking at wood products, wood was treated with all kinds of things; the children were prone to allergies. There was a child at the school that required a special cleaning team as that child had an extreme sensitivity to disinfectants. She was concerned with the installation of a wood fence. She had not explored vinyl fences and would a vinyl fence be acceptable. Commissioner Merion asked if there were wood slats in the fence? Dr. Lang stated no; Page 13 of28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 14of28 they were vinyl slats. Teri Arranga, 1816 W. Houston, Fullerton, stated she was the parent of a student at Beacon Day School that served Autistic children. 67% of autistic children had pica. Pica meant that those children mouthed non-food products. Autistic children had metabolic disregulation that impaired detoxification. Autism was an environmentally triggered condition. There was a toxicity risk from commercial wood products, construction products and bi-products. Autistic children were prone to immune disregulation contributing to allergies to wood, construction products and bi-products. A significant percent of Autistic children were runners. The current fence at Beacon Day School ensured security and safety. My husband and son were present in the chambers. She stated they may have observed her son chewing on the council chairs. They were in favor of having the current fence remain at Beacon Day School. Ed Arranga, 1816 W. Houston, Fullerton, stated he had brought Ian as a concrete example of what was being discussed. It was vitally important that his son's safety came first. What was important was that the fence at the school now, was safe. Safety was paramount. There were few places he was safe with Ian as he had to physically restrain him. He had two sons with autism and understood what it took to keep them safe. You had discussed vinyl, if the chain link had to be removed, all kinds of chemical hazards would be raised. Autistic children were the most chemically sensitive children in the nation. To talk about ripping up and reconstructing would expose the children to dangers. Installing a vinyl fence without knowing the safety and track record of a vinyl fence, there were 17 children's lives at stake to be considered. The overriding criteria were for chemical and physical safety. Mr. Arranga implored the Commission to show sensitivity to the children. He wanted to be able to drop his child off knowing he was safe, and not have to chase him around the arena. Ian is getting better. Do not expose him to chemicals or he will regress, do not change the existing fence. Cindy Yorks, 18202 Charter Rd, Villa Park, stated she had an 8-year old autistic son. The first time she drove up to Beacon Day School and she was able to witness the play area. Her son had progressed the most in that play area. The small enclosed play area had visibility from the administration building. The flexibility of the fence provided safety to children who head bang, her son used his hands to force against the fence. It would be a disaster on a wood fence, there is zero give on a wood fence and it would be instant splinters. He could also fracture his wrist due to his strength. When she picked him up, her son came to the fence and would throw his body against the fence, a favorite thing he had done. Ms. Yorks stated she could not imagine her son doing that on a wooden fence. He was able to now ride a scooter around the small play yard. If a wood fence was installed it would limit visibility and the children would be hurt. She felt her child might not be able to attend the school if the fence was changed. The fence was the best possible scenario for the children and she asked the Commission to put the safety above any aesthetics. Chair Imboden asked the applicants to come forward for any additional questions. Chair Imboden stated he had heard some concerns over a vinyl fence. He understood that there was vinyl in the existing fence and more research would need to take place on the Page 14 of28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19,2007 15 of 28 safety of a vinyl fence and the security it would offer. Dr. Lang stated an important factor at the school was transparency. The parents had visibility through the fence when they came to pick them up. She was not aware of the toxicity of vinyl, and she would need to look into that. Parents had been happy with what was installed; no one had chewed on the fence, or eloped, and the current fence worked. She was not opposed to looking at a vinyl fence. Chair Imboden had concerns that the site was not truly handicapped accessible. He felt the gate entrance was not ADA accessible. The Commission had mentioned the issue previously, and he had shared his concerns with the applicant. There had been many comments about putting safety and security first, and he felt the Commission had done that. The original plans had not been approved due to the concerns they had for the children, and they had sent a very strong message to come back and ensure that the site was safe for the children. Dr. Lang stated the Police and Fire Department, along with having the building inspected, and every rule had been followed. A chair lift was installed and everything had been done with the guidance of City Planning, Fire and Police Departments. Chair Imboden stated the discussion had been about the existing fence or wood, that these had been the only two options discussed. He felt they had not explored other options, those that would bring the best safety and security to the students, and meet the plans that the applicant had authored. The safety and security of the children came first, and that the applicant had not exercised their diligence in looking for materials that were safe. He was hearing that vinyl might not be safe; however, there was already vinyl in the fence. Chair Imboden proposed the applicant explore alternatives and return with a proposal that would come closer to the objectives of the plans previously submitted and approved, and plans that provided the safety and security needed. He was not encouraging the applicant to remove the existing fence. There might be a way to add an addition fence attached to the existing fence. Commissioner Merino stated he was supportive of the Chairs' suggestion. The Commission had heard a lot of passion tonight, and he would like to see that passion and diligence devoted to the solution that would meet the applicant's needs, as well as the City requirements. Dr. Estonatoc stated the statements made suggested that the applicant did not put forth any effort. The City Council took issue that the plans specified wood and there was not wood installed. The plans called for wood, in the applicant's research they did look for a wood alternative, not considering vinyl as an option. He had concerns in following the plans and caring for the students. They could not find a wood fence that worked. Chair Imboden stated it was poor timing on the applicants' part. He was passionate about the project and the priority was for the children on the site. The applicant had time to take the plans, spend time with it and use consultants to create a safe environment. A while back your group came back for a Conditional Use Permit. Chair Imboden stated when he walked the site there were still items that were not in place and the school was up and Page 15 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 16of28 operational, he was troubled by that. He understood that they did not have the option of vinyl, however, wood was what was proposed. The Commission approved wood, if asked for vinyl they might have approved vinyl. There was switching after the decision was made. There was reasonable room for exploring alternatives; the applicant had explored to see if wood was a safe option, but he did not feel they explored vinyl. There was no fault on the part of the Commission, as they approved what had been brought forward. Dr. Estonatoc stated that the applicant had made an effort. Dr. Lang stated there were pictures that showed the property prior to their opening it. There was passion in bring that site to its current state. Commissioner Merino stated they were giving the applicant an opportunity to go back and explore alternatives. The applicant had brought the project forward and it was approved. You were being given the chance to come back again. Commissioner Bonina stated the Commission should be prepared to recognize and move forward if no alternative could be found. The issue needed to be resolved quickly, hopefully a meeting in mid December. Commissioner Merino stated he wanted to ensure the applicant understood the requirement, it was not the issue, of wood, or vinyl, or chain link, and it was a Planning Condition. One suggestion was for something to be placed on the outside of the existing fence to mitigate the issue. The applicant should leave here understanding the problem they would be solving. There was a Planning requirement that was placed on the CUP that needed to be addressed. Commissioner Steiner stated the applicant should not feel compelled to come back with only one idea, get as creative as they could for the kids. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 2535-05 - Beacon Day School to a date certain, of December 17, 2007. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2663-07 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 4244-07 - EL MODENA PARK WIRELESS FACILITY A proposal to install and operate a non-stealth wireless telecommunications facility on n 80 foot high City athletic light pole with associated equipment cabinets located in a masonry walled enclosure surrounded by landscaping and disguised as part of a waste and refuse enclosure in El Modena Park. Page 16 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 17 of 28 LOCATION: 555 S. HEWES NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project is antenna panels to a City light pole and constructing an equipment and trash enclosure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.49-07 Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Bonina asked if the project was for one or three antennas? Mr. Ortlieb stated there would be one antenna with wireless communication, with two other poles being replaced in the park. Commissioner Bonina stated on Condition No. 11; the applicant shall submit analysis, could Staff elaborate on that. Mr. Ortlieb stated the analysis had not been completed and it was a standard condition placed on wireless facilities. The Fire Department and Police Department would be looking at the project to ensure it did not interfere with their equipment Commissioner Bonina clarified, after the Commission's approval; there would be an additional analysis after installation? Mr. Ortlieb stated yes. Commissioner Merino stated the application was for installation on an existing pole, was it not for a pole that was going to be replaced? Would that affect the requirements as the CUP was for the antenna? Chair Imboden stated there seemed to be some uncertainty that needed some clarification. A representative from Community Services, Bonnie Hagan, came forward to clarify the application. Ms. Hagan stated one pole would be replaced with a pole that would carry the antenna. In addition two light standards would be replaced. Chair Imboden opened the Public Hearing. Applicant, Maree Hoeger, 2923-A Saturn St, Brea, representing Royal Street Communications, stated they proposed to replace an 80' light standard for installation of their facility and separately on the agreement with Community Services Division, there were two poles in the Park that had fallen, they would be installing conduit and the foundation for the light poles. Those poles were in the parking lot. The installation of the actual poles would be completed by the City. An addition of a trash enclosure would also be completed by Royal Street. Page 17 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 18 of 28 Chair Imboden stated the new wireless facility would be adjacent to a large flagpole, was that a cell site. Ms. Hoeger stated there were two other cell sites in the park. She believed the flagpole was aT-mobile site. The Royal Street Communication site would mimic a light standard. Chair Imboden asked, in looking at the photos, were these existing facilities of one that was to be replaced? Ms. Hoeger stated those were existing sites that would not be replaced; those were separate poles. Commissioner Bonina asked how long the lighting would be down in the park. Ms. Hoeger stated it would be approximately 1 week. They would be working with Community Services, as they had a requirement that no play would be interrupted during the installation. Ms. Hoeger stated that all conduit would be inside the pole. In regards to the interruption of frequency on Condition No. 11, their frequencies were very different than that of the City, which worked on an 800-900 MHz. The cell site operated in the 1800-1900 spectrums. There was not an issue and an installation test would be completed to verify no frequency interruption would occur. Chair Imboden opened the meeting for Public Comment. Ching Chiang Kuo, 18832 Fowler Avenue, Santa Ana, came forward to address the Commission. He had attempted to contact Staff to gather information. He had health concerns on the effects of the cell sites to residents. There was already an FCC facility and existing cell sites in the area. Had anyone completed any health studies on the risks the facilities might present. He was concerned that there was an application for another site, which could lead to more sites being installed. Mr. Kuo wanted to hear from the designers of the site what health analysis had been completed. Ken Long, 18822 Fowler Avenue, Santa Ana, came forward to address the Commission. In the letter he had received regarding the project it referred to a non-stealth installation. He wanted clarification on what that meant. The flag pole in center field was already a cell site, and there was an installation on a light pole in center field. He wanted to know which three light poles would be replaced, were they the parking lot poles or poles in the playing field. The applicant had mentioned poles that had fallen down. There was an FAA outer beacon in the area adj acent to his property, would this installation cause interference with that installation. He also had a concern whether the new site would cause any interference with residential equipment, and why they had chosen to install the site on a pole in left field. On the trash enclosure, he was concerned why it could not be placed near the restroom facility. Chair Imboden asked the applicant to come forward and address some of the concerns of the public speakers. Ms. Hoeger stated the City was aware that the facilities were regulated by the Federal Government. As part of that there were requirements posed by the FCC and there would be a post installation test. If the Commission wanted to add this as an additional Page 18 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 19of28 condition they would not have a problem as it was part of a wireless requirement. Mr. Sheatz stated it could not be added as a condition of approval on the application, as the Commission did not have the authority to regulate that requirement. Chair Imboden asked the applicant to comment on any potential aircraft communication interference and the potential for local interference. Ms. Hoeger stated there would not be any FAA interference. As part of their installation they had to have FAA approval, which they had already received. In regard to local interference there would not be any interference to residential equipment. Chair Imboden asked for clarification on the location of the site. Ms. Hoeger stated that Sprint was located at center field. The new site location was chosen based on the needs of Royal Street Communication and the City's needs. Chair Imboden asked Staff to clarify the issue of stealth vs. non-stealth. Mr. Ortlieb stated that non-stealth would blend with the landscape; it would not be visible as a cell site. For non-stealth installation you would find faux trees, mono pine trees and such for cell site installations. Ms. Hoeger stated in reference to the trash enclosure site, it was a directive from Community Services. The enclosure needed to be located at the edge of the parking lot for the service by the disposal company. Chair Imboden closed the Public Hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Steiner made a motion on Conditional Use Permit 2663-07 and Design Review Committee 4244-07 - El Modena Park Wireless Facility to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 49-07, recognizing the project was categorically exempt from CEQA. Commissioner Bonina requested that the maker of the motion add to condition no. 17. The criteria for the material of the pole to be non-reflective (as noted on page 6, No.2). Commissioner Steiner agreed to add that to the motion. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED (6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2669-07 - WISE GUYS PIZZERIA A proposal to serve beer and wine within a new eating establishment, and requests the Planning Commission make a finding to allow a Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine in a Bona Fide Public Eating Place) ABC license. Page 19 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 20 of 28 LOCATION: 7606 E. CHAPMAN NOTE: The proposed 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 the operation and licensing of an existing structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 43-07 Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Merino clarified, if the applicant did not surrender the Type 40 license, would that continue to be in affect and they would not need to apply for the CUP. Ms. Thakur stated the CUP would still be in affect. The issue being that a Type 40 license would conflict with a Type 41, which is being sought. Wine is not permitted on the premises with a Type 40 license. Commissioner Merino stated a type of liquor could still be served, such as beer, with the Type 40 license. Ms. Thakur stated that was correct. The main reason for the application was to be able to serve wine with their various food products. Commissioner Steiner asked if there was any opposition from the Police Department. Ms. Thakur stated no, there was not. Chair Imboden opened the Public Hearing. Applicant, Mike Ernst, 1231 E. Chestnut, Orange, came forward to answer any questions. Commissioner Bonina stated there was a condition, Condition No. 14, which required that the serving of alcohol cease one hour before closing, and he wanted to make sure the applicant understood the condition. Mr. Ernst stated he was aware and would comply. Commissioner Steiner asked the applicant ifhe was familiar with all the conditions and if he had any issues. Mr. Ernst stated he was familiar with the conditions and had no issues. Chair Imboden closed the Public Hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2669-07 Wise Guys Pizzeria, Adopting Planning Commission Resolution 43-07, making the Page 20 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 21 of 28 motion based on the review of the findings identified on page 5 and looking at the Staff Report. Noting that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Chair Imboden stated included in the resolution was item No.4; all entitlements associated with the previously existing Conditional Use Permit No. 1349-84 Type 40 ABC License would be removed from the property and was no longer valid. The provisions of Condition No.9 shall prevail. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED (7) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2671-07 - BAGEL ME! AND FIRST CLASS PIZZA CORPORATION A proposal to begin selling alcohol with an "On-Sale Beer and Wine for a Bona Fide Public Eating Place" (TYPE 41) ABC license in a 3,812 square foot existing restaurant. LOCATION: 3533 E. Chapman, Unit C NOTE: The proposed 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 the operation and licensing of an existing private structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 36-07 Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Chair Imboden stated the census tract for this applicant was 75806, did Staff have any information on the number of permits that existed in tract 75807. Ms. Nguyen stated on the map, attachment #3, showed four total, with only three being within a 600' radius. Commissioner Merino stated he did not see the Police Departments recommendation. Ms. Nguyen stated on attachment #4, the site was not over concentrated and not a high crime area. On page 2 of the memo it stated the Police Department did not oppose the applicants' efforts to secure a Type 41 License. Page 21 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 22 of 28 Commissioner Whitaker stated the outside seating area did not appear to be fenced in. Ms. Nguyen stated there was not an outside seating area. Commissioner Whitaker stated that exhibit A showed an outside seating area. Ms. Nguyen stated to her knowledge there was no outside seating area, the plan they had was from 2004 and not current. Commissioner Bonina asked if the outside seating area was not correct, was the plan accurate? Ms. Nguyen stated it was generally an accurate plan with the exception of the outside seating area. Commissioner Merino addressing the Police representative, since the location was in such close proximity to a high school stadium, was there an increase in altercations or incidents on football game evenings. If there were problems, were they alcohol related. Lieutenant Kasella stated the stadium was staffed with reserve officers. There was a Police Department presence, and speaking from experience there was rarely problems at the stadium. He did not recall any incidents to be alcohol related. Chair Imboden opened the Public Hearing. Applicant, Serra McArthur, 3533 E. Chapman Avenue #C, Orange, came forward to answer questions from the Commission. Chair Imboden stated he had concerns about bagels and beer, and the public necessity involved. Looking at the menu it was more of a breakfast food type menu. Ms. McArthur stated the other half of the restaurant was First Class Pizza, it was a joint business. Primarily the alcohol would be for the pizza business and not the bagel business. Chair Imboden asked what part of the business was the pizza business. What percentage was delivery vs. in-store business. Ms. McArthur stated one half of the business was pizza. The current pizza business was primarily delivery. They were attempting to increase the in-store business with addition of the alcohol license. Currently 90% of the pizza business was delivery Commissioner Bonina asked if the applicant was familiar with the plan and was it a fairly accurate plan. Ms. McArthur stated it was, with the exception of the outdoor seating. Commissioner Whitaker stated he reviewed the menu and he was looking at the non- breakfast type food items. The restaurant had a fairly large seating area, approximately 92 seats. How much of the revenue was the non-breakfast items vs. breakfast items. Ms. McArthur stated overall 60% non-breakfast related items, which would include salads, sandwiches, pasta items and pizza. Other than the pizza, the other non-breakfast items were mainly in-store items. Page 22 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19,2007 23 of 28 Commissioner Whitaker asked for the current hours of operation. Ms. McArthur stated the store hours were 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Chair Imboden stated he was interested in the service and how that would work. He noted there was a lot of counter and pick up areas. Ms. McArthur stated people order at the counter, if it was in-store it was delivered to their table. If it was to go it would be delivered at the counter. Commissioner Steiner asked if the applicant was familiar with and understood all the conditions. He stated in regards to the outdoor seating area, initially the applicant had wanted the outdoor seating; subsequently they had changed plans due to a business decision. Ms. McArthur stated she was familiar and understood the conditions. In reference to the outdoor seating area, the City had denied the outdoor seating area. Commissioner Steiner stated in the event the applicant would want to add an outdoor seating area at a later date there would be a host of requirements that would need to be met. The current permit would not allow for an outdoor seating area where alcohol could be served. Ms. McArthur stated she understood. Commissioner Bonina stated the salad, pasta and pizza was served after 11 :00 a.m. and after 4:00 p.m., and with that it represents 60% of non-breakfast food sales? Ms. McArthur stated yes. Commissioner Merino stated the restaurant was located in the complex with the In-N-Out restaurant. Due to the traffic of that restaurant the complex was congested. With the increase in sales would the applicant agree that there would be increased traffic? Ms. McArthur agreed with the statement. Commissioner Whitaker stated in the Staff Report the applicant's Bagel Me Corporation and then the reference to Harborg doing business as First Class Pizza, was this restaurant a part of the First Class Pizza in Anaheim. Was Harborg the franchisor. Ms. Macarthur stated they were a part of the franchise, and Harborg was the franchisee. They were not a Harborg store, just under the same umbrella. Chair Imboden closed the Public Hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. Chair Imboden stated he was concerned with the sensitivity to the Fred Kelly Stadium and then with the type of restaurant. In trying to establish public necessity, he was seeing quite a few locations where one could have a drink. He was trying to make sense of Page 23 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 24 of 28 bagels, beer and wine. Knowing that there was pasta and pizza that was rolled out later, however, it seemed an accessory use on the application. Commissioner Merino stated the key issue was that a CUP shall not be granted if it would cause deterioration of bordering land uses, which was not the case. The second part read: creates special problems for the area in which it was located, and there was the issue of the sensitive receptors. Although, there was not alcohol related problems with the high school now, we would not want to provide an opportunity for that to occur. Based on the Staff Report there were several other restaurants that served alcohol in the area. From a traffic perspective he would not like to see the opportunity for someone to liquor up and potentially add to an accident or add to that situation. He was leaning toward not adding another alcohol source to the complex. Commissioner Bonina stated it had been suggested that Bagel Me did not shout out alcohol and were there other Bagel Me locations that served alcohol. Ms. McArthur stated there were no others that served alcohol. Commissioner Whitaker stated if he looked at just the menu, there were two pages of hamburgers and pizzas; there were a lot of lunch and dinner foods in a 90 seat restaurant. It would appear appropriate for a type of place that would serve alcohol. When he looked at the layout of the restaurant, he had concerns. The lounge area would be an area where pitchers of beer or bottles of wine without food service could take place. There was also a lot of counter seating, which was indicative of single serving, quick service and not heavy food items. The application did not fit the evening time service which was being promoted. The functionality of the restaurant encouraged drinking without eating Commissioner Bonina stated he did not want to pioneer an alcohol license coupled with a Bagel Me type of function. The concept of Bagel Me, in advertising you state breakfast and lunch, to insert alcohol did not seem like a natural fit. Commissioner Merino stated the Commissioners responsibility was to go back to the required findings of a CUP, and if looking at the required findings of those conditions that necessary to preserve the general well fare and not the individual well fare of any particular applicant. Some concerns presented were not supportive of the application. Commissioner Steiner stated he was in support of the application, he did not claim to be a bagel expert. It was a legitimate pursuit; he was not worried about getting a fender bender in the parking and encouraged the applicant to be aware of their appeal rights. Chair Imboden made a motion to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2671-07 - Bagel Me! and First Class Pizza Corporation and Planning Commission Resolution 43-07. Chair Imboden stated the appeal process was noted on the agenda and needed to be completed within 15 days of the action. The appeal needed to be delivered to the Community Development Department in written form, accompanied by an appeal deposit of $1000.00. There was more information on the appeal process and he encouraged the applicant to obtain, if they were interested. Page 24 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 25 of 28 Mr. Knight stated there was a resolution attached to the application and Staff would prepare the resolution of denial and the necessary findings and it would be on the next consent calendar. Mr. Sheatz stated it could be handled in that manner, or they could fashion a resolution based on the facts and finding made by the Planning Commission. The resolution would reflect what was stated in the motion, the date of decision could be November 19, 2007. Commissioners agreed to allow Staff to prepare a resolution. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino and Whitaker Steiner None None MOTION CARRIED (8) CONDITONAL USE PERMIT 2675-07 - CITY WOK A proposal to begin selling alcohol with an "On-Sale Beer and Wine for a Bona Fide Public Eating Place" (TYPE 41) ABC license in a 2,178 square foot existing restaurant. LOCATION: 1500 E. Village Way #2115 NOTE: The proposed 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 the operation and licensing of an existing private structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 45-07 Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Chair Imboden stated the application was for a current tenant improvement of a prior food establishment, and there was not a prior CUP in place entitling an alcohol license. Ms. Nguyen stated that was correct. Chair Imboden opened the Public Hearing. Applicant, Stuart Davis, 73744 Hwy 111 #3, Palm Desert, stated that the City Wok was a unique concept and that at their other locations alcohol sales accounted for approximately 4 and 5% of sales. The restaurant was family oriented, food centric and kitchen centric with the concept of offering White Zinfandel for mom and a beer for dad, if they so chose Page 25 of 28 Pages November 19, 2007 26 of 28 to consume an alcoholic beverage with their meal. The restaurant's need was more of a conceptual thing for them, patrons did not show up to City Wok to drink, the impact of someone leaving drunk would not be a problem. In the 18 years the applicant had owned and operated the concept he did not believe he had an instance where there was an alcohol problem. He understood the Police Departments automatic denial of the license based on black and white numbers. He did not feel this was a black and white issue. To see his concept in action, even the ABC stated the restaurant was a unique concept. There was an exhibition kitchen, you smell and see the food being cooked. They ran a very brisk take out business at all of their stores. In the best interest of the center, they were taking over a site that was extremely unsuccessful. The prior tenant was a fast, casual restaurant, with no beer or wine service. It did not give guests a real reason to come to the establishment. The site and the sites management had a commitment to making the site successful. It was a prime site, located next to Old Navy and Active, and not far from the mall entrance. It would give us the ability to serve our guests and a better chance of success in the center, where this had been a dark spot for many year. He implored the Commission to look at the applicant in a vision other than black or white. Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Bonina stated the numbers are compelling, 19 licenses in the census tract where 6 were allowed. The crime statistics were disturbing with 368 crimes, where the average was 199. Mr. Davis stated whether the crimes were alcohol related. The numbers were staggering, however, he felt City Wok should not pay a penalty for the over 6 that were approved. People do not come to City Wok to just have a few beers. It was a limited offering, and if they had a condition to only serve alcohol with food, that is how it would be served. He knew that a lot of people liked to drink a Sing Tow with their Chinese food. It was not a matter of having four or five with their Chinese food, it did not happen. It did not happen at their Palm Desert location where it was a more prevalent product. The statistics were impressive. He felt they were a good fit for the City of Orange. To be in the center with other fast-casual concepts, they fit well with the upscale fast-casual concepts that offer that to their guests. If they were asked for their percentages of beer and wine in would be small. Commissioner Bonina asked how many restaurants they had and if they all served alcohol. Mr. Davis stated there were three restaurant and they all served alcohol. Commissioner Merino stated of the three did any of the restaurants start out without the service of alcohol. Mr. Davis stated no, they all started with alcohol sales. Commissioner Merino stated that the standards they needed to judge by were not based on the individual well fare, but the larger well fare of the community. The applicant stated that the percentage of alcohol sales was small, and could they be successful without it and he hoped they were. Without having tested the success without the alcohol we would not know that. In hearing the crime statistics and the potential issues in a huge complex, alcohol sales could drive up the potential and did the applicant realize why the City would be concerned. Page 26 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19,2007 27 of 28 Mr. Davis stated yes, he understood. The restaurant brought a conceptual aspect and the improvement of space, where that had been a black hole in the center for years. He did not understand why this location should be the guinea pig of whether a City Wok would do well without alcohol. He felt the food stood on its own, and also believed the statistics could be misleading. People did not come to City Wok for pitchers of beer. It is by the glass and only served with food. He felt they would not contribute to the detriment of the public. He would accept any restrictions on the sale of alcohol that would satisfy the requirement. Commissioner Merino stated based on the confidence the applicant had of his product and restaurant; was the alcohol sale a critical piece of that? Mr. Davis stated it was not a yes or no question. The line between success or failure was so small, that they would hate to risk tipping the balance by taking away something that had helped their concept. They did not run dollar beer nights, and he fully understood the Commissions position. He was willing to accept restrictions and believed the alcohol sale was an integral part of their concept. Chair Imboden closed the Public Hearing and brought it back to the Commission, asking the Police Department representative to share information on the crime statistics in the area. Lieutenant Kasella stated during part 1 crimes of 2006 they had 10 Robberies, 3 aggravated assaults, 17 burglaries, 252 larcenies and 37 motor vehicle thefts. According to notes from Sgt. Bird there were other businesses that had requested an alcohol license in the same census tract that they did not support. Commissioner Bonina stated was the denial due to the over concentration of crime. Lt. Kasella stated he believed it was in conjunction with the crime statistics of being a high crime area and over concentration. Chair Imboden stated there was an earlier comment made about tipping the balance, he was concerned that the application was in an area that was over concentrated in a high crime area, and he was not sure if he was willing to let another license go. The numbers did not justify it. He felt if the Commission did deny the application, that it was not a penalty, they needed to be realistic in looking at the numbers. Commissioner Merino stated the struggle he had was in the best interest to create a vibrant and successful business environment. He needed to establish a consistent decision process in evaluating the applications. One of the required findings stated that it shall be made to preserve the general well fare and not the individual well fare of any particular applicant. He felt an obligation to the greater community. Although, the alcohol license may assist the applicant, in light of the fact that alcohol would make things worse, it could potentially hurt the community. If the applicant was a resident of Orange, he wanted to be able to look him in the face and tell him he took good care of him. Page 27 of28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2007 28 of 28 Commissioner Bonina stated the applicant knew his business best, and if they needed an alcohol license, one must be needed. From his perspective he had to look at the greater good. Commissioner Bonina stated he could not find a convenience or necessity for the location in the entire environment with such a large saturation of licenses available to the public, coupled with the statistics from the Police Department. He felt the applicant was articulate, well informed and would be a great asset to the City, however without an alcohol license from his perspective. If the Commissioner should support the denial of the application, he hoped the applicant's business would open and be successful despite the alcohol license denial. Commissioner Bonina made a motion to deny Conditional Use Permit 2675-07 City Wok and adopt to deny Planning Commission Resolution No. 45-07, noting the application to be categorically exempt from CEQA. Chair Imboden stated that any final determination by the Commission may be appealed and would need to be filed within 15 days from the hearing. The appeal needed to be in written form to the Community Development Department with an appeal deposit of $1000.00 and any additional information could be obtained through the Planning Department. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABST AIN: ABSENT: RECUSED: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, and Merino None None None Steiner and Whitaker MOTION CARRIED (10) ADJOURNMENT Chair Imboden made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled session of the Planning Commission held in the Council Chambers Monday, December 3,2007. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 10:42 Page 28 of 28 Pages