Loading...
2005 - October 17 Ci;25DD.C:A .~3 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: INRE: October 17, 2005 Monday-7:00 p.m. Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett, and Bonina None Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Jennifer McDonald, Senior Plannner Anne E. Fox, Contract Staff Planner Pamela Galera, Community Services Department Majid Farhat, Public Works Engineer Tom Mahood, Traffic Engineer Dan Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Cyndi Chadwick, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. NEW HEARINGS: (2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4019-05 - CAFE LUCCA RESTAURANT, A PROPOSAL FOR A COMPLETE FACADE REMODEL OF A TENANT SPACE AT 106 N. GLASSELL STREET WITHIN THE MASONIC TEMPLE BUILDING. Senior Planner, Dan Ryan provide the Staff Report presentation to the Commission. He stated there were six specific recommendations by Staff in order to get approval. Commissioner Pruett asked if the description of Staffs recommendations were captured in Attachment Three of the Staff Report, and if the applicant had seen these recommendations. Mr. Ryan replied yes to all questions. CHAIR BONINA OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Eric Olson, architect, Glassel. Orange. He mentioned he was representing the applicant. He stated that the historic wood doors were purchased prior to any discussion with the Planning Commission so the attempt was to use those in a way to conform to the Old Towne Design Standards. The applicant had a strong attachment to the doors and a Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 desire to use them on the proj ect. He stated that the original design had the arch, and they tried to preserve the entire door, but they are in agreement with Staffs decisions to change it to a transom window and add the bulk head. He believes that the design now reflected in the revised drawings is stronger and more in line with the architecture of Old Towne, and they're in complete agreement with Staffs six recommendations. Commissioner Imboden asked if there were any paint samples for the painted portion of storefront, and if the paint would be in a compatible paint color. Mr. Olson answered that there was stucco above the existing aluminum canopy, and the decision was to leave it in its original white color. He also mentioned the signage was red, green, taupe color that will set well on the white background. Commissioner Pruett asked if when the tenant moves out he would take his tenant improvements with him. He stated the owner had a responsibility to replace whatever the tenant took out when he moved. Chair Bonina clarified that it wasn't all the tenant improvements just the exterior tenant improvement work. He stated that the Commission would want to hear from the tenant and the land lord and what their agreement would be. Chair Bonina asked the tenant and the land lord to come up and address the Commission. Mr. Brian Messinger. 828 Vista del Playa, Orange. The address of the Temple Association is 71 Plaza Square. Orange. Mr. Messinger stated he was the current President of the Masonic Temple Association of Orange. Mr. Richard Coleman. tenant. Commissioner Pruett then restated his question to Mr. Messinger and Mr. Coleman. He added if the tenant improvements did go, the owner would need to follow-up and it would need to be replaced. The reason Mr. Pruett was questioning this was due to the fact that the tenant has a great like for the doors, and it was possible that he would want to take them with him when (and if) he leaves. The tenant answered that he had no use for the doors except to be used at the restaurant. Mr. Coleman stated his recollection was that anything was affixed to the building becomes the property of the land lord at the end of the lease. Mrs. Janet Crenshaw. 200 block of No. Cleveland, Orange. She stated there was no plan or Staff Report at the library. She also said this item should be a DRC issue, and there needs to be an additional DRC member so these types of items can be settled by them. Mr. Jeff Frankel. address on file. OTP A. He stated they agreed with most of Staffs recommendations. He encouraged the use of appropriate materials, and colors per the Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 Plaza District pallet. He thought the doors were a little ornate, and inconsistent with the existing storefronts, and the level of detail needs to be toned down a bit. They hoped the project met the Old Towne Design Standards as well as the Secretary of Interior Standards. CHAIR BONINA CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Ms. Roseberry informed the Commission that the reason this item came to the Planning Commission was because there was conflict with three of the four DRC members. Design Review Committee items are not Public Hearings although they are in a public meeting. She stated Public Hearings differ from public meetings, as they require certain types of notice, posting on the site whereas this item did not. So, technically, this is not a Public Hearing although, the Planning Commission would want to invite comments from the applicant. She also stated the next item was not a Public Hearing. Chair Bonina asked ifthis were a DRC meeting would this item have been published. Ms. Roseberry stated this item would not have been noticed although a copy of the Agenda is sent to the library, and she apologized if the Agenda was not sent to the Library in time. Commissioner Imboden asked for clarification on the recommendation of the bulkhead by Staff, as now his understanding is they are folding wooden doors that open so there would not be a bulkhead. Mr. Ryan responded the original proposal had wood folding doors. The revised proposal includes a 22 inch high wainscoting or bulkhead. The applicant is proposing wood. The window will sit above that, and the window itself will move, not the bulkhead. Commissioner Imboden asked Staff if this meant the side windows would open pulled to the side with a permanent wood bulkhead left in place, and Mr. Ryan replied yes. Mr. Ryan wanted to clarify Condition Number Six, that if historical photographs are found, the applicant would have the option to look at that design as well, but no historical photos of the building (indicating the facade) have been found so that Condition would be optional. Commissioner Imboden stated he thought the applicant proposed to leave the doors with the existing finish, and asked Staff if there wasn't a color pallet available because he thought with Old Towne Plaza renovations, there would be a material and color pallet at the DRC level. Since there was not a pallet available, he asked how this application conforms to these types ofprojects. Mr. Ryan stated that they did not present colors other than the sign for the building. He continued there is an established color pallet that has been approved, and they can pick any selection of those colors in that pallet. Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 Chair Bonina asked Staff if they knew what the pallet looked like, and Mr. Ryan stated yes. Commissioner Imboden wanted to know what exact colors were being proposed, and if it fit into the color pallets. He wasn't sure ifthere was a system used to approve these colors. Mr. Ryan replied that he spoke to the applicant about whether they would paint the bulkhead in the complimentary colors. He said there is a color pallet used for the sign. How far they want to carry those over and whether they want to paint the doors or stain them, he wasn't sure. Commissioner Pruett asked if there was an approved color pallet, and unless the Commission approves something other than the pallet already approved they can work within this pallet and because they've already been approved, it would be redundant to approve it again, was this correct. Mr. Ryan replied yes. Commissioner Imboden agreed with this, and added that when a project comes through the design and review process, there is already a color and materials pallet that is part of the decision-making process, so because the Commission has taken over this task this evening, it would behoove the Commission to go through the same action so there are no surpnses. Mr. Olson stated that the intention was to match the weathered wood door so there would be no paint added to any of the wood. Commissioner Imboden asked if the stucco would remain white, and ifthere were any other finishes or colors. Mr. Olson stated this was correct, and there were no other colors. Commissioner Imboden asked what the proposal was for the paving out in front ofthe space since it was part of the existing facade. Mr. Olson replied the proposal would be stone flooring in the outdoor/indoor space and the stone would flow out to the existing tile. He added this was discussed with Staff. Commissioner Imboden again mentioned the pallet, and he didn't have the answer that the pallet was within the colors that were approved. He wasn't comfortable moving forward with this Item that doesn't meet the typical requirements that the Commission imposes. He specifically mentioned the weathered wood. He was not sure it met the standard approach to facades in Old Towne. He mentioned OTP A had commented on the design of the doors. He stated they weren't trying to recreate history, but compatibility, Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 17,2005 so he believes this stays within the envelope. But, he was still not completely comfortable with the materials. He wants to see a differentiation. He's concerned about leaving the top of the building white; it has too much relationship to the entry which is right next to the white stucco so it appears to sort of be part of that, yet not a part of that. Lastly, he was concerned about the weathered wood. He would be happier if it was painted, but he said that's up to the Commission to deliberate. Chair Bonina asked Commissioner Imboden what exactly was his concern about the weathered door. Was it the look, weathered over time, anything specific? Commissioner Imboden said he thought it was outside of what was typically considered an acceptable treatment in the Downtown Plaza. Since there was no color pallet to look at, it was difficult for him to respond to that. He stated it was different than what is in Downtown so he wasn't sure it was consistent. He was also concerned about the longevity. He asked at what point it becomes an unattractive feature because it becomes so weathered. He was trying to get a feel what direction this was going because it was different than what is normally Downtown. Chair Bonina asked Staff about the color pallet that Commissioner Imboden mentioned. He asked ifit were possible to be made available to see. Ms. Roseberry went to get the pallet so the Commission could review it. Commissioner Imboden wanted to clarify that he did not want to limit the applicant to paint, but if they wanted to re-finish the doors in a more traditional sense, he thought the pallet would clarify everything after they looked at it. The applicant stated he would not want the doors to get weathered, and they would ensure the doors were protected. Commissioner Imboden asked Staff if the applicant typically picks a color pallet. The applicant stated that they would select colors from one the pallets with Staffs approval. Chair Bonina stated that it was agreed the applicant would pick the colors from one of the approved color pallets. Commissioner Pruett stated that this project was exempt from the provisions of CEQA. He moved to approve the Staff Recommendation that is outlined in Design Review Committee No. 4019-05 for the fa<;ade remodel and add a last condition (after Staffs six conditions) that the color specifications for Historical Downtown Orange Renovation be used by the applicant and chosen with the Approval of Staff. Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion. Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett None None None. MOTION CARRIED (3) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4029-05 - BAGEL ME RESTAURANT, 60 PLAZA SQUARE (HISTORIC NAME: "PIXLEY NEWSPAPER OFFICE" BUILDING) LOCATED WITHIN THE OLD TOWNE ORANGE NATIONAL REGISTERED HISTORIC DISTRICT. Senior Planner Historic Preservation, Daniel Ryan, provided the reading ofthe Staff Report to the Commission. He mentioned that the building had very nice lines to it. He thought removing the paint would add to the building, but was not sure of the condition of the paint, and thought they should take a sample test to see if they could remove the paint. He believes that the fa<;ade will work out, and the recessed entrance to side is complimentary if they put in a bulkhead. Chair Bonina asked if the brick shown in the back in the building (which is not painted), and the brick in the front (once the paint is removed) is the same type and texture of brick. Mr. Ryan replied it was possible that the brick in front might be more polished or a higher fire finish, which was typical of the facades. Many times they used a more finished brick in the front. It appears the brick in front was of a high quality, and the masonry was of high quality. Chair Bonina then asked if the only signage that would be seen in terms of the restaurant would be on the awning. Mr. Ryan stated yes, and there was also a blade sign. Chair Bonina asked ifthere was any other method to block off the windows other than putting in brick. Was there an ability to accomplish the same goal yet give the appearance of being a window. Mr. Ryan responded that yes, this had been considered. The District Building originally called for a seismic retrofit ofthis. This method could be used, and put a window on those elevations that are exposed to the alley. He thought they didn't need to use brick at least for the side of the building. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if Staff was in concurrence of moving the fa<;ade forward. Mr. Ryan stated yes. Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 Commissioner Pruett asked Staff about Exhibit A, Page Three. He spoke of the ground lighting in the sidewalk that would project up on the blade sign. He mentioned this was not typically seen in Old Towne. He also was concerned about the sign light. He said it was almost like a pencil light rather than the old style of light like a bonnet. Mr. Ryan stated that Staff would recommend that the lighting and the sign reflect the historical period, which at this time does not. Mr. Ryan explained he would sit down with the applicant and go through a Historical Lighting Catalog with them and look at the fixtures for that particular historical period and tell them which fixtures had the appropriate style and feel for their building. At times, Staff would go through the catalog and make the recommendations for the historical lighting. Commissioner Imboden asked about the up lights previously mentioned. He wanted to know where the property line in relation to the front fa<;ade of the building. He stated it did not show in the Site Plan. Mr. Ryan replied that it extends out six feet three inches from the front of the existing wainscoting presently. Commissioner Imboden asked if the fa<;ade was brought out flush with the front, wouldn't the proposed up lights be located on the city sidewalk. He wanted to know how this had been handled in the past. Mr. Ryan stated they had never had a request like this before. Commissioner Pruett stated since they were not in an informal environment, i.e., sitting around at a conference table, being able to deal with some ofthe design issues, like the Design Review Committee would, how would Staff recommend that the Planning Commission deal with some of the changes that need to be made. Mr. Ryan responded the discretion ofDRC to do this depended how comfortable they feel with the design of the project, and how well the applicant understands what the Committee is asking them to do. Part of this is that Staff has additional resource materials, and they can go through these resources and pick something out. When they are minor details such as lighting fixtures for a certain period, Staff would direct them towards appropriate fixtures. Chair Bonina stated there seemed to be a lot of conduit and wires in the back and the side ofthe building. He asked how this was addressed. Mr. Ryan said that the applicant would be asked to clean up any conduit that is non- functional and remove any material in the building, such as a wood ledger that's on the back of the building. He stated there was rusted gas pipe on the north side ofthe building Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 that needs to be removed as well. Typically on a project where Staff is making major recommendations where there is no drawing of a fa<;ade change, DRC will have the applicant come back to the next meeting with the finished fa<;ade and all the details done. This is what has been used in the past and didn't see the need for it to be different for the Planning Commission per se especially with a project like this. Especially in a case such as this, they are looking to see whether the original transom is in there or not. Speakers- Mr. Barav Karim, 7 Design InC., 23121 Verdugo Drive, Suite 201. Laguna Hills. He stated they would encompass the first floor of a two-story building of about 1500 square feet and making it into bakery/restaurant. He continued there would be outside seating. He was in agreement with all of Staffs recommendation except for the storefront. He would like to have that lowered to connect the inside to the outside ofthe restaurant, and allow the public to see through the restaurant and the patrons would be connected to the outside. He stated they were in agreement to take care ofthe fa<;ade ofthe building however, the exterior of the building has been painted. He then wanted to answer the questions previously posed to Mr. Ryan. He stated one of the reasons they used the up lights to hit the blade sign was to wash the brick fa<;ade. They believe if the building comes out to the property line, part ofthe awning and the rest of the lighting comes out of that fa<;ade. In answer to the question where the light hits the signage, the idea is this was the minimum visual element that shines on the signage, but if this is not accepted by the Commission, the applicant will agree with whatever the Commission recommends. Mr. Jeff Frankel. address on file. OTP A. He stated the design ofthe fa<;ade was too contemporary for the Plaza District. They believe it is inconsistent with the surrounding historic store fronts, and don't think it meets the Secretary of Interior Standards. They encourage the restoration of all masonry fa<;ades, and would encourage the restoration of a masonry wall. They would like to see the Tl-ll transom opened up to see ifthere are existing leaded glass windows. They would like to see this restored as well as the window that exists to the right of it. They are opposed to filling in the windows that are on the north side ofthe building with brick and mortar. He stated there were other options that would be easier to remove in the future if another tenant wanted to use those windows. He suggested a false window with the interior dry-walled. They hope to see appropriate lighting and signage that conforms to Old Towne Design Standards and the Plaza Standards. He stated they wanted to see the entrance remain intact they way it was, although it's hard to determine how the original appeared. He believes bringing it out to the front would be inappropriate. Chair Bonina asked the applicants to respond to the comments made by OTP A. Mr. Stuart Golub. Orange. Mr. Golub stated the sole motivation for moving the front fa<;ade out by three feet was due to the response they'd received from the community that would be buying a lot of bagels from them. He explained that there was only approximately 1300 square feet of inside floor space. Most ofthis will be consumed by the kitchen, and the amount of seating available is very small, and they would like to provide seating inside for rainy days or elderly people. Due to where the seismic post is Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 located, if the fa<;ade is moved out, it will allow a small amount of seating. If the fa<;ade moves back, the seismic post is behind it, then there would be no room for additional seating, and the seating becomes more challenging for the friends they hope to have as customers. Chair Bonina asked the applicant ifhe was referring to the fives seats facing the window. Mr. Karim responded to the comment made that the building was very modern. He recalled that Mr. Ryan had stated there was a similar project that was approved recently. He stated again they would comply with the recommendations as far as colors and materials that Staff suggests. Chair Bonina asked if the applicant had any other thoughts on the method to close the windows. He wanted to know if there was another way besides bricking them. Mr. Golub replied their intention was to provide the maximum fire safety. He thought since the windows would not be visible to them or rarely to anyone else, they're happy with any recommendation that the City might make that blends in with the long term concerns with safety. He stated the general purpose in the kitchen of a restaurant was not to have windows to reduce the spread of fire. Commissioner Imboden inquired about the proposed tenant improvements before the Commission, specifically the 11 Conditions recommended by Staff. He asked if these were Conditions the owner could agree to. Mr. Steve Shaffer. 265 Blossom Lane. Lincoln. CA 95648. He stated yes. Commissioner Imboden commented he believed that the overall proposed scheme appears to be more contemporary than he liked to see. He said that it was a common approach with historic structures to have new and old against one another so that they reinforce one another, but since this is a National Registered District, there are Standards, and they have to abide by them. He stated that he thought he would ask that the design be revisited and brought back to the Commission with less contemporary feel to it. Another concern he had (as well as others) was the blocking of masonry windows with brick in particular. One of the initial recommendations ofthe Secretary of Interior Standards is that you match the use to the structures so that as little as possible has to be done in changing it. He is more inclined to accept a stucco infill, but because ofthe concern of removing the brick at a later time, if they want to restore the building, it becomes much more difficult to remove the masonry infill. This is one ofthe Secretary of Interior Standards; that the work you do be reversible so that a building can be restored. Mr. Imboden was also concerned with the transom. He agrees with the overall approach made by Staff in regard to the front fa<;ade of the structure. He would like to see the existing historic clear story window revealed over the stairway before this item comes back, ifthe Commission concurs, the portion of that enclosure be removed over the storefront. He would like Mr. Ryan to look if the original portion ofthe storefront is still intact, then this will change the design. He then addressed the issue the transom Page 9 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 feature. He stated that recent projects that have come before the Commission have included the transom feature, and the ceiling has not been brought down at the window level, and he would like to see this applied to this project as well. He is uncomfortable with the glass at the street level. He believes this is a deviation what has been seen going into Plaza projects, and he wants to see this reviewed. Lastly, he stated that he does not have enough detail to get a firm understanding of the details of this project. Although he understands the need for the applicant's need for seating at the front ofthe structure, he struggles with this a little bit. He's not sure it would be a detriment to the building to bring the fa<;ade forward, and though he does question the building is being changed for the use, he could be convinced. However, he's not convinced that if the fa<;ade is brought forward then they will want something as contemporary as this. He mentioned the Conditions and if any of those are part of the Design Proposal if these could be addressed as to what comes back, he could be happy with this. Mr. Golub addressed the window coming down to the concrete; he thought their plan was to have the window go down to a new masonry bulkhead, and not go to the street level. Commissioner Imboden answered that was something he did not see on the elevation, so this would have to be updated. Commissioner Imboden stated he appreciated the applicant's flexibility so some of these issues could be addressed. He mentioned he was still not comfortable with the lighting. He was not sure of the permit process took place with awnings and the liability that the owner would accept in placing awnings that may encroach into the public right-of-way. He's concerned about the maintenance because they are down on the ground where people can step on them. Ms. Roseberry stated an Encroachment Permit would have to be obtained by the City. She was not sure the City would be agreeable to this, and she would have to check. Commissioner Pruett asked if the City would want this kind of lighting to be developed in Old Towne. There was discussion of a precedent being set. Chair Bonina asked the applicant if the up lighting was an integral part ofthe application. Mr. Golub replied that their architect thought if some light went up on the brick building from a low elevation, at night you could see the beauty of the brick, and since the concept is make Old Towne as beautiful as possible, it seemed that some light going up the brick to give it a warm look and would be exciting, but not necessary. Commissioner Pruett mentioned the sign lighting and wanted Staff to work with the applicant. He did not think the up lighting was something he could support. The other issue was with the blade sign. He mentioned Staffs concern that the signs were not in keeping with the historic period, and this may be an issue. He believes this is true for the Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 awning also. He would like Staffto review this also. Commissioner Bilodeau stated he appreciated what the applicant was trying to do with the fa<;ade. He wasn't sure what the rules were for outdoor seating. He thought the outdoor seating might be a solution to the seating problem. Mr. Golub stated that the outdoor seating was essential since they needed to be able to serve quite a few people at one time. His concern for the indoor seating was there are many people who prefer to be inside due to a variety of reasons. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if outdoor seating was part of this application. Chair Bonina stated he did not think it was. Ms. Roseberry explained that there was a separate permit for outdoor seating at the Staff level. It's a renewable permit on a yearly basis. Commissioner Imboden stated that the businesses collect their own tables at the end of the evening. He said this might be something the applicant should be familiar with because it could impact the front of his store. He also mentioned the applicant may want to find out now rather than later. Mr. Golub said he thought he could push the tables close together and chain them, but he would have to talk to the City to see if there was a regulation. Chair Bonina recommended to continue this project to the next Planning Commission Meeting. He hoped Staff had captured this information so they could address these questions. He also stated he wanted to see a redesign ofthe storefront based on all of this. Commissioner Pruett encouraged the applicant to work with Staff to come up with recommendations they can both agree on. He stated if there were alternatives they wanted to present, and maybe Staff didn't agree to, and they feel are reasonable, they are welcome to bring those back as well. But, he thought it was important to bring those things that they agree with Staff so that they can move forward. Mr. Golub polled the Commissioners to see if they had any suggestions as to the kinds of things that would help him in his design, he would love to have the Commission make those suggestions. Commissioner Pruett stated he preferred something with the appearance of wood or the period versus having the metal and the contemporary appearance that they have now. He stated what was presented tonight was very contemporary going all the way to the street level. Commissioner Imboden added that something that would help him was the metal Page 11 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 storefronts that were previously approved. He guessed that ifthis was approved, it was used in conjunction with some type of wood fa<;ade. It wasn't purely a metal two-inch square typical storefront. He said that working with Staff, they should be able to show some examples of previous projects that have been approved that he could model to create his own design. Chair Bonina stated that Mr. Ryan could provide a lot of the guidance and input of what the City is looking for. He underscored the issue with the closing of the windows. He wants the applicant to see ifhe can come up with an alternate method so that it continues to look like a window from the exterior. He wants to add a Condition that the building gets cleaned up vis-a-vis the conduits on the exterior, lighting not being used, the wires, etc. Chair Bonina then stated there was a motion to continue. He asked for a second. Commissioner Imboden seconded the motion. YEs: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett None None None. MOTION CARRIED INRE: NEW HEARING: (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2550-05 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4026-05 - CHUCK E. CHEESE RESTAURANT. Ms. Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner provided the Staff Report to the Commission. She stated that Staff is recommending approval ofthe subject application. The finding for public convenience or necessity as it relates to the alcohol license can generally be supported for a lot of the establishments on Tustin Street. There is a higher concentration of commercial establishments in this area, and it's likely any restaurant will need this finding. Commissioner Pruett mentioned in previous applications, one ofthe things that the Commission has requested, (and he did not see it in the Condition) for ceasing to serve alcohol one hour before closing. Ms. Fox stated this was actually a Condition with other restaurants. But, in this case, the Police Department did not include this because the restaurant hours ceased earlier than some of the more typical, less-oriented restaurants. Commissioner Pruett stated the reason they've always included this is so someone will not drink up to the point of closing, then leaving and driving. Page 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 17,2005 CHAIR BONINA OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING Speakers- Ms. Alice Winters. 4441 W. Airport Fwv. Irving. TX. She explained about the Chuck E. Cheese restaurant and the number of restaurants in the area. She mentioned that they did serve beer and wine, and that no one under 18 is admitted without a parent or guardian. She mentioned their operating hours, and the menu. Commissioner Bilodeau asked the applicant if the Fullerton and Placentia restaurants had beer permits. The applicant stated yes. Commissioner Enderby commented that the responsible alcohol service package that was submitted was the best he's seen. He stated it addresses the whole gambit of what is important. He asked what percent of the annual sales revenue in the restaurant is related to the beer and wine sales. Ms. Winters replied about two percent. Commissioner Imboden asked the applicant to respond to the potential Condition of alcohol cease being served one hour before closing. Ms. Winters responded this was not something they had been asked to do in any of their other restaurants. She believes this is due to the early closing hours. She stated if this is critical to the Commission, they will honor it, but if they have a choice, they would prefer not to. Chair Bonina asked about the area dedicated to the arcade. He wanted to know how this was distinguished from the balance of the restaurant if at all. Ms. Winters answered that there is very little separation. She explained this was done consciously years ago so that the parents could have eye contact with their children anywhere in the restaurant. Chair Bonina asked if alcohol is permitted in these areas where the children are. Ms. Winters answered that alcohol was permitted anywhere in the restaurant. She stated it was served at the Order Counter. She said the alcohol was served in clear plastic glasses, and you could only get one drink per LD. per trip to the order counter. Speakers- Mr. Brad Schwitzer, 1400 Main St., Irvine. CA. He stated he the real estate attorney for Home Depot. There were two issues Home Depot was concerned with. He said that Page 13 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 Home Depot is concerned with the location of the Chuck E. Cheese. He explained that Chuck E. Cheese is right on Tustin Street at the busiest intersection of the shopping center. They are concerned that all the contractors and customers will be using the same drive aisle as the children who are crossing the street to get into Chuck E. Cheese. He thought perhaps there could be a business with a more adult-oriented use where people who cross the drive aisle would not be put at risk. The second issue was that he did not see in any of the literature any sort of parking counts. He mentioned that Home Depot was required to re-stripe the whole parking lot in connection with their remodel. They forfeited about 50 parking spaces, and they questioned whether there was adequate parking to deal with Chuck E. Cheese. Chair Bonina asked Staffto provide the answers to the questions. He asked her to describe the crossing between the building and the parking area. Ms. Fox stated that all the parking in the center was shared. There is no delineated area. She explained when working with Home Depot originally, the entrance from Taft will become the more popular entrance. This is due to the heavy activity that takes place in that area. As far as a restaurant in this area, she mentioned the recent parking upgrades that Mr. Schwitzer brought up have actually made a safer condition than what previously existed. She stated the site previously had very little demarcation for even disabled access. She also mentioned that the flow ofthe parking lot was unsafe. She believes the upgrades have created a much safe environment. As for the parking counts, there was a brief mention in the Staff Report. The reason it wasn't discussed at length is because when the parking lot was upgraded with the Home Depot project, the loss of spaces was attributed to bring the lot up to Code. Yet, it is still over parked per the City Code Regulations. Even if it were parked at the max, the City Code allows up to 15 per cent of a shopping center to be dedicated to restaurant uses without upgrading or changing the parking lot. Based on the square footage ofthe center, there could be up to 22,000 square feet of restaurant uses, and right now this is the only restaurant proposal. Chair Bonina asked ifthere were a marked crosswalk from the front ofthe building to the pool of parking. Ms. Fox stated there was no specific crosswalk for the parking. She said it might encourage a false sense of safety if you were to stripe something specifically other than what is required for Disabled access. Chair Bonina asked if there were other crosswalks in the shopping center not specific for disabled. Ms. Fox stated she did not believe there were any. She mentioned that the old center may have had disabled parking. Chair Bonina asked if the old center had the blue crosshatch parking. Ms. Fox stated that the white areas may have been marked off on the old parking lot plan, Page 14 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 and believes this lead to a false sense of safety. Chair Bonina commented that Staff had reviewed this and it is not a safety issue. Ms. Fox confirmed this. Commissioner Imboden asked Staff about the ingress and egress situation. He asked if Staff knew where the sign along Tustin Avenue was for Home Depot in relationship to the property they were looking at, and Staff replied yes. Commissioner Imboden asked ifit were closer to the driveway at Taft or the opposite side. Ms. Fox answered that it was closer to this particular property. She said the driveway access off of Tustin Street that runs in front of Chuck E. Cheese. She stated the entrance door was not oriented directly south, it's more oriented towards the southeast at an angle where there is sufficient sidewalk space along there with parking available for some of the storefronts. Chair Bonina confirmed the entrance was at an angle that looked inward toward the center. CHAIR BONINA CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Imboden was concerned about the traffic that went past the front of the restaurant where many children would be. Commissioner Bilodeau stated that he has visited this Home Depot a couple of times, and it is easy to miss the first driveway. He said you tend to get into the turn pocket and jump across there at the second driveway. He understands Home Depot's concern that this is the main driveway off of Tustin, and there isn't any type of cross walk on the Plan. He mentioned the City Traffic Engineer in attendance and wondered if this was something that could be improved upon. City Attorney Gary Sheatz spoke up at this point to state the Commission was heading in a direction where Site Plans are mentioned, and improving upon them. He reminded the Commission that the item before them was a Conditional Use Permit and it is for two things: alcohol and amusement arcade. He continued that they could not control the parking circulation or whether Chuck E. Cheese can go in there or whether a family- oriented place can be located at this establishment. He wanted to caution the Commission heading in a direction where they may want to make changes or impose conditions that could not be legally enforced. He explained that there had to be a nexus, a rough proportionality to what the impact is, and the impact had to be created from what the applicant is apply for: a. the alcohol, b. the amusement arcade. Chair Bonina answered that while he appreciated the caution, the Commission was trying Page 15 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 to get some further clarity. He asked Mr. Mahood to shed some further light on this. He asked if there was an issue here if they needed to address in some fashion. He wanted to make sure this would not present a problem in moving forward and has Staff reviewed this adequately. Mr. Mahood, City Traffic Engineer, stated that there are many mixed uses in shopping centers. He said you could go to any large center with a large draw, and ultimately there are uses that draw children. He stated they did not see anything unusual in this mix. He explained that crosswalks on private property have no legal standing. They are only a right-of-way assigning device when they're on public streets. As mentioned previously by Ms. Fox, by striping crosswalks, there could be a false sense of security created. He said this was different from creating delineation in access ways if they're trying to mark a particular route, they want folks to go. He said this could be done in such a way that it doesn't appear to be a crosswalk. Chair Bonina asked how this occurred. Mr. Mahood stated this could be done by being marked with blue cross-hatching for ADA spaces. He said what they don't want to do is paint it in such a way that they think they're protected from cars. He commented that they did not find anything particularly extraordinary about this mix. Commissioner Bilodeau said the only suggestion he had was a few breaks could be put in the planting area that is adjacent to the public sidewalk. The safest way to walk to the front door is on the public sidewalk. Commissioner Pruett stated he agreed with Mr. Sheatz. He mentioned when the Commission looked at the Home Depot project and the circulation issue was before them, there were concerns about the traffic, etc, and all this was discussed. He stated he has visited this Home Depot, and uses the Taft entrance for easier access. While he appreciates Home Depot's concern, he does not think it is a concern to be addressed. He thought that they were off base and need to get back to the issues before them. While Chair Bonina agreed with Commissioner Pruett, he thought it was reassuring to hear Mr. Mahood reinforce the fact, this issue was clearly and closely looked at and Staff is comfortable with the way it's designed. Commissioner Bilodeau made a recommended action. First, he stated this project was categorically exempt from the provisions ofCEQA, and recommended the Commission adopt Resolution PC 49-05 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2550-05 and Design Review Committee No. 4026-05. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion, to include a Condition that would cease the sale of alcohol one hour prior to closing. He stated this was consistent with all the other restaurants they have approved. He said this way people are not purchasing large amounts of alcohol at the end of the day. His concern was that the approval goes with the Page 16 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 land. This means if Chuck E. Cheese was to leave, another tenant could come in and be able to sell alcohol until the end of closing. Commissioner Bilodeau accepted the Amendment. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett None None None. MOTION CARRIED (5) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN USE DESIGNATION FOR THE PROJECT SITE FROM OPEN SPACE AND LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OPEN SPACE PARK, AMEND AND REMOVE A SEGMENT OF YORBA PARK ALONG WITH THE ZONE CHANGE AND A MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRIJAL VA PARK. Senior Planner Jeunifer McDonald, made a full reading of the Staffreport. She introduced Mr. Steve Lang from Purkiss Rose as well as Wendy Rogers from LP A Architects to go over conceptual plans. She introduced Staff personnel. Mr. Steve Rose of Pur kiss Rose Landscaping presented the conceptual plan of the park. He explained the streets surrounding the park, showed where the existing park was located on the plan as well as buildings, fields, and courts. He showed where the landfill was located and explained how the parking area was created over the top of it. He pointed out where the creek ran, and how it opened up to a natural channel. He showed where the amphitheatre, play area, skate park, and many trails that tie around the entire site, and will eventually tie across the bridge on Walnut and come over to the bike trail that runs along Santiago Creek. He stated the one thing that was done from a circulation stand point is a cul-de-sac on McPherson due to concerns about putting in an access way and that McPherson would become a short cut, and thus be a safety hazard. There will be emergency access. He stated they would be pulling back some of the landfill area and capping it off. Ms. Wendy Rogers, LP A pointed out the gymnasium with a trellised arcade, which will be called the "Walk of Fame" that will become the main entry into the gymnasium complex. She said the gym would be about 25,000 square feet, half ofthat will be a gymnasium, and two large 84-foot basketball courts with additional spectator seating for large town hall/community events. She explained that the adjacent and one of the main features will be a 1,500 square foot dance studio, small office support facilities, restrooms, large multi-purpose room, arts & crafts rooms. There will be classrooms on the south, with the idea of putting the smaller classrooms on this side to orient toward the view shed. It was important to keep the mass and the size ofthe gym (about 35 foot tall) equidistance and mid-way between the two adjacent neighborhoods on either side. Page 17 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 Commissioner Bilodeau stated he knew that the city's circulation element was being amended to accommodate the cul-de-sacs, and asked if the Master Plan of Highways would be amended as well. Mr. Mahood, Traffic Engineer replied that the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways was being amended to delete the Yorba extension. He further explained McPherson and/or Spring are not on the City's Master Plan. He stated that the Master Plan Change is somewhat unilateral, and the Yorba extension is not shown on the county's Master Plan. If the Y orba extension is removed, OCT A will not be concerned. Chair Bonina asked about Page 60 of the Environmental Document. He wanted to know ifin 2007, there's a level of service at Prospect and Chapman, it will go to a 'D'. Then, again in 2010, it will go from a 'B' to a 'D' in a fairly short period of time. He asked if this was for Phase One only. Mr. Mahood replied it was for both Phase One and Phase Two. Chair Bonina asked ifit wouldn't relieve some pressure on Prospect ifYorba was allowed to go through to Chapman. He asked if this would balance this out to a level of service on both streets would become less than 'D'. Mr. Mahood stated that there were two issues to consider. He said there was an existing connection to Chapman with Spring and McPherson. What they found was by extending Wanda (Y orba) south all the way through to Chapman, it does provide a good connection and draws traffic. He stated that everything is heading for the freeway ramps, and the reason it's not impacted now is that the north leg ofYorba Street is just serving a medical complex. Secondly, he stated that what you're seeing on Prospect and Chapman with and without project has to do with the McPherson closure. By cul-de-sacing that street, they're eliminating a sizeable amount of cut-through traffic that occurs today. He mentioned that there is a proj ect in the works that will begin after the first of the year that will add a southbound right turn lane onto Prospect, and this is a predominately heavy move. He added level service 'D'is considered acceptable level of service for intersections. Chair Bonina asked ifthe study considered the East Orange Plan, and Mr. Mahood stated yes. Commissioner Enderby asked Staff in regard to the landfill area if there were any concerns related to methane gas, and if so how will it be addressed. Ms. Pamela Galera, Project Manager stated a Phase One and Two, and Landfill Closure Study was completed for the landfill material. She mentioned they had worked closely with EP A, and in fact, had received a grant from them. She said they had also worked closely with Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Healthcare Agency through Orange County. They tested for methane and lead, and found no methane at the site. The County has requested that they continue to monitor for methane. Page 18 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 Chair Bonina asked MS.Galera ifthe remaining construction debris would break down, and create methane gas. Ms. Galera responded no it did not. She stated this was a construction debris landfill, and was never opened as a municipal landfill. The material in the landfill is concrete and metal. She further stated the portion that Chair Bonina was referring to was a small portion ofthe landfill that goes into the creek area. That portion will be excavated, put it on top of the landfill material before they cap the landfill. On the slope that contains landfill material, they will put in riprap that will contain the landfill material from going into the creek or from further erosion. Chair Bonina asked if there was the possibility of anything seeping into the creek, and Ms. Galera stated no. She further added the substance they found was lead, but it was non-soluble. It is not leaking below the landfill material or rising up to the surface. After much investigation with the regulatory agencies, the responsible thing to do is to leave the lead there, and cap the landfill. It will be a safe area for children to play. Chair Bonina asked what was the source of the lead. Ms. Galera replied that it was construction debris, asphalt from the 55 freeway. She stated that a lot oflead was used in the '40s and '50s. Chair Bonina mentioned avoiding liquid in the area that will be capped, and asked if this would accelerate settling ofthe property. Ms. Galera stated this is a general guideline for landfills, but is targeted more for methane. She said that much of the landfill will be covered with a parking lot as well as working with Regional Quality Control Board on low-use irrigation systems and the plantings to make sure they're using drought tolerant plants in addition to proper drainage. Chair Bonina asked about the membrane going over the top of it in addition to the dirt that is going above it. Ms. Galera replied that they were given the option of not installing a membrane. She stated there is a large amount of soil on the site, and have had it tested. It contains a high clay content. They have opted for installing a thicker layer of the soil on site in lieu of installing a very expensive plastic membrane. Chair Bonina asked if the membrane would be used anywhere else, and Ms. Galera stated no. Ms. McDonald further explained that the soil cap mentioned in the environmental document is designed to contain the material that's in the landfill. It consists of a two- foot thick soil foundation layer in addition to a three-foot thick vegetative layer so you Page 19 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 can add some basic vegetation. Commissioner Imboden asked ifhe was correct in understanding that most of the passive area would be lawn area. Ms. Galera responded that Phase Two is a conceptual drawing right now. The lawn area is expected to be around the amphitheatre only. She mentioned using a drought tolerant native plant for the remaining area. She stated that the turf area would be limited. Chair Imboden commented that he was looking at many uses that would take place in a lawn setting. He mentioned the tot-lot, picnic open area, meadow area, stage amphitheatre, etc. He wanted to know if public accessibility over this area would be wide open where a person could use this area with the freedom to move all about. Ms. Galera stated it was this type of area, and they do want people to move freely. They are looking at native grasses where one could walk and/or play. Commissioner Imboden asked ifin the planning stages, Staff had considered placing the more intimate activities with the landscape in a different area that isn't so close to the waste. Ms. Galera replied that after detailed investigation on the landfill, and the consultants believe that there will be no harm to the public after the landfill is capped; she stated she would feel very comfortable bringing her children to the park. The campus area of the buildings had to be located in the top northern portion of the site area away from the landfill area for stabilization reasons. She also mentioned that the community wanted open areas where they could bird watch or walk. She mentioned the part ofthe creek that is channelized and there is concrete. Commissioner Imboden asked ifthe concrete portion of the creek was existing, and Ms. Galera stated yes. Commissioner asked what a park goer would see when they look at the riprap. Ms. Galera stated they would see natural rock. They want it to look as natural as possible. Commissioner Pruett asked about the landfill cap, and how the skate park is in the same area, which will have a contour that dips into that area. Ms. Galera replied that they would be working closely with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, she said they would be looking at design alternatives that will not involve disturbing landfill material. Furthermore, she stated there were many skate parks built above ground. Commissioner Pruett commented that it was important to point out that the landfill is Page 20 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 only on the southern portion of the area, a very minor area. Chair Bonina asked if trails were designed to go into Phase One or are they fully contained within the new area. Ms. Galera answered that Staff is also working on the Santiago Creek Trail Project. She explained the ultimate vision ofthe City is to have a network of both hard trails being an asphalt bikeway, and soft trails being dirt trails all up and down the Santiago Creek. The trails shown on the plan are only for Grijalva Park. Chair Bonina asked if there were no trails planned for the existing plan. Ms. Galera stated yes. Chair Bonina asked if parking would be allowed on Walnut at the top where it dead ends. Ms. Galera stated no. They was enough parking planned to sustain the park. Chair Bonina asked how Phase One along with the gymnasium would look. Ms. Galera explained that Phase One consisted ofthe gymnasium, the roadway, the parking along Spring, and opening up into Walnut, the southern parking lot, the plaza drop-off area, the utilities for all ofthe phases. Once this phase is completed, there will be planting, something like a native grassland. Chair Bonina asked if the channel work included in Phase One. Ms. Galera stated the first thing to be done was to cap the landfill as well as the riprap. The public hearing was opened. Shirley Grindle, address on file. She stated she had been involved with the Santiago Creek project for many years. She wanted to thank the City for finally doing something with Santiago Creek. She hoped within the next few years, the next piece of property would be connected with Grijalva Park. She asked the Commission to support this project as she believes the City needs this park. She understood the need to cul-de-sac McPherson. Wes Rose. OJSC. address on file. He was very pleased with the park plan. He was concerned about the soccer fields at Grijalva Park. He stated the soccer fields faced north and south, and the balls often bounced into the street. As a result of cars speeding on Spring Street where these balls often land, he asked the City to place speed humps on Spring Street to slow the traffic down. He stated the one problem he saw was by closing off McPherson, and there is only the one access road, there will be a huge volume of traffic on Spring Street. It presently does a poor job of allowing access to and from the park. He asked to consider making McPherson a one-way street. Page 21 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 Bill Bouska. 270 N. Malena. Orange. He was in favor of this plan. He stated the plan had something for everyone in the city. He spoke of his concern of the traffic once McPherson was closed. He also mentioned his concern of the noise level from the amphitheatre. John Moore. 2707 Killingsworth. Orange. He was in favor of the park. He stated that the new additions to the park were worthwhile. He mentioned the southern parking lot. He stated that no one should encroach on the creek. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bonina commented on the discussion some of the speakers had regarding the dead-ending of McPherson. Also, he mentioned the concept of speed humps as well the concern of moving from Spring to Prospect in the left hand turn area to take on the current traffic let alone the future traffic. Mr. Mahood's response that Spring is not the only access into the park. There is a roadway that connects up to Walnut. It forms a large U through the park. He stated the Spring/Prospect intersection is what could best be called "challenged". He said the geometry is not great, and there have been many things that have happened to this intersection, and this geometry will help quite a bit. He continued that he had no problems with speed humps. He would view them as an operational feature that the City may want to look in the future. He further stated that speeding issues are caused by the shortcutting traffic, they are not destined to or from the park, and they just want to get through there as fast as possible. He stated he would rather not have truck traffic going through the park environment with children. Another thing that will happen on Spring Street is that it will slow down on its own accord. He explained that the parking on Spring will convert from parallel to perpendicular parking. As the parking configuration changes, it will become much narrower, and the friction will cause drivers to slow down. He mentioned one thing that Chairman Bonina had brough up earlier and that was levels of service with the Y orba extension. Ifthe Prospect/Chapman intersection will be level service 'D' in 2025 and the Yorba/Chapman intersection will be level service 'B'. However, ifthe Y orba/Chapman extension does get put through, the Y orba/Chapman intersection drops to level service 'F'. He stated that they would rather have a 'B' and a 'D', than an 'F' and a 'B'. Chair Bonina asked if there was any thought about putting a sign for 10 miles an hour on Spring Street area to further the reduction in speed. Mr. Mahood replied that you could, but it wouldn't be a legal enforceable speed limit. He stated they were under some constraints on what type of speed limit can be enforced because it is a public street. The state sets certain criteria on how we set our speed limits. He said there would have to be certain traffic engineering studies. He stated it was currently posted at 25 mph. Chair Bonina asked if assuming this plan is approved, and there are issues after Phase Page 22 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 One and Two are complete, they'll be readdressed and the City can take appropriate measures with a sign and/or speed humps. Mr. Mahood responded that his expectation as Phase One is begun, and the closure occurs, the traffic will drop off rapidly, and the speeding problem will also lessen considerably. If for some reason, there is still an issue, the speed humps work excellently at moderating speed. Beyond that, he doesn't believe they can do any posting, but on a park driveway, they do have some leeway. Chair Bonina asked as the street winds onto the park, he's assuming the speed limit is not 25 mph any longer. Mr. Mahood replied that it becomes a park driveway, and they can now post whatever they want. The City would post the speed. Chair Bonina was concerned ifthe street was a loop it might attract folks to speed. Chair Bonina asked Staff if the trail bridge was part of Phase One. Ms. McDonald responded that the bridge was part of a separate project, and not included in Phase One or Two. Commissioner Pruett brought up the issue of the amphitheatre and the noise associated with that. He stated in the EIR, the amphitheatre was not addressed as a noise issue, and he doubted it would be an issue if there are mitigating measures as it relates to operations, such as amplified sound. He believes when it goes to the City Council; there should be something in the EIR that addresses the issue of the amphitheatre and the noise. He thought it was a very good point raised by the public. He stated it needs to be addressed in the EIR, the Operational Mitigation Measure dealing with amplified sound. Ms. Galera said that it was anticipated that there might be concerts in the park. She explained these would be city-sponsored events, and would be very few events. They will not go late into the evening. If someone required amplified sound, it does require a permit, and those permits are generally frowned upon. The amphitheatre will be used for weddings, Boy Scout functions, and soccer awards ceremonies. The amplified sound would be few and far between. Commissioner Pruett believes this needs to be addressed, and perception of what few and far between means may differ. He believes the issue is how frequent this would occur and ifit does occur and there are problems what other operational steps might be taken in terms of mitigation. Chair Bonina stated that Commissioner Pruett's comments were important, and once the minutes go to the Council, the noise issue will be addressed. Commissioner Pruett stated that this issue was important that Staff takes steps to address Page 23 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 this issue. He said he was willing to move forward with this item with the understanding the noise issue would be included in Staffs presentation to City Council. Chair Bonina asked Commissioner Pruett ifhe was recommending a condition to this approval. Commissioner Pruett responded that he wanted to issue to be addressed with City Council. He added it may be that the issue can be addressed in a way that it's allowed to proceed as Staff perceives its plan. He just thinks there needs to be an understanding that there is an issue here. Chair Bonina suggested that when a motion moves forward and the noise issue is not included in the motion, then Commissioner Pruett should bring it up. Ms. McDonald added that the discussion in the Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding park noise was limited. She stated that their noise thresholds of significance were based on what the City Code states that noise is limited to, and outdoor activities at public parks are not subject to the city's noise ordinance or its limitations. She eXplained that was the reason for the discussion in the Mitigated Neg. Declaration from an operational standpoint, but to satisfy the community concerns, Staff will look at some operational limitations, perhaps as conditions to the project as it moves forward to City Council. Commissioner Pruett indicated that if you're going to set up a stage that is different from the noise that goes with the park. Commissioner Imboden added that to some degree it was a matter of perception, but he agreed with Commissioner Pruett that there needed to be some fallback on the noise issue in case it becomes displeasing. He stated that overall; this is something that the City needs. He again voiced his concern about his initial question to Staff regarding the intimate use ofthe landscape on top oflandfill. Commissioner Enderby wanted to commend Staff for developing the property, and all things considered, he thinks the plan addresses all the needs, and has made the best use of the land. He continued that it still leaves the open space along with the trails. He stated that based on his involvement with youth sports, that this park was overdue. He also believes that once the non-park traffic is eliminated, you'll see the difference in the speed. He mentioned that Staff had done a tremendous job, and meeting the needs of the community now and for the future. Commissioner Bilodeau stated that he echoed the comments made by the Commissioners. He said the park was long overdue. He commented that Staff had done a great job in planning it, and was anxious to see the funding come through for the subsequent phases. He mentioned the water going through the creek was by way of the Orange County Water District, which constructed pump stations. Chair Bonina wanted to echo everything that had been said. He applauded Staff, in Page 24 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2005 particular for working with a challenging piece of property, but more importantly working with the community. He mentioned the numerous meetings, and outreach to the community, the result is what they saw tonight. He was very pleased and appreciative of all the effort. Commissioner Pruett moved to adopt Resolution PC 48-05 which recommends to the City Council approval ofthe subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 1753-05 as being prepared in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with the request that Staff includes some discussion in the recommendation to City Council on the amphitheatre and the noise that would be created if there is amplified sound and what potential mitigation measures might be available to deal with that from an operational standpoint. Also approved with the adoption of the resolution is a recommendation to City Council for approval of the conceptual plans of Grijalva Park, Extension Project and the associated projects entitlements, General Plan Amendment 2005-0001, Zone Change 1233-05, and the Major Site Plan Review 0402-05, and the Design Review 4014-05. Chairman Bonina seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett None None None. MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Pruett moved to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting of November 7,2005. Commissioner Bilodeau seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Page 25