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ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.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