Loading...
PC Minutes-2005-09-1332400 PASEO ADELANTO (949) 493- 1 171 (949) 493- 1053 FAX WSAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 M'JtW' sa1y Liancupl ctrano org MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13,2005 L, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SAM ALLEVATO DIANE BATHGATE WYAT HART JOE SOT0 DAVID M SWERDLIN CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Neely at 7:OO p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Tim Neely, Chairman Robert Cardoza, Vice Chairman Sheldon Cohen Joe Drey Gene Ratcliffe Commissioners Absent: None Staff members in attendance: Molly Bogh, Planning Director; Omar Sandoval, Deputy City Attorney; William Cunningham, Contract Planner; Ziad Mazboudi, Senior Civil Engineer; Sue McCullough, Recording Secretary. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 9,2005 AND AUGUST 23,2005. Minutes August 9, 2005 and August 23, 2005: Commissioner Ratcliffe moved approval, seconded by Commissioner Drey, of the minutes of August 9, 2005 and August 23, 2005. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. San Juan Capistrano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future m t3 Printec cn -ecvc ed oace- PC Meeting 2 September 13,2005 INFORMATION ITEM STATUS REPORT ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP), LA NOVIA CITY IS DEVELOPING PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS FOR THE WIDENING OF THE LA NOVIA AVENUE BRIDGE OVER SAN JUAN CREEK CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL’S APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS FOR GLENDALE FEDERAL PLANNED COMMUNITY, AREAS C & D. u BRIDGE WIDENING-CALLE ARROYO TO SAN JUAN CREEK ROAD. THE Written Communications Staff report dated September 13, 2005 Staff presentation Mr. Mazboudi presented a status report on the City’s proposal to widen La Novia Bridge from Calle Arroyo to San Juan Creek Road. Mr. Mazboudi said that the project was conditioned upon development of the Glen Fed planned development as is the obligation of Taylor-Woodrow Homes, who is building out the remaining tract. Staff and the applicant have retained RBF Engineering as project design engineers and Keeton Kreitzer Consulting as the environmental consultant on the development of preliminary design plans and environmental documentation for the proposed bridge widening project. Staff has conducted a work session with the Design Review Committee (DRC) to secure direction on the preliminary design, and will also be presenting the project to the Transportation Commission. Information from the DRC and other Committees will be presented to the City Council. u Commissioner Questions and Comments Commissioner Cohen asked when staff anticipates completion of the EIR. Mr. Mazboudi said around January or February 2006. Chairman Neely asked if the DRC or Planning Commission would review the project prior to the City Council. Ms. Bogh said that after City Council makes a decision on the basic parameters of the design, the final design would be brought for Planning Commission review as a CIP project. Commissioner Drey asked about the use of concrete barriers adjacent to the sidewalk, and whether similar vertical concrete barriers are located in the City. Mr. Mazboudi said he is not aware of any, but the barriers would be a two feet high “K rail. Brad Milke, RBF Consulting, said the 2 ft. 3 in. barrier adjacent to the sidewalk and travel lane is the standard Caltrans safety barrier, and that the hand rail could be placed at a higher elevation. Ms. Bogh asked if there an obligation to use Caltrans standards. Mr. Milke said the barrier shape and height meets the minimum safety requirements by ASHTO. PC Meeting 3 September 13,2005 Commissioner Cohen asked if there are other barrier options other than “K rail. Mr. Milke said the safety barrier profile would be kept as low as is reasonable, and that the upper portion would be the aesthetic element. u Commissioner Ratcliffe asked if the equestrian underpass would be paved or if it would impinge on the streambed. Mr. Mazboudi said it would be above the streambed and would be an impervious material. Commissioner Drey asked how much higher the proposed bridge would be than the existing bridge. Mr. Milke said it would be about 1 ’% feet higher and 30 feet longer in order to allow the creek to carry a 100-year flood underneath the bridge. Mr. Mazboudi said the proposed bridge would meet the Orange County Flood Control District requirements. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked where the channelized portion would be. Mr. Milke said the intent is to keep the streambed natural. Chairman Neely asked the width of the existing bridge. Mr. Mazboudi said 33 feet. Vice Chairman Cardoza asked how the proposed bridge compares to the width of the 4-lane Camino Capistrano bridge. Mr. Mazboudi said the proposed bridge would probably be a little wider because of the added trails. Vice Chairman Cardoza asked how that would be addressed in the EIR, and if there would be alternative designs for a narrower bridge. Mr. Mazboudi said that Taylor Woodrow is supposed to build a bridge large enough for ultimate build-out of the City. Ms. Bogh stated that one of the project alternatives in the EIR could be a bridge of reduced size. b Vice Chairman Cardoza asked if the specific DRC concerns such as retaining the rural quality of the community would be expressed to the City Council. Mr. Mazboudi said he would present the concerns of all commissions and groups, including the DRC and Equestrian Committee, to City Council when requesting a City Council decision on the ultimate design. Vice Chairman Cardoza asked if the hard surfaces of the street for water management would be addressed on San Juan Creek as well as Calle Arroyo. Mr. Mazboudi said that RBF is working on a water management plan to address the project as a whole. Commissioner Cohen asked if the City could amend the original Condition of Approval which required Taylor Woodrow to build the bridge. Mr. Sandoval said that perhaps a new traffic study would be needed to justify changing the Condition for the bridge widening, since it is was a mitigation measure on the original Glen Fed housing project. Chairman Neely said this bridge has been funded out of Glendale Federal monies to provide traffic mitigation as part of their project, and asked if there is a L PC Meeting 4 September 13, 2005 recent study that shows what the current and projected LOS analysis would be for the two intersections and the bridge length. Mr. Milke said that RBF did produce a traffic study and presented it to Alan Oswald for review. Commissioner Cohen said that he would like to see the traffic study to see if existing conditions warrant the widening, and if it is necessary he would like a project that retains the rural environment and maintains the pedestrian and equestrian trails. If traffic does not warrant the widening and there is a way to defer that Condition of Approval, the Council might want to consider that option. Commissioner Ratcliffe said both the equestrian and pedestrianlbike trails are on the north side where school traffic and children on bikes travel to Ambuehl School. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked if the width could be narrowed by combining the median and left-hand turn lane where it intersects San Juan Creek Road. Commissioner Drey voiced concern with the architectural aspects of the bridge. Vice Chairman Cardoza asked if there could be a separate equestrian crossing somewhere along the creek. Chairman Neely said the proposed bridge is nearly triple the existing bridge width, and may be bigger than the Camino Capistrano bridge. He questioned whether the bridge width is connected to a plan to extend San Juan Creek Road to the east. Chairman Neely suggested narrowing the bridge by providing a separate equestrian lane and sidewalk, but not an additional multi-purpose trail. He questioned whether Caltrans standards should be applied to all City projects, stating this may result in the City looking like a freeway. He stated that what is needed is stacking for the left turn lanes on the southbound traffic from the bridge to San Juan Creek Road during peak school hours. He suggested one dedicated through lane with the right lane an optional right-turn lane and through lane as well as getting the equestrians away from the road. Chairman Neely would like to see a traffic study showing how much would be gained by adding all the new lanes. Chairman Neely encouraged the Planning Commission to tell the City Council that the project needs to be substantially reduced and redesigned. Commissioner Cohen said the J. Serra project increases traffic on Camino Capistrano during the school morning hours without any major improvement. Other than the morning and afternoon traffic to St. Margaret’s and Ambuehl, there is very little traffic to warrant improvements on San Juan Creek Road. Commissioner Cohen suggested that the Conditions of Approval be waived or modified so that the construction of the bridge is not required at this time. Then, based on a current traffic analysis, perhaps St. Margaret’s and Ambuehl could stagger school hours. PC Meeting 5 September 13,2005 Vice Chairman Cardoza asked that the Planning Commission comments be forwarded to the City Council. Ms. Bogh said that the Planning Commission Minutes reflecting Commissioner comments will be forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Mazboudi said that his report to City Council will reflect all Planning Commission and other committee issues and comments. Ld Chairman Neely said that his recommendation would be for the City Council to consider a scaled-down version of the bridge design to be the proposed project evaluated in the EIR. If not, then the scaled-down project should at least be included and evaluated in the EIR as one of the project alternatives. All Commissioners concurred. NEW BUSINESS I. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TRP) 05-96, STERNAMAN RESIDENCE AT 30991 PASEO VALENCIA. AN APPLICATION TO REMOVE ONE (I) AND AN APPROXIMATE HEIGHT OF FIFTY (50) FEET. THE SUBJECT TREE IS LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, GENERALLY LOCATED 20 FEET NORTHWEST OF PASEO VALENCIA. (APN MONTEREY PINE TREE, WITH A DIAMETER OF THIRTY-FIVE (35) INCHES 664-034-1 0) (APPLICANT: LARRY STERNAMAN). Ms. Bogh said that Justin Carlson found a permanent position with the City of Lake Elsinore, and she would be presenting his staff reports this evening. u Staff presentation & recommendation Ms. Bogh presented the staff report as a request for TRP 05-96, an application to remove one (1) Monterey Pine tree located in the rear yard of the subject property located at 30991 Paseo Valencia. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution confirming issuance of a Categorical Exemption and approving a Tree Removal Permit and does not recommend a replacement tree because of all the other existing trees on the lot. Commissioner Questions and Comments Commissioner Drey asked if the tree pictured is at the left corner of the house toward the front. Applicant Sternaman said yes. Commissioner Ratcliffe voiced concern that six or seven of the trees are on their way out and the proposed tree is one of the better trees on the property. Public Hearing Applicant Larry Sternaman, 30991 Paseo Valencia, said that the tree in question is not healthy and is on its way out. PC Meeting 6 September 13,2005 Vice Chairman Cardoza said that the massing of the trees provides a buffer screen along Ortega, and asked if the applicant anticipates removing any of those trees in the future. Mr. Sternaman replied no. .~ -+ Commissioner Cohen asked under what circumstances an arborist’s report is requested. Ms. Bogh said staff has been conducting arborist reports on trees where staff is in disagreement with the Applicant and the Applicant is asking for a second opinion. It appeared to staff in this case that the Applicant’s request was reasonable, because the tree has substantial dead wood and is crowding other trees on the property. Michael O’Donnell, neighbor next to the Applicant, said the proposed tree is dying and could fall on his roof. Commissioner Comments Commissioners Cohen and Drey, Vice Chairman Cardoza, and Chairman Neely said that they support the staff recommendation. Commissioner Ratcliffe said it would be an asset to the neighborhood to preserve this and other trees on the property. Motion Vice Chairman Cardoza moved, seconded by Commissioner Cohen, to approve Resolution No. 05-9-1 3-1 confirming issuance of a Categorical Exemption and approving a Tree Removal Permit for one Monterey Pine tree located at 30991 Paseo Valencia (APN 664-034-1 0). L/ AYES: Commissioners Cohen and Drey, Vice Chairman Cardoza, Chairman Neely NOES: Commissioner Ratcliffe ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed by a vote of 4-1. 2. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TRP) 05-108, WATSON RESIDENCE AT 30171 SILVER SPUR ROAD. AN APPLICATION TO REMOVE ONE (1) EUCALYPTUS (SILVER DOLLAR GUM) TREE, WITH A DIAMETER OF THIRTY (30) INCHES AND AN APPROXIMATE HEIGHT OF THIRTY (30) FEET. THE SUBJECT TREE IS LOCATED ON THE SIDE YARD ON THE NORTH END OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, GENERALLY LOCATED 450 FEET SOUTH OF MISSION HILLS DRIVE AND 20 FEET WEST OF SILVER ‘0 SPUR ROAD. (APN 650-061-04) (APPLICANT: DAVID & GINA WATSON). 'W PC Meeting 7 September 13, 2005 Staff mesentation & recommendation Ms. Bogh presented the staff report as a request for TRP 05-108, an application to remove one (1) Eucalyptus (Silver Dollar Gum) tree located in the side yard on the north end of the subject property located at 30171 Silver Spur Road. Staff is recommending action by the Planning Commission to legalize the removal of a tree which has already been initiated without the benefit of a Tree Removal Permit, because the entire crown has been removed and the tree is no longer viable. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution confirming issuance of a Categorical Exemption and approving a Tree Removal Permit and require planting of two replacement trees as set forth in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Questions and Comments Commissioner Cohen asked if tree pruninghemoval services are familiar with City policy. Ms. Bogh said that newspaper articles and press releases, as well as pamphlets sent to tree removal companies with City business licenses, have not been read by tree companies from other cities. Public Hearing Applicant Gina Watson, 30171 Silver Spur Road, said the tree trimmer mistakenly started to remove the large Eucalyptus tree prior to approval of the Tree Removal Permit. Mrs. Watson said that she would rather not plant replacement trees. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Drey said that he concurs with staff recommendation. Vice Chairman Cardoza said that he concurs with staff recommendation, and supports careful placement of replacement trees to enhance landscaping. Commissioner Ratcliffe said that specifying replacement tree sizes limits the homeowner's choice depending on trees available. Commissioner Cohen asked if the replacement trees are warranted due to insufficient trees on the property. Ms. Bogh said there is a large expanse of lawn area with no trees and that staff is concerned about the maintenance of the urban forest canopy. Commissioner Cohen asked if staff got the name of the landscape company doing the tree removal. Ms. Bogh said that a stop work order and notice of violation had been issued, and that the Code Enforcement Officer had documented the name of the tree trimmers. PC Meeting 8 September 13, 2005 Ms. Bogh said that Condition 5 regarding the new location of the two replacement trees could be changed to defer approval to staff or the DRC rather than by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ratcliffe said that a younger tree can establish quickly and surpass the growth of a more mature tree in a larger box, and she would agree with deferring approval of replacement tree planting to staff or the DRC. Commissioner Cohen and Vice Chairman Cardoza said they would agree with deferring approval to the Planning Director. Chairman Neely suggested that staff look at a revised landscape plan and that the property owner could choose the size and type of replacement tree and that the requirement be for one, not two replacement trees. Ms. Bogh said that Condition 5 could be revised to ask the applicant to submit a landscape plan of the yard area showing appropriate locations of one or more trees. Chairman Neely said that the landscape plan could be approved by the Planning Director. Applicant Gina Watson said that if her current home does not sell, the subject home may be sold. Chairman Neely said if the property is sold, the new owners would need to provide a landscape plan to be reviewed by the Planning Director. Ms. Bogh said Condition 1 requires compliance by March 2006, and that an extension of time could be granted. Ms. Bogh said that a shortage of staff limits the timeliness of tree removal re- inspections, so that staff may not know whether replanting has occurred within the timeframe of the original permit. Ms. Bogh suggested that Condition 1 include wording that an application for an extension of time shall be submitted to the Planning Department which may be approved by the Planning Director. Motion Commissioner Cohen moved, seconded by Commissioner Drey, to approve Resolution No. 05-9-1 3-2 confirming issuance of a Categorical Exemption and approving a Tree Removal Permit for one Eucalyptus (Silver Dollar Gum) tree located at 30171 Silver Spur Road with the condition that the new owners provide a landscape plan to be reviewed by the Planning Director showing the location, size, and type of one or more replacement trees, and that any application for an extension of time shall be submitted to the Planning Department which may be approved by the Planning Director (APN 650-061-04). AYES: Commissioners Cohen, Drey and Ratcliffe, Vice Chairman Cardoza, Chairman Neely NOES: None ABSENT: None PC Meeting 9 September 13, 2005 ABSTAIN: None The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. ’d 3. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TRP) 05-07, WILLIAMS RESIDENCE AT 33751 CALLE CONEJO. A REQUEST TO REMOVE ONE (1) ALEPPO PINE (31” DIAMETER AND 45’-0” HEIGHT) LOCATED IN THE SIDE YARD OF THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, GENERALLY LOCATED 300 FEET NORTH OF VIA CORTA AND 20 FEET WEST OF CALLE CONEJO. (APN: 675- 043-06) (APPLICANT: MIKE AND STEPHANIE WILLIAMS). Staff presentation & recommendation Ms. Bogh presented the staff report as a request for TRP 05-106, an application to remove one (1) Aleppo Pine tree located on the side yard on the south end of the subject property located at 33751 Calle Conejo. Staff has retained an arborist to give an outside opinion. That arborist recommended some thinning and some pruning and said that the tree was sound and represented fair-to-good health, showing a profusion of new growth, and signs of health and vigor. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution denying the removal of (I) Aleppo Pine tree, based on the findings required by Section 9- 2.349 of the Land Use Code. - Commissioner Comments Commissioners Ratcliffe, Cohen, and Drey and Vice Chairman Cardoza said they concur with the staff recommendation. Commissioner Drey noted that another Aleppo Pine on the subject property overhangs the sidewalk and should be trimmed. Motion Commissioner Drey moved, seconded by Commissioner Ratcliffe, to approve Resolution No. 05-9-13-3 denying a Tree Removal Permit for one Aleppo Pine tree located at 33751 Calle Conejo (APN 675-043-06). AYES: Commissioners Cohen, Drey and Ratcliffe, Vice Chairman Cardoza, Chairman Neely NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. PC Meeting 10 September 13, 2005 4. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TRP) 04-70A, GASPARD RESIDENCE AT u 32101 VIA DE OLIVA. AN APPLICATION TO REMOVE ONE (1) CANARY ISLAND PINE TREE (PINUS CANARIENSIS), WITH A DIAMETER OF THREE (63) FEET. THE SUBJECT TREE IS LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD 150 FEET SOUTHWEST OF VIA DE GAVILAN AND 20 FEET WEST OF VIA TWENTY-TWO (22) INCHES AND AN APPROXIMATE HEIGHT OF SIXTY- OF THE GENERALLY LOCATED EXIST1 NG SI NGLE-FAMI LY RES1 DENCE , DE OLIVA. (APN 668-1 73-08) (APPLICANT: JOE GASPARD). Staff presentation & recommendation Ms. Bogh presented the staff report as a request for TRP 04-70A, an application to remove one (1) Canary Island Pine tree (Pinus Canariensis) located in the front yard of the existing single-family residence located at 32101 Via De Oliva. Staff arranged with the applicant that staff would look at the root system of the tree after the applicant took up the driveway. An arborist report said that the driveway replacement did not appear to be detrimental to the tree. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution denying the removal of one (1) Canary Island Pine tree (Pinus Canariensis), based on the findings required by Section 9-2.349 of the Land Use Code. Commissioner Questions and Comments u Commissioner Cohen asked if the driveway was replaced because of the uprooting from the tree. Ms. Bogh said the driveway was old and has some cracks, but that she couldn’t verify whether or not the tree was the cause of the driveway rep lacement. Commissioners Ratcliffe, Drey and Vice Chairman Cardoza said they concur with the staff recommendation. Chairman Neely said that the subject tree is out-of-scale with its surroundings and would support replacement with a more-proportionate tree. Commissioner Cohen said the City has taken a step in initiating the provisions of the Code that mandate a tree removal go through a certain process, that specific findings be made to warrant removal of a tree, which sends a message that bad planning probably wasn’t in the minds of Council when they enacted this Code provision. Commissioner Cohen continued that in order for the Planning Commission to have more discretion, the Code may need to be modified. Chairman Neely said that he does not take that narrow of an interpretation of the Planning Commission’s discretion. PC Meeting 11 September 13, 2005 Motion Commissioner Cohen moved, seconded by Commissioner Drey, to approve Resolution No. 05-9-13-4 denying a Tree Removal Permit for onecanary Island Pine tree located at 32101 Via De Oliva (APN 668-173-08). AYES: Commissioners Cohen, Drey and Ratcliffe, Vice Chairman Cardoza NOES: Chairman Neely ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed by a vote of 4-1. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC) 04-08 MODIFICATION, GATES OFFICE BUILDING AT 31601 AVENIDA LOS CERRITOS. A REQUEST TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED SIGN PROGRAM FOR AN APPROVED OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA LOS CERRITOS AND EAST OF THE 1-5 FREEWAY. THE SIGN PROGRAM CONSISTS OF FREE-STANDING AND WALL-MOUNTED SIGNS. INCLUDED IN THIS W AGENDA ITEM IS A CODE INTERPRETATION RELATIVE TO ALLOWING MONUMENT SIGNS WITHIN THE CO ZONE DISTRICT. (APN: 650-151-17) (APPLICANT: BRAD GATES). Continued from August 23, 2005 Planning Commission hearing. Written C om m u n ica t ions September 13,2005 Owner Ortega Land Partners, LLP, 28546 Paseo Diana, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Applicant Brad Gates (Same as Owner) Architect Robert C. Lenz, 718 Avenida Columbo, San Clemente, CA 92672 Staff presentation & recommendation Mr. Cunningham presented the staff report as an item continued from the August 23, 2005 Planning Commission, a request to modify AC 04-08 in order to establish a comprehensive sign program for the project. Included in the request L PC Meeting 12 September 13,2005 is a Code Interpretation relative to allowing monument signs within the CO Zone W District. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution finding that monument signs are permitted in the CO Zone District and approving AC 04-08 Modification. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Cohen requested clarification of B Sign Type “D” on page 4 and asked if a major tenant occupies the second floor, would that tenant be allowed up to four signs of 45 sq. ft. per sign on the west elevation. Mr. Cunningham said that tenant is only allowed one sign up to 45 sq. ft. Commissioner Cohen said the next sentence says “The total number of wall signs shall not exceed eight.” Mr. Cunningham said no, that staffs intent is that each tenant within the building would be allowed one wall sign; that the total number of wall signs would not exceed eight (8). Ms. Bogh said that the wording can be clarified to say that each tenant shall get only one wall-mounted sign. Commissioner Cohen said that the reference to page 13 of the sign program should be changed to page 12. Mr. Cunningham noted that the original page 11 after page 9 should be changed to page IO, 1 I , 12. Vice Chairman Cardoza said the DRC addressed the signs and asked if there would be different lettering styles or graphics that conflict. Mr. Cunningham said the sign program does not specify the lettering size or style. L Public Hearinq Brad Gates, 28546 Paseo Diana, said the applicant‘s intent is to have the minimum number of signs and that over time tenants may change and the applicant would like to make sure there is space for tenant advertising. Commissioner Questions and Comments Commissioner Drey said that he is satisfied with the proposal except for the eight signs on the west exterior elevation, and would prefer a maximum of one 45 sq. ft. and two 24 sq. ft. or two 45 sq. ft. signs. Vice Chairman Cardoza said that he is more concerned with the sign quality and consistency rather than quantity. Commissioner Ratcliffe voiced concern regarding signs on the back of the building facing the freeway at that elevation. Commissioner Cohen asked if the 45 sq. ft. is per Code. Mr. Cunningham said the Code permits a maximum of 24 sq. ft., however there’s a provision that given certain findings that the maximum could be exceeded depending on the size of the business. ‘v PC Meeting 13 September 13,2005 In response to a question regarding the City’s ability to regulate the use of corporate logos in signage, Ms. Bogh said the City has the right to regulate the placing and appearance of the signage but not the content. If it is determined that the logo is a freedom of speech issue we cannot restrict its use, but we can still regulate the placement and the size of the logo. The decision to go with 45 sq. ft. versus 24 sq. ft. signs is not a First Amendment issue; the Planning Commission has a right to allow the signs to be as big as it feels is appropriate for the building. Mr. Sandoval added that one case says that the City cannot require a corporation to change a copyrighted or trademarked sign or symbol, so we can not tell them to change the color or design, but we do have regulations regarding placement, size, and location. Mr. Gates said that as he reads the Code, for every 1,000 sq. ft. of tenant occupancy of the building, a 24 sq. ft. sign is allowed. Although he does not wish to have that much signage, he would like to attract tenants to the building. Vice Chairman Cardoza asked if the A. G. Edwards sign would be free-standing lettering or mounted on a structure. Mr. Cunningham said the applicant is talking to A. G. Edwards in term of individual channel letters. Ms. Bogh said the lettering styles allowed are specified in Item C.5 on page 5. Commissioner Cohen asked if Mr. Gates had signed leases with the major tenants. Mr. Gates answered no. Mr. Cohen asked if the lease addresses tenants’ signage rights and does it address the 45 sq. ft. sign specifically. Mr. Gates said the tenant requested a 45 sq. ft. sign. Commissioner Cohen asked Ms. Bogh if a long tenant name could pose a problem. Ms. Bogh said the Code says that the individual establishments or multi-tenant buildings may exceed the maximum allowable square footage provided the sign area is determined by the Planning Director to be in scale with the building. However, in no instance shall the sign face exceed the maximum permitted above or 2 percent of the building elevation portion occupied by the tenant. Ms. Bogh said that if a tenant came to the City Planning Department, the counter person would pull up the sign program, but would not review it for aesthetics. Ms. Bogh said it is important that the Planning Commission is satisfied with the standards on page 5. Ms. Bogh asked if the project graphic color mentioned in Item C.4 on page 5 is called out somewhere. Mr. Cunningham said Item C.4 refers to the building faGade color that was part of the DRC and Planning Commission review. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked if Item C.6 means that a tenant would have no opportunity to incorporate a trademark color into a sign. Ms. Bogh said this provision specifies materials, but does not address what color the material will be painted. Ms. Bogh asked if Item C.6 would preclude any internally illuminated PC Meeting 14 September 13,2005 signs. Mr. Cunningham said the construction of the sign in terms of the reveal would be bronze, aluminum, or some other material, but in terms of the face of the sign the intent was to have an internally illuminated channel letter. Ms. Bogh said the current staff, many of whom are new, have had problems understanding how to implement some of the old sign programs. Counter staff need specific language in these documents to know how to review sign permit applications Commissioner Ratcliffe said that she read item C.6 as non-illuminated. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked if a short tenant name would have much taller letters. Ms. Bogh said the interpretation by staff of the sign programs at the counter is that if they are showing a maximum height and a maximum length of the template areas, that's what the applicant is allowed, regardless of the length of the words in the sign. Commissioner Cohen said in past instances we have reduced the vertical height of the sign. Commissioner Cohen asked Mr. Gates if the lease only discusses 45 sq. ft., not specific height and width. Mr. Gates answered that the dimensions shown in the sign program are the desired dimensions. Chairman Neely asked for Commission comments on the total number of signs. Commissioners Cohen and Drey said that two 45 sq. ft. signs and the potential for six additional 24 sq. ft. signs would be excessive. Commissioners Cohen, Ratcliffe, and Drey said they would be comfortable with four signs. Ms. Bogh said the six signs would be a potential total of 181 sq. ft. of signage. Ms. Bogh said the sign program needs to be approved to authorize the electrical stub outs in the locations that are being approved because the Building Department will need authorization from Planning on those signs. Mr. Cunningham said the applicant would want an answer on it before he went to the expense of stubbing out. Ms. Bogh said that Title 9 calls out building-mounted signage and lists all of the office and commercial zones and allows 24 sq. ft. per exposure per tenant, which can be exceeded if the Planning Director finds it is consistent with the scale of the building. Chairman Neely suggested authorization of the stubbing at all six requested locations but approving four signs at this time. Commissioner Cohen said signage isn't critical for smaller tenants. Commissioner Cohen asked that the actual signage could come back as a Consent Item. Mr. Sandoval said that if it comes back on Consent the PC Meeting 15 September 13,2005 Commission has the ability to pull it out of Consent, and that any member of the public can request that a Consent item be pulled. Ms. Bogh asked if the Commission would want any future change in copy or signage on this building to come to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Cohen said yes, for west elevation signage. Ms. Bogh said that sign permits are a ministerial permit and having individual tenants come to Planning Commission would be a change in procedure from any other building. Ms. Bogh said that being specific in the sign program would be helpful for the staff who implement the program. Vice Chairman Cardoza said that he would like signage to go to the DRC for final review. Ms. Bogh said that the final draft of the sign program could be revised to that effect, but this would be a change in procedure from how other sign programs are handled. Motion Commissioner Cohen moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Cardoza, to approve Resolution No. 05-9-1 3-5 conditionally approving a modification to AC 04-08 for a sign program for the Gates Office Building on approximately .838 acre of land located at 31601 Avenida Los Cerritos, with conditions allowing up to six electrical stub outs for future signs; one 45 sq. ft. sign, two 32 sq. ft. signs, and one 24 sq. ft. sign allowed at the present time, with the possibility of two additional 24-foOt signs in the future if approved by the Planning Commission as a modification to the Sign Program; and with the DRC to review the final sign materials specified in the Sign Program (APN 650-1 51 -1 7). AYES: Commissioners Cohen, Drey and Ratcliffe, Vice Chairman Cardoza NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Chairman Neely The motion passed by a vote of 4-0, with Chairman Neely abstaining COMMISSION/STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Bogh said that two Commissioners and she would attend the Planners Forum September 15,2005. Ms. Bogh said that the counter planners have told her that the sign programs are very difficult to implement and that some of the programs that go back to the 70s and 80s are not in the files. Some of the sign programs don’t have dimensions or PC Meeting 16 September 13, 2005 other specific requirements. Ms. Bogh said that within in the next six months she would like to come to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for a better way to implement the sign programs. Commissioner Cohen said he had asked staff in the past to review the Rancho Ortega sign program for possible violations. Chairman Neely gave a brief history of the City’s sign standards, which have gone through a phase in the last ten years of allowing channel letters without further review, in order to streamline sign permits. He agreed that City sign procedures need to be reviewed. Commissioner Cohen thanked staff for the green arrow at Ortega and Del Obispo. Commissioner Drey said the sign ordinance states a specific square footage allowable in regard to street frontage, which should refer to the front of the building. Commissioner Drey suggested that there be different criteria for the back of the building. Vice Chairman Cardoza complimented staff for listening and supporting the new directions for signage. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked about removing the oak tree and putting in a purple plum at Serra Plaza. Ms. Bogh said that David Contreras had checked the original plan when the proposal to substitute trees was received. Ms. Bogh said that when the applicant was told that the DRC also wanted to make some other changes to the landscape plan, the applicant opted not to make changes to the plan, so the tree will remain. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 27, 2005, at 7:OO p.m. in the Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted , *v Molly B h P la nn i n gbi rect o r /sm