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