Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Please rise if you're able, facing the flag, and join in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Will the secretary please read the roll?

Commissioner Calloway. Brisson. Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Rosenblum.

Here.

Commissioner Williamson. Here. Vice Chair Wong.

Present.

Chair Rameem.

Present. Do we have any ceremonial matters, presentations, announcements? We do not. Okay. A few comments on the public comment. The Commission has set aside 30 minutes for persons in the audience who wish to comment on items that are not listed on this agenda, but are within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Members of the audience will later have the opportunity to address the Commission regarding all items on the agenda at the time the Commission considers those items. The city has discontinued taking public comment via Zoom or telephone. Public comment will be taken in person or in writing. Written public comment received prior to 3 p.m. today has been distributed to the commission and placed in the city document archive. There's a link to the document archive on the city website calendar listing for the meeting. Will the secretary please state how many general public comments were received and distributed?

There were none.

General public comment for items not on the agenda will resume later in the meeting if there are speakers who did not get an opportunity to speak because of the 30 minute time limit. The Brown Act prohibits the commission from taking action on oral requests related to items that are not on the agenda. The Commission may engage in a brief discussion, refer the matter to staff, and or schedule requests for consideration at the subsequent meeting. Before I open public comment, I would like to remind audience members that out of respect for these proceedings and for others in the audience to refrain from behaviors such as cheering, jeering, or clapping. The Commission requests but does not require speakers to identify themselves. When it is your turn to speak, please state your name unless you wish to remain anonymous. Each speaker will be allowed up to three continuous minutes. Members of the audience will have the opportunity to address the Planning Commission regarding items on the agenda at the time the Commission considers those items. If you wish to speak during public comment, please approach the podium. Are there any members of the public in the council chamber who wish to address the commission on matters not listed on the agenda? Okay, not seeing anyone. I will close public comment and bring it back to the planning commission. Moving on to the consent calendar. All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. The planning commission or one or more commissions and their committees have previously considered most of the items on the consent calendar. The commission may act on these items by one motion following public comment. Only commissioners may pull an item from the consent calendar for discussion. The commission will waive reading of resolutions. Each resolution will be numbered following commission approval. Now it is time for those in the audience to comment on the consent calendar. Each speaker will be allowed three continuous minutes to comment on items on the consent calendar. Are there any members of the public in the council chamber who wish to speak to the consent calendar? Okay, seeing no one stand, I will close public comment. Would any commissioner like to pull an item for discussion or is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?

I'll move approval of the consent calendar.

Second. Could we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Callaway? Aye. Commissioner Davis? Commissioner Rosenbluth? Commissioner Williamson. Yes. Vice Chair Wong.

Yes.

Chair Rameem.

Aye. The motion passes with five yeses and one absent. All right, now we move to the public hearing. Generally, public hearings will conform to a following procedure unless there is a reason not to do so. There's a staff presentation, there's applicant presentation, public hearing, staff response, commission discussion, and explanation of appeals. Regarding the item on the calendar, the next item, item number two, does the staff have a presentation?

Chair, if I might take a moment and make a quick introduction of our staff planner here, Raquel de Leon. It's her first time appearing before one of our city commissions. Raquel is currently a student at Cal Poly Pomona pursuing a planning degree. So just a quick welcome to the commission. Welcome. Glad to have you.

good evening commissioners tonight staff is presenting a proposed conditional use permit for beer and wine service at an existing bona fide eating establishment located at 701 south indian hill boulevard the permit if approved would allow the corner grill and bakery to serve beer and wine for on-site consumption in the specific plan 12 zone of the southwest san jose specific plan If you'll take a look at this slide here it identifies the project site, as well as the surrounding uses of residential to the north commercial to the east and south and office professional to the West. The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow the sale of beer and wine, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 license located at 701 South Indian Hill Boulevard. The Southwest San Jose Specific Plan Chapter 5 development standards and regulations allow for on-site sales in connection with a restaurant with the approval of a conditional use permit. This section of the specific plan specifies that the restaurant must qualify as a bona fide eating establishment as defined by business and professions code section 23038. For some background on the property, again, this is within specific plan 12, general plan designation, the Southwest San Jose specific plan. This structure was erected in 1968 and has a total square footage of 5,600 square feet. Of that 5,600 square feet, indoor dining will comprise 2,700 square feet, and outdoor dining will comprise 300 square feet. On site currently, there's 45 total parking spaces, 43 of which are available during the nearby residence and construction. A little bit more about the restaurant itself. The Corner Grill and Bakery is an American diner-style restaurant, and it serves various breakfast dishes, sandwiches, pies, and more. The building has historically hosted restaurant uses, including Caro's, BC Cafe, and Sammy's Cafe, and the restaurant's proposed hours of operation are Sunday through Saturday, 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. A little bit more about our surrounding uses. To the north, we have high density residential. To the south, we have both the 10 Freeway as well as Norm's, Dave's Hot Chicken, and Super King. To the east, we have our specific Plan 13 area, which is commercial. It also hosts comparable restaurants, the Claremont Lodge Motel, and a western dental office. And to the west here, we have our commercial professional zone. which is going to be hosting our residence inn, which is currently under construction. To discuss the parking on site, restaurants within the SB 12 zone are required one parking space for every 100 square feet of gross floor area and one space for each 175 square feet of gross outdoor dining. This totals to 58 required spaces for this project. The site already has an existing 45 spaces, 43 of which are available during construction of the residence in. And while this does not meet the standard described above staff supports, allowing the restaurant to operate under a legal nonconforming status, because the proposal does not involve any expansion of space. New beer and wine service will not cause significant parking challenges and the existing onsite parking has already well served this location in the past for similar use. Here we have a street view of the restaurant. This shows its primary entrance, and this is facing South Indian Hill Boulevard. Here we have another elevation facing West San Jose. And finally, the rear of the restaurant, which is facing west towards that proposed residence in. Here's a photo of our outdoor seating area. It's quite small at 300 square feet. It hosts three tables and four, sorry, yeah, three tables and 12 total chairs. And here's our for plan it shows that we have 5600 square feet in total and clearly identifies the available number number of tables and chairs it also shows our entry and exit points which I think are relevant here. And just the the general seating arrangement of the establishment. And. Coming on to our basis for recommendation staff has determined that all findings can be made to allow the sale of beer and wine for onsite consumption in conjunction with an existing bonafide restaurant. The tenant space is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposal without undue impact to the surrounding areas. The approval of a new beer and wine service would positively contribute to SB 12 and provide a complete dining experience for patrons of the new residence in. And the proposed request would support several of the general plans goals and policies, especially those focused on supporting and retaining small businesses and increasing sales tax revenue within the city. Finally, the proposal complies with design guidelines and development standards, notwithstanding parking requirements. Staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Claremont, California, approving conditional use permit 25 CO1 to allow the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with an existing bonafide eating establishment located at 701 South Indian Hill Boulevard applicant, the corner grill and bakery. Thank you. Did we have any questions?

Any commissioners have questions from the city.

Yes, I guess I do welcome Thank you. So. Do we have a revision to the resolution on page two section two and item number and item number E.

Yes, I believe a correction was made to this section earlier today. Can Brad confirm that?

Yeah. Need you recall if?

Not to this item.

OK. Looks like we didn't get it in the resolution. So yeah, we can amend that now or when we get to the part of the hearing where we're discussing the resolution and making a motion.

Thank you.

Other commissioners, questions for the city?

PB John Gerstle, A similar question of there should be a correction on page for the resolution item am. PB John Gerstle, Is that been received is that been received.

I believe we had received corrections via email, but I would like to confirm with that.

We were sent errata by email, but they weren't here. So that's why we're asking the question.

My correction, the errata was for this item.

Yes.

For section 2E and 3M.

Right, so we can assume that those have been included in the actual resolution. That's the question that I think Commissioner Williamson and I are asking that.

I apologize for the confusion that has been accounted for.

Okay, so if we approve this resolution, it will be with those two corrections that we...

Right, for clarification, Commissioner Williamson, you had mentioned 2B, he integrated your changes with 2E, which had the starting language.

Shall I just? quickly read what should be there. Yes, please. Okay. So clearly item section two and item E was just a casual mistake. So I was proposing it read instead The proposed addition of beer and wine sales and service with extended business hours to 9 p.m. will not endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare, as it will have limited outdoor consumption space, and I put number of tables, three tables, 12 seats, and limited service hours from 6 a.m. to 8.30 p.m., and I mentioned 8.30 p.m. because that is in the applicant's statement of when they would... when they would curtail their alcohol service hours.

Okay. Can I read you the correction of the errata that went out? Okay. So for Section 2E, the proposed restaurant would restaurant sales and service will not endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to public health, safety, and general welfare, as it will allow for a restaurant with a alcohol within the Southwest San Jose specific plan area to operate in an establishment area intended for such uses with limited outdoor consumption space and alcohol service hours from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. each day. Conditions of approval included in the resolution give the city of Claremont the authorization to revoke the CUP if it is discovered that the restaurant operator is violating state regulations or any conditions of disapproval. Moreover, the use continues to be subject to the operating conditions imposed by the California Department of Alcoholic Control, ABC, which regulates and monitors the manner in which the alcoholic beverages are sold in the state. Is that suffice?

Yes, and I think then later when we have Commissioner comments and discussion, I will bring up again the issue of the alcohol sales and service ending at 8.30 per the applicant's statement.

Isn't there a language somewhere saying service will stop 30 minutes before closing or?

Yes, that's in the applicant statement that I read.

Okay. It's not in the resolution? No. Okay.

And also Commissioner Rosenbluth, your corrections were also addressed in section 2E in regards to the crossing out of the village square section to note the Southwest San Jose specific plan.

3M.

Yes, it's also incorporated in here with the errata, crossing out the service, a full line of alcoholic beverages, and including the on-site sales and service of beer and wine on the premises.

Thank you. Commissioner Atala, you have any questions for the city?

I do not. Thank you.

Vice Chair Wong?

No questions, but great job. Thank you.

All right.

I have a question with regards to the outdoor service. Where this particular restaurant is, there's a history of issues with, not at the restaurant, but nearby with illegal activities. We even have, I believe, a committee formed by the city. How is that going now? Are we, particularly because there are tables outdoors and so forth. Director Johnson, do you have anything or

Yes. So the CIT committee was formed through our hotel motel ordinance revisions at this commission as well. Those of you that were present at that time, we had some, some Co meetings with the city council and he has some very tight conditions got put on the local hotels and motels across the city. And that ci team has been very active they produce quarterly reports and they have members on it from the public and all the various city divisions so they've been doing a good job and doing their regular inspections and. We've obviously asked the police department if they had any concerns at this location based on all of those facts and reports, and they were perfectly comfortable with both the indoor and outdoor seating at the location. So I don't think it's going to be a problem or a concern of that committee at this time.

Semi-related, CIT apparently lost their member of the public. Has he or she been replaced?

They have not. I think there's some individuals being nominated right now to replace that position.

But we are okay with the functioning of that and also as it relates to this area? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I don't have any more questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

would the applicant like to make a presentation?

Well, my name is Victor, one of the owners, also Francisco's the chef as well. We don't... Excuse me, sir. I'm sorry. Yes.

Could I simply ask, are you Victor? Yes, I'm Victor. You might want to say your name.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So, yeah, we're doing really well on breakfast and lunch right now. We just tried to improve our delivery for dinner. We don't try to go, like, over, like, nine, but just passing hours. We just want to do a little bit better now that the hotel is going to be open soon. We just try to pair wine and beer for our dinner, having a good time with the customers as well. We don't try to exceed hours at all. Do you have any questions?

Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for...

It's kind of a question. Yes. So we noted that in your applicant statement that very responsibly, which I think is very good, you stated that you would curtail any alcohol service at 8.30. And that you still agree with that?

Yes, absolutely. Yeah, because we want to try to close the night the latest. Maybe like 830 the terms how how the business like going through but I if you You allow us to do only tonight 9 p.m. We had to cut the service for alcohol at 830 so that way we can close like a night o'clock. Yes Also, we I'm gonna try like we're going to train all the service for the ABC program so

So you are in agreement with your hours of alcohol, beer, and wine service from 6 a.m. to 8.30, correct?

Absolutely.

Okay. Yes. Thank you very much.

Commissioner Rosenbluth, any questions? No questions. Commissioner Calloway?

Thank you. No questions.

Thank you. Vice Chair Wong?

My apologies. Well, welcome to Claremont. How long have you guys been operating in that location? And then have you guys had a different location before with beer and wine?

This is like a first time opening a restaurant as owners. But we've been working at different restaurants. I used to work for Chevy's restaurant a long time ago, Paul Martin's and Market Broiler as a bartender as well. So I have my ABC license for training as a bartender. So I'm going to train all my services as well and make them to follow all the ABC system. Yes.

Great. Well, welcome to Claremont. Thanks for bringing your business.

Thank you. Thank you.

I would like to open it for a public hearing. Are there any members of the public in the council chamber who wish to speak to the item? If so, please come to the podium. I don't see anyone walking this way. I will close public comment and bring it back for commission discussion. Why don't we start with Commissioner Williamson? Your thoughts, please.

Thank you. I think that I'll ask the Commission to consider adding the one point to the findings of section two and item E about limited alcohol service hours from 6 a.m. to 8.30. I think since the applicant agrees, and that seems very reasonable, and I would also say wise, putting that in the conditional use permit seems appropriate.

Commissioner Callaway?

I agree.

Any other thoughts or comments right now?

I think the presentation was Well done, I think I agree with the recommendation of the city that this will indeed create. A more enhanced dining experience and, especially with the residents in, and I think it's a good cup to thank you commercial rosenblum.

Thank you. I'd like to thank staff for the presentation. This seems like a reasonable expansion of that business. Certainly the restaurant operating there, this one and the ones before it didn't seem to present any kind of problems for the city. Certainly the tenant space is large enough for this business. Findings we need to make. The restaurant with alcohol sales and service relates to streets and highways. that are sufficiently sized to accommodate the mixed uses in the area so that adding alcohol shouldn't make any difference to the traffic in the area or the way it is. It shouldn't impair the integrity and character of the zone. I'm hoping that people dining there from the hotel or other areas may actually improve the character of the area in the evening. The proposed hours of operation are not contrary to the general plan. And approval of this should support the goals of the general plan in maintaining a strong and diversified economic base and encouraging a variety of businesses to locate in Claremont. And it should not... in any way public health safety or general welfare. So those are the findings that we need to make in order to approve the CUP as stated in the resolution. And I see no reason to object to those. Also seems clear that this is categorically exempt from CEQA. I would be in favor of this.

And do you agree with the modification?

I certainly agree with the modification on the time in the resolution that the two places that say 9 p.m. should be changed to 8.30.

There could be, excuse me, a distinction made between the business operation hours to 9 o'clock from the alcohol service hours to 8.30.

Absolutely right. I'm sorry.

Vice Chair Wong?

He agreed with most of my colleagues. comments, with the exception of the 9pm you know what I mean I I feel you know this conditional use permit process is very costly to the applicant and just allowing you know some more flexibility in in the timing I don't feel it. At the end of the day, the business owner is going to operate the business how they're going to see fit. To maximize profit, whether we give it until 9 o'clock and he wants to close it off at 8.30, I don't see what locking him into this document is what the 30 minutes is going to do. But personally, I would not be in favor of changing it. He applied till nine o'clock, even though he's willing to cancel alcohol service at 8.30. I think it should live in the document until 9 p.m.

I don't think the modification suggestion was for closing at 8.30. It was for, we're okay with closing at nine, but less alcohol service at 8.30.

any alcohol service, but this way, you know what I mean? If he did have until nine o'clock, if, you know, if business did expand, if, you know, the hotel kind of took off and he wanted to stay open until nine 30, now he would have that flexibility of serving alcohol till nine, 9. I don't see it as, you know, this, the CEP process is very costly and just to take away 30 minutes. I know the applicant already said that he was, that was open to it, but just to make the change here is I feel, you know,

Let me ask for a point of clarification, I guess from someone. The applicant has asked for 9 p.m. And if we grant the CUP, if the applicant, business is good, the applicant wants to go to 9.30, they have to come to the city anyway. Is that not true? To expand their hours to 9.30?

Yes, I mean, the CUP is regulating the business and They're proposing hours to close at 9. It's here before you because it also has alcohol sales as part of the CUP. The CUP is all-encompassing. I think staff is a little surprised, too, that they'd want to constrain themselves to 9 o'clock as their business hours. But that is how the CUP is interpreted.

Okay, so regardless then, the operation hours are alcohol consumption hour, alcohol sales hours are all restricted in the CUP. So if they said, hey, they want to stay open until 10 p.m. in three months because the hotel business took off and they have a lot of clientele during that time, they're going to have to come back and modify the CUP in order to modify business hours, even though they're not selling alcohol during that time.

Yes. And that is the way this condition is written tonight. I can tell you in past CUPs that condition has been written differently. I won't say 100% consistently over the years. Sometimes that condition is worded in a way that gives either the planning division or the director, myself, the authority to have some latitude to change that at staff level. And other times that condition's been written that it would have to come back before the planning commission to modify the hours of operation. So it's been handled differently over the decades here in Claremont. So I've seen like three different versions of this condition. And tonight, the way it's written is they come back to the planning commission. If you would like to give some latitude to get that approved at a staff level, That condition could be rewarded to read however you'd like it to.

Let me provide maybe a little more clarity. My commissioners, you know, obviously this is a new business to Claremont. You know what I mean? I want to see every business in Claremont succeed. And I feel, you know, we shouldn't really try to lock these guys down into operational hours. So I would be more in favor to what the director said. you know, basically limiting the alcohol sales until nine o'clock, but then giving some flexibility on the operation hours of food and restaurant services.

Well, let's get a feel for what the other commissioners think. Commissioner Williamson?

Well, of course, my motivation in suggesting calling out the alcohol sales time is entirely based on the applicant's own statement of what they intend to do and what they want to do. So this wasn't my idea, but I think it's a very good idea. So I'm supporting the applicant's desire. However, I do not know whether historically with CUPs, a business's operational hours has been listed distinct from their alcohol service hours. If that's been... done ever or if that's...

I think it's been done inconsistently for decades. I think every one is a little different and either went through like a little bit different process or inherited an alcohol license before the city had CUPs or there's a whole range of versions of how they're able to sell alcohol. So I'd say it's Probably not. It's not consistent across the board for every business in the city that sells alcohol. Just because over many, many decades, different environments have been in play when they come before a public body like a commission. So I'd say there's not that consistency.

I see. So the applicant on his own says this is what they want. And so I'm agreeing with the applicant. And I think it's a good idea. I think it's prudent.

I think the applicant said that they originally applied to them, and I don't know if staff can correct this. They originally applied till 9 p.m., but I think in their owner statement that they're going to curtail service at 8.30 p.m. just to ensure that they can kind of close on time. Yes.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Wong. The distinction here, which there may be some confusion about, we're not debating, I don't believe, of the actual businesses' operation hours. Still, that's 9 o'clock. Only the applicant's statement that they will stop serving 30 minutes before closing, which would be 8.30.

Commissioner Rosenbluth. What are your thoughts? On some level, I almost see an appetite for asking the business owner to come here and say, would you like to have more hours than you asked for? Is that what you would...

I was going on the same basis as Commissioner Williamson that the applicant asked for nine o'clock, but also in their own proposal said they would stop serving 30 minutes before, which only makes sense because if you serve something at nine o'clock and close at nine o'clock, they can't finish their drink or they will finish it in a way that it isn't good for the customer. Let's put it that way. And so I thought that it would be good for, I agreed with Commissioner Williamson, that it would be good for the CUP to specify that service will stop a half hour before closing time, basically. all based on what the applicant asked for. So that's what I was going on.

Yeah, I mean, I agree that whenever the closing time is, it is good to put the language in saying service of alcohol will stop 30 minutes before it. So that's settled. I guess the question is, do we want to... modify the CUP such that if they decide business is good and they want to keep open till 10, they don't have to come to the commission. They just can go to the city staff.

We can do that. We should just add the language that the business hours can be modified by the director of community development or his designee. Okay. And the language shouldn't say 8.30. It should say 30 minutes before closing time.

Michelle Calloway.

Yes, I think that's an excellent idea, and I support that. Vice Chair, Wong's idea, I think, to be more flexible makes sense. And if this is a fairly new business, to lock him into a closing time at this meeting and have business expand, which everybody would like and benefit from, why do that? If it's simply a matter of saying the staff director Johnson can weigh in and make a determination at a different time if the business hours should be extended. I think that makes so much sense rather than coming back and going through this whole procedure again and then the half hour or 30 minutes stopping alcohol service before closing makes sense rather than putting a time period on it.

Yeah, I concur, guys. I think that's reasonable.

I think we're all saying the same thing. I think we're just really getting caught up into the 8.30 and really putting a time on that. I do believe 100% that You know, all restaurants should stop alcohol service, you know, at least 30 minutes prior to them closing the door to, you know, allow patrons to finish their drink and whatnot. But I just, you know, what I didn't want to do here in this meeting is. lock these guys down and saying, Hey, you're going to be forced to close every night at nine o'clock.

Is there a consensus then about adding just the simple, um, the simple phrase to item E that, um, alcohol, uh, sales and service will be, um, what's the good language. Um, we'll stop before closing. I'm okay with that. Okay.

Could you add that language? And then what language do we need to add so that if they want to expand their hours, they just can come to the director instead of the city, instead of to the commission?

Yeah, I think we leave the condition as stated with the hours of operation the way it is, but say if requested changes to hours of operation shall be approved by, the Director of Community Development prior to extending beyond 9 p.m.

Okay. I'm okay with that.

Are we all good?

All right. Then does anybody have a motion?

I'll make a motion.

Good luck with this one.

Okay, move that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Claremont, California, approving conditional use permit 25-C01, a request for the sale of beer and wine, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 license, in conjunction with an existing bonafide eating establishment located at 701 South Indian Hill Boulevard, applicant Corner Grill and Bakery, with the inclusion of the errata that was discussed this evening, changing the language to limit alcohol service to 30 minutes before the closing time and allowing the hours of business to be modified with the approval of the director of community development or his designee.

And we want to do that hours modified. I mean, what if the applicant requests a staff level decision to modify the hours until 1am That would be within the directors at that point, it would be women directors.

And he would probably he would find he would probably bring that back. If it was a drastic change in hours.

And we do we want to put minor changes, I thought i'm confident enough that if we put it in the directors purview that that will take care of it. So we have a motion second in addition on the motion we find this item is exempt from environmental review under the California quality act sequel i'll second okay.

Commissioner Callaway. Aye. Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Rosenbluth. Aye. Commissioner Williamson. Aye. Vice Chair Wong.

Yes.

Chair Amin.

Aye. We have five yeses, one absent. The motion passes. The applicant or any other person may appeal this decision within 10 calendar days. Moving on to item three, request for conditional use permit amendment to amend the approved floor plan and add entertainment uses and an existing ABC license bona fide eating establishment and existing restaurant space, Walters Restaurant, located at 310 Yale Avenue, applicant Nagyali Ghafarshad. Does the staff have a presentation?

Yes, we do. All right. Good evening, Chair Rameem and the Commission. I am Jordan Goose, Assistant Planner with the City, and I'm here to present Conditional Use Permit File 99-C09-AMD for applicant Nanyangi Ghafarshad for 310 Yale Avenue. So the subject property is located at the corner of North Yale Avenue and West Bonita Avenue in the heart of the Claremont Village. The Claremont Village Zoning District is intended to encourage a mix of small-scale retail stores, commercial services, restaurants, offices, and civic uses. Uses surrounding the subject property include Norama Cafe and 4C's Fine Craft Jeweler to the west, residential uses and parking to the north, burt and rockies to the south and more residential uses to the east so the property has a zoning and general plan designation of claremont village walters is a portion of the claremont professional building located on on the property size of 27 000 square feet Walters makes up 4529 square feet of this and the original building was built in 1922. Parking on site consists of 43 parking credit spaces for the property, though by code 46 spaces are required. However, because of AB 2097, no minimum parking requirements can be enforced. So some background continued. Walter's Coffee Shop was originally established in 1957, and in 1973, the applicant purchased the business. Over time, the coffee shop has evolved into Walter's Restaurant. which is a full-service dining establishment offering continental fusion cuisine. Following a major fire in 1987, the restaurant was rebuilt and expanded to include a lounge courtyard, dining areas, and amenities such as a wine cellar, bakery and outdoor seating. Most recently, a roof fire in August of 2024 resulted in the current temporary business closure and the owners are actively working with the city to enable reopening at this time. Walters currently operates under an existing COP and holds a type 47 alcohol license as well as a type 58 caterer permit. An application was submitted on June 25, 2025, for the approval of a conditional use permit amendment to amend the approved floor plan and add entertainment uses at this existing restaurant. The entertainment uses requested involve hosting of large scale and special events in the restaurant for occasions such as weddings, birthdays, and sports events, and more. The applicant has requested the following hours, 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., Sunday through Wednesday, and 9 a.m. to 12 a.m., Thursday through Sunday, or up to 2 a.m. So to further elaborate on parking, the subject property is again allocated those 43 spaces. And those spaces have been acquired over the years through the purchasing of in lieu parking credits. However, pursuant to government code section 65863, a public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum parking requirements. And because 310 Yale is located 0.2 miles from the Claremont Depot, minimum parking requirements cannot be enforced as part of this project. So the next few slides will be street view and interior images of the restaurant today, keeping in mind that the restaurant has been closed due to a roof fire. So to begin, on the screen is a view of Walter's from Yale Avenue. Predominantly shown in this photo is now the enclosed outdoor patio with windows that allow the space to open up again. Now a view further up Yale, and this shows portions of the adjacent public parking lot owned by the city. Now shown is a view standing on the corner of Yale and Bonita in front of what will become the new main entrance of the restaurant. This photo is further up the street showing the old main entrance to the building closer to the now semi-outdoor patio. And this is a better straight on view of the new main entrance facing Yale Avenue. And finally, we have a perspective of the restaurant from the west side of Yale Avenue. So now we'll have a series of mostly interior photos while the restaurant is still rebuilding. So shown now is the inner courtyard that was once open air with temporary cloth tarps draped across. now shown on the left is an image of the once fully outdoor dining area and on the right is an image of the rear of the restaurant standing east the perspective of this photo is myself standing in the alleyway and there are residential uses on the other side of me and then lastly on the left we have a photo of the perspective bar location being amended on the floor plan on the right is the is an existing bar in the inner courtyard, which can also be seen on the floor inside plants. So moving forward, we have the site plan. As you can see, Walters is the largest of the tenants in the Claremont professional building and consists of several main areas, including the new proposed bar area, the semi outdoor dining area, a large office, the courtyard dining space and private dining rooms. Then we have the existing floor plan, which focuses on the area related to the new bar expansion. Previously, the bar in this area was shown as the sort of L shaped area that was partially just straight for bake. Excuse me, was partially a display for bakery items and had approximately eight seats. So now the proposed floor plan of the restaurant would hold a total of 502 seats. These seats are shown distributed throughout the various areas of the restaurant. The area shaded in gray you may be able to see is the area being rebuilt following the most recent fire. And while this rebuild is taking place, the applicant is proposing to expand the bar area at the entrance of the restaurant to a bar that hosts 18 seats, effectively doubling the size of the previous bar in that area and increasing its presence within the front dining area. the applicant has relayed to staff that all of these areas won't be used all at the same time they will be used throughout morning noon and evening sessions so finally i wanted to provide a side-by-side comparison of the existing and proposed bar area highlighting the expansion and the visual prominence of the bar once customers enter the restaurant So as a whole staff has determined that the findings can be made to amend the approved for plan and add entertainment uses at the existing restaurant. The location provides a family friendly environment for patrons and the continued request for full beverage bar service, excuse me, full beverage service at the expanded bar area and throughout the restaurant will not result in any detrimental changes to the existing premises. and the project's conditions of approval listed in the resolution give the City of Claremont authority to revoke the CUP if discovered that the operators are violating state regulations or any of the conditions of approval. And finally, staff's recommendation to the commission is to consider either establishing standard requirements for restaurants seeking entertainment uses in the village, establishing standards through this CEP amendment process, or continue to explore alternative options. Staff's recommendation is a compromise between the applicant's request and past approvals, though the commission obviously has discretion over the details and conditions On this permit, as entertainment uses in the village have become increasingly prevalent, it is within the Commission's purview to set conditions as you deem necessary. So ultimately, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution found in your packet or amend it as you see fit and find this item is exempt from CEQA. And that concludes staff's presentation. Are there any questions?

Thank you. Commissioner questions. Commissioner Williamson, would you like to ask?

Yes, could you explain staff's recommendation regarding the hours of operation? Specifically, you know, the 2 a.m. in parenthesis. Correct. And what is staff's position or recommendation?

So the applicant requested Up until midnight or 2 AM, I think on their justification statement, they asked for that for special events that they were hosting late at night. In 2006, staff denied an entertainment permit because they concluded that those hours of operation We're in conflict with the surrounding residential uses at the time and staff has elected to modify the requested hours in the resolution. We have them now at midnight. However, there is an existing or once existing entertainment permit that was approved by city council for Walters that set the latest time to 11 p.m. So there is some variety in terms of the closing time of the history of this restaurant. Staff elected to suggest a middle ground between what the applicant was desiring and the 11 p.m. time set by city council in 2009. And our position was to not have it be so late given the surrounding residential uses, but to leave it ultimately up to the discretion of the commission.

Commissioner Williams know where where did we see the 2am slide on the slide and also in the justification statement the applicant provided okay Okay, I must have missed that all right so.

Excuse me. So specifically, staff's recommendation is for 11 o'clock in the resolution and it's midnight, midnight. Correct. And and not the 2am. Correct. Okay. That's okay. Yes.

Commissioner Rosenbluth.

I do have one more for the clarification on this, you said there's an existing entertainment permit to 11pm site that's for the entertainment, not for the operation of the business. Correct. So we could allow the business to operate on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday to midnight, but restrict entertainment to what it's currently restricted to of 11 p.m. Correct.

Just one point of clarification, if I may. There is no existing entertainment permit. The entertainment permit has to be renewed every single year. And in this particular case, again, back to my consistency comment earlier about how we've treated alcohol and restaurants and entertainment has kind of been... I want to say all over the place, but entertainment requires a conditional use permit. So it's staff's policy right now, we'd like to get the restaurants in here that are providing entertainment to amend their CUPs because we have several other restaurants that are we're receiving some noise complaints and issues for in the village. So we're trying to wrap all these conditions of approval related to entertainment in the CP and not necessitate an entertainment permit for several CUPs that will be forthcoming to this commission in the coming months. Just, again, based on some complaints we've been getting about noise and windows open and pans and amplified music and things of that nature. So I just wanted to make the point that they don't have an act, they haven't had an active entertainment permit since 2017. So it's been a while. COVID obviously had a huge impact on the business and the type of events they were operating and not being allowed to operate for a long period of time and things of that nature. So just to give some context.

Just to be clear, you're saying that staff would prefer that all the limitations and conditions on entertainment be included in the CUP. You'd like to drop the entertainment permit process. correct correct okay and then therefore we could have different times for entertainment than for operation of the business absolutely um okay that's what i want to clarify thank you commissioner callaway those were my questions as well thank you vice chair wong great presentation was a goose um i just had some

clarification questions on you know obviously director johnson said there were some inconsistencies with other restaurants and i know these cps are very very hard to track as they run with the land they don't necessarily run with the business um i did ask for the bardo um uh cup i don't know do we have a clear Operation hours for that business? What they're allowed to operate under their CEP and do they have an entertainment permit?

Bardot, per their CUP, was inherited from Harvard Place Cafe, which was originally there. And I read through, I did not see operation hours in that CUP, which I think was in 1997. They do have an entertainment permit. It expires on the 22nd. The hours listed on Bardot's entertainment permit, it says the hours for entertainment are limited to 1.30 a.m. daily. And it sets further limitations. Let me see. It says, so any entertainment proposed within the patio area shall be non-amplified and limited to 10 p.m. So entertainment is limited to 1.30. However, entertainment on the patio area is further limited by being non-amplified and limited at 10.

Okay. And that's roughly surrounding residential as well, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Those are my only questions right now.

A couple of questions. I guess another restaurant close is Le Popular, and their permit goes to their catty corner, and theirs goes to midnight. Theirs goes to 1 a.m. 1 a.m., yeah. Okay, okay.

We approve that and we went through one to 1am but they are going to close their business at midnight.

Okay, so do Okay, so the permit is at midnight.

Yeah.

And what do they have for entertainment in terms of approvals.

So the hours of operation for the popular were added per their ABC license soupy I Don't see entertainment on this CUP, on the alcohol CUP. Got it.

Okay, okay. Different question. Director Johnson mentioned some noise complaints. Were any of the complaints from the businesses or were there from the houses nearby? As in, who was making the noise?

the most recent complaints have um been directed at la popular and it's because they do have those openable windows that were placed on yale avenue and i actually believe they're both on the on the yale side and the north side of the building so the the volume of the amplified music has been what's um we've been getting complaints from actually surrounding businesses not residents

Oh, surrounding businesses are complaining about their noises.

A nearby restaurant that may have outdoor, like low volume music and saying, hey, it's conflicting with our own music, our own ambience. So yeah, so it's becoming an issue. Okay, understood.

Out of curiosity, is it being dealt with? Are we...

It is. When we get complaints, we will follow up and go out there with calls to PD after hours, of course, when our code compliance staff is not on the clock working. And they'll get a decibel meter out and actually stand at a properly line and check a decibel, which is not easy to do. But it's handed over to PD because it's typically a later hour of night.

Okay. Thanks. Any other questions for the staff right now?

I just wanted to clarify, for this CUP, are we simply being asked to decide the midnight or 11 for both entertainment and closing?

It's up to your discretion. If you would want to amend one or the other, staff has put 12. But if you, the commission, would like to separate it out or change it at all, it's... We could. Yes. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

Thank you. My name is Nangi Ghafarshad. I live on 427th Willamette, Claremont. However, I live in 310 North Hill more than over there. I want to thank the city. They've been very, very helpful with us. We're going through a very painful time. The restaurant has been closed for 13 months right now, and it keeps on going. We're getting new things after to get all the permits. They added two more restrooms at Walters that we have to have right now, and actually I give my office for that. with a lot of money. And what I want to say is we have been operating the outside and inside for the last, not 50 years, but a portion of it. And then at what time, when we started the music outside, there were some problems, as a matter of fact, Kathy is sitting right here. And then we immediately, once the complaint was there, we stopped the whole thing. And then we came up to the city council and to the planning commission and went through the procedure and they put so many restrictions, which we followed. And from 2017 till now, things are going smooth. One of the reasons why I expanded the inside, actually we did not add any seats or anything, so we could have the entertainment, if it's late at night, inside rather than outside. That's why we expanded. We had a base area and then we had the... what do you call them, the bistro. The bistro was lower, so we raised the floor to make the whole thing as one area. It'll accommodate a whole lot of things. However, I was really surprised that there would be a restriction on time. The alcoholic beverage control allows restaurants to stay open and serve alcohol till 2 a.m. And after that, they cannot. However, that law even changed anymore for the LA County that they could serve anytime. We don't serve after one. And leaving the restaurant open I really don't like a restriction on that because if you have a wedding in there and you have a party that stay a little bit later, you just cannot go and tell them to leave. They will be there as long as they... Sometimes we even had a guard in the parking lot to make sure the people who leave don't make noise to disturb our neighbors. Other than that, as a matter of fact, I forgot to introduce my son, David.

He'll be, he's hoping to take over sometimes, but I'm from Claremont as well. Been at the restaurant, been there growing up.

Sorry.

Been there growing up. And, uh, um, you know, I have gray in my beard now. I've become more wise and mature and things like that and dealt with things with Kathy and different neighbors. Before, when I was younger, I just wanted to say, oh, let's have a DJ and let's have fun and dance. And there were some noise problems for many years around 2006 and for maybe up to 10 years after that. And then recently, when we would have music, I would limit it at 10. And we haven't had any issues at all since 2017, like my dad said. One of the reasons why we're moving the bar and trying to make it nicer in the front area City Council Chambers, is kind to trying to lure people away from the back area which is closer to the neighbors and residents, and I think it would be more lucrative and it'd be nicer for the public to see something nice as they go by the street and. see a nice fancy place that they can come and have a drink or appetizers and it be a respectful place. I don't plan on putting any music in there at all. The music that we have usually stops till 10. And if we do have later, like, in case there's a wedding or event or things like that. The noise is extremely limited now. We don't need any kind of guards or anything like that. It's a very safe area. And if there's anything ever, up to 1 a.m. or so, it's usually the Claremont Colleges. And we'll do a private event for them. And they're usually very respectful. They have people, their own kind of... Not security, but just kind of people that watch over them, make sure that they get home safe. They usually all walk home together. So it's nothing rowdy and we don't get the wrong crowd or anything in there. And I don't plan on having anything like that. But if we could have it so that there's not the restriction... would be great and we're willing to work with the city, the neighbors, whoever it is to make sure that there's no issues. We don't have anyone walking out intoxicated where they're unsafe and no unsafe people in the area or guests.

Thank you. Thank you. Before we let you leave, do commissioners have any questions? Commissioner Williamson.

um yeah I guess I do have a question it's first of all, I think you're planned for the expansion of the bar area it looks really smart and i'm really enthusiastic about that can't wait to see how that turns out um. so my only concern is about um pretty much the outdoor late night noise and that impact on the surrounding uh neighbors which we all know has been a problem um so um Are is it your goal to. Are you asking for midnight, but with the opportunity to you know for certain events to go past that to 2am and is there a distinction that you're making between outdoor entertainment and indoor.

Well, we usually do that based on business. If it's steady business and it's busy and people are having late night food or snacks or drinks, we want them to be comfortable and not rush them out. So we don't even usually like to put a time limit because usually we will close by midnight. As for the outdoor area, The big reason of the indoor area is to lure people from being in the back area and keep them towards the front area where it's inside. There's no noise. They're not going to bother anyone and we want to keep it classy. Yeah.

It was open before. Right now it has windows. they all close, so it will be like an inside. So if you have a large party or a large crowd at that late night, they would be sitting on the front patio and the inside. On the other side where the neighbors are in the back, we are limiting to that a whole lot.

Commissioner Rosenbluth? No questions, no. Commissioner Callaway?

So for an event like a wedding, would the guests be in the front area or what would the back be used for?

Yeah, so most of the events, if they're 50 plus, then they would be in the back. However, the way that it usually starts is they'll have hors d'oeuvres and gather at the beginning on the outdoor patio. And they usually will move in. We have cottages. They'll move into the inner area for dinner and dessert. And because, you know, of the windows and things like that, that there are, I consistently for the last few years, I would be very worried about Kathy.

And I would,

constantly go out to the alley and just make sure that I would almost walk to their driveway during that and make sure that I did not hear it.

So it's, it's, it's so sorry. Yes. So it's not a situation that the tables will be cleared, there'll be dancing and loud music.

No.

Okay. So it's dining and

Yes, if there was anything past 11, it would be, that would be completely inside.

Thank you.

And closed.

Thank you.

Yes.

Vice Chair Wong?

No, I just want to thank you guys. You know, glad to see you guys, you know, on the reopening train and excited to see you guys finally reopen and glad that you guys posted your menu back and going to have the $25 mimosas on Sunday and I'm glad that you're more importantly making some accommodations to address those noise complaints with the windows and such forth.

I'm not done. Just out of curiosity, when are you thinking of opening? When do you think opening will be?

We would like to open tomorrow.

Well, okay. Within the bounds of physical reality.

You know, based on the way that things are panning out, yes, we would absolutely hope November before the holidays because it's a good season for us for local business holiday. But I think realistically, it seems a little bit later.

Now, so many times we're bandied about, and now I'm slightly confused. Aside from what you will do, what are you asking for? You're asking for operation to midnight and then entertainment to midnight in this application?

We would like to have it so that we don't have any sort of Restrictions, we would not serve alcohol. My father served one, but probably 115. But as in for the entertainment, I mean, 11, that's perfectly fine for that. But as in for the hours, we'd like to be able to leave the door open until two, obviously, people not coming in at two. But if a party is leaving, that they would be completely cleared by that time.

But concluding alcohol service by 1.15, no later than 1.15. Absolutely, yes.

Could I make a follow-up question of the applicant? So the 2 a.m. request that you guys are presenting, are you intending that anything beyond like 11 or midnight, any entertainment would be indoors? And not outside, outdoors?

If there was any entertainment, it would be indoors, absolutely. But we don't have entertainment past 11.

Right, so would you have any problem then with having that stated in the conditional use permit?

I have no problem with that at all.

Because I think the most sensitive thing here is the outdoor.

Yeah, I have no problem at all. I mean, usually it's not even until 11, but I have no problem at all to write for 11 for the entertainment.

For outdoor. Correct. Thank you, I appreciate it.

You have something to say.

I just honestly, I think it would be good for the city of Claremont to have a establishment open. I know, you know, right now it's, it's anything, you know, past one is one is one, you know, I think piano bar goes to one, you know, I think that's pretty much the only game in town to 1am for alcohol service.

Thank you. Could we have Ms. Goose from the city come back with her? All right. So could you clarify? I've sort of gotten totally confused. The only language I see in the resolution is Thursday to Sunday, close at midnight. I see nothing about entertainment. I see nothing about outdoor, indoor. Where are we? I mean, I want to make sure I know what it is we're working on.

So staff set a single hours of operation and entertainment hours as you see listed. Though we... want the commission to consider if you want to separate them, um, that's perfectly feasible within the amendment of the resolution, but staff had recommended entertainment and operation at midnight.

Okay. All right. All right. So we will, I guess we'll, we'll discuss that then. All right. Thank you. All right. So, uh, I would like to open this to the public. Are there any members of the public who wish to talk to the council? You have three minutes.

Sure. Hi, I'm Kathy Curtis, former commissioner.

I feel like I know you already. You've been referred to.

Also a resident. You can probably see my rooftop on one of those pictures. I want to thank Dawud and Nangi and Fahima and the whole team for Working with us over the years, our house backs up to Walters. Mostly our house is backing up to the parking lot, but our cottage that's in our backyard backs right up to the alley, and our neighbors to the south also back up almost directly behind the outdoor entertainment area. And I believe my neighbor, Nathan, sent a letter, hopefully you guys got, or an email that I hope you got. He couldn't be here tonight. I'm super jazzed that Walters is going to reopen. We've missed Walters. I miss the house dressing like you wouldn't believe. And so we're totally supportive of Walters reopening. And we're also very grateful over the years at the things that Nangi has done in the form of the sound wall that you built on the eastern edge of your property. that helped to some extent. And I think that, you know, Daoud and I have had lots of conversations in the middle of the night because I was having to get up at 5.30 in the morning and there were parties going on until... and that made for a pretty short night for me. So I would really like to see us come up with a plan that works for them from a business standpoint. I had a business in the village and understand their need to have a vibrant business that will support all the development that they've done there. But I also want to make sure that we do something that really supports all the neighborhood folks that are to the east. and to the north that have some residential components. So I have a few ideas that I wanted to talk about. One is having to do with the hours and I was confused by the packet as well about what the ask was. Two o'clock seems really hard for me living there only because even if there's not a lot of activity in the back patio with music or partying or whatever might be going on there, It having a bunch of people pour out of a restaurant having had dinner and imbibing and things at two o'clock in the parking lot can be loud. Louder than what was going on in the restaurant because there aren't sound walls and there aren't things that are controlling the sound. We've come out in the morning sometimes and found 12 packs of beer in the parking lot because the party continued after Walters. That's not Walters' fault. It's, you know, it's not Nagy and Dowd's fault. It's just that when you have things that are ending so late at night, there's really no policing. And I mean that lowercase p. There's nobody watching kind of what's happening. And so sometimes things happen in the parking lot.

Please sum it up. Your time is up.

Sure. So parking lot monitoring of some sort. I'm not saying they have to have a guard, but I'm just saying that they should have some kind of awareness of what's happening in the parking lot. Worried about the 2 o'clock. Would love to see it more like 11 or 12, especially for any outdoor activity or separating the hours of operation from the entertainment.

Your time continues to be up.

Okay.

Thank you. Any other members of the public?

Hi there. My name is Elizabeth Tulak, and I have the residence that's just at the corner of the alley. So around 10 o'clock, the Bardot music starts and stops, and it's usually great jazz. It's great on Sundays. But Nengi and everyone at Walters has been wonderful, wonderful neighbors, and I appreciate sharing the alley with them. I would say that the changes that they are suggesting with bringing the music inside would be a great improvement. And a lot of times when there were events in the outside courtyard, the band was right there at the back alley because the front courtyard is where the party is happening, but it looks like they're also in the improvements. They're moving away from the tent, which was just a canvas stream to some kind of something substantial. So before I saw the whole plan, my idea was to say, if they could improve something acoustically in the design, that would be something that I would appreciate. That's my only issue is the late nights. I would say some of us are old enough to remember when Claremont was a dry town and they rolled up the sidewalks and there was no alcohol allowed anywhere. So obviously the tone has changed, but I will say as someone who is a resident and sees the people on the street as well as in the alley, there's a different crowd from the Friday night six to eight o'clock dinner and drinks, the eight to 10 o'clock dinner and drinks, the 10 to 12 o'clock dinner and drinks, and the 12 to 2 o'clock. So I think we have to kind of recognize that the dynamics change. With Walters, generally, it was a party, a special event or something. Just saying that we'll watch the dynamics as our city's make some changes. And another comment I sort of wanted to make, so I'm okay with what they're doing, and I appreciate their conscientiousness. They can't control their clientele, though, as Kathy mentioned. But one little thing I'd like to mention earlier, when you were talking about the previous post, when you asked for public comment on the alcohol permit for the other restaurant, I didn't comment because I didn't have a comment. I thought it was fine. But you also added something else. I wouldn't want to challenge it, but when there was not citizen comment on whether they should be allowed to extend their hours without commission approval. I think that if you have a place down there that's open till 9 and serves beer and wine, great. But if they want to go to 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, that should be something that the city should have another voice on because there might be citizens that would have a concern about that. when you, that wasn't part of the comment, that wasn't part of the deal when the comments were welcome, but I just wanted to put that in that, maybe you should take that part out, but just to prove the permit as it came forward. So that's my statement. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other comments? All right.

Then I will... We did receive one written public comment.

Yes, yes. Okay. So I will close for public comment and bring it back to the commission. Commissioner Williamson, what are your thoughts?

You can start over at the other side.

I had a special request to start from this side tonight, actually. I actually did.

Sweet. Thank you.

She will confess.

You know, I think it's... I think it's reasonable to consider the limits to the outdoor activity, which we were hearing from the Kaparshads, and be sensitive to that sort of interface. So I'm all about context-sensitive development. And I think this is where we have one of our toughest roles in balancing this. And so I think we do have some, we have a good direction forward, I think. I don't think the late hours past 12 o'clock or even past 11 o'clock are really that necessary in the outdoor area. So that's my biggest concern. If we can limit the outdoor activities impact late at night, I have no particular issue with the other hours inside.

By outdoor impact, do you mean outdoor in the restaurant or outdoor in the parking lot?

The entertainment uses in the outside area. And Yes, so I I am also sensible of the public comment about from miss Curtis. With that very late night. In. Activity so i'm sensible of that so. i'm not sure exactly how i've decided yet.

Commissioner rosenbluth your thoughts.

Well, really looking forward to Walter's returning to business and certainly important part of life in the village. And I want to thank staff for the presentation. My only concern is that the issue seems to be about what can happen at what hours late at night. And that doesn't seem to be anything in the CUP that really makes those distinctions. With the applicant mentioned that they were going to stop entertainment at 11. But that's not in the CUP. And I'm not quite sure how we'd want to word it. Sensitive to the idea that we want people able to run their business in a way that'll be profitable. but still concerned about the neighbors being disturbed by amplified music late at night. I don't think there's anything we can do about the parking lot other than hope that people will behave better. And nice to see that. But I would like to see distinctions in the CUP about the hours of business versus the hours of entertainment. And... the hours of alcohol sales. Right now, it only talks about alcohol sales, doesn't talk about anything else, as far as I can see. And I'm not sure how to word it though. So I'd like to leave that to the rest of my commissioners to come up with a way to modify this that would make those distinctions clear so that the applicant can run his business and still be in compliance with what the neighbors need. So very much in favor of something here, but I'm not quite sure how to word it. So thank you.

Commissioner Calloway.

Thank you. Walters is such an asset to Claremont. It was the very first restaurant I was taken to when I joined the Claremont cultures as my welcome lunch. And the plan is wonderful. And I was really impressed by your plans to mitigate the noise and keep everything in the front, and also create this very welcoming space that people could really appreciate from the street. And that all seemed to be a great way to limit the noise in the back and the impact on the neighbors. The parking lot peak, you know, it's a difficult one. And I agree there is probably nothing we can do here to address that particular issue. But except for the for the times and the and the serving of alcohol in the closing time so the applicant has stated 11 o'clock the music the entertainment ends um and in terms of the closing time it seems that if other restaurants have later closing times, what are the considerations that allow that but not here? So that's a question for me.

Commissioner Wong.

I think we have a consensus here. I just think no one has an idea on how to draft it, and I just have some notes that I just jotted down from public comment, and I think that's going to be it. acceptable to the applicant, acceptable to the neighbors. And I think, you know, I think what we're all hearing is no, no entertainment past 11 PM. And I think, you know, that was acceptable to the applicant. I think, you know, that seemed reasonable to the neighbors. And when we say no entertainment, I would say that is no amplified music, no, you know, live entertainment, no bands, anything to that, to that nature. As far as the operating hours, I think we're, we're on the same, same consensus. You know, I think in the CUP originally by staff, it had operation hours for both entertainment and alcohol service. And I think for the alcohol service, for the hours in operation, we can keep the Monday through Wednesday from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., and then the Thursday through Sunday, modify that from 9 a.m. to 2 a.m., with the caveat that the last alcohol service is to end at 1.15, as the applicant mentioned. I think that would be 45 minutes for people to kind of finish their drinks and hopefully get out of the restaurant and and not uh hurry up and get out and and which is you know going to be impactful to the neighbors it will give them a chance to to trickle out um so those would be that would be my recommendation i don't know if i had a consensus or all right let me uh where'd you get the 2 a.m from la popular has 1 a.m I think the applicant asked till 2 a.m. That's where I'm at. But, you know, and obviously he's ending alcohol service. He's willing to end alcohol service at 115.

So just one point. Currently, the CUP says business hours for alcohol sales will be limited to. And then I think you would want one or 115 because that's when the sales would end rather than consumption.

That's correct. It wouldn't be 2 a.m.

The sales would be limited to 1 or 1.15.

Yeah, whatever that is. But obviously, operation hours, they can stay up until 2 a.m.

Uh, would we, assuming we go along with this, would we make the language for alcohol sales be 45 minutes before closing so that if they're closing at one, you know, they wouldn't be serving alcohol at one on the nose. I'm okay with that.

Yeah. If we wanted, we wanted to do it similar to what we did with the last applicant, 45 minutes prior to the closing of the doors. That way it ensures that, you know, I guess that they're not kicking a group of people out at one time and,

with a drink in their hand. Commissioner Callaway.

Quick question. In the initial request, I thought the 2 a.m. was for special events only with 25 a year.

Commissioner Williamson. That was my understanding also. Okay. Because that's... So can we get staff's...

clarification yeah on the narrative provided by the applicant it says thursday through saturday 9 a.m to midnight or up to 2 a.m depending on demand that's per the applicant so if i could clarify i think where where the commission may have seen the 25 events per year is we attached some exhibits behind the staff report and one of those was an entertainment permit that was appealed up to the city council that was denied at a staff level when it went to city council they allowed the decibels to be raised at the property line measurement and that's where the number of events got set at 25 is my recollection correct they limited the number of special events to 25 a year but at the time but that permit has expired yes correct yes

So I'd like us to also consider maybe some separate hours for the outdoor entertainment, limiting that not to midnight or 2 a.m.

I think all entertainment was limited to 11 p.m.

I'm not sure if that's already in the language of the Conditional Use Permit, so I'm not sure if there's consensus on the Commission about that, but that is something I think would be.

I think the applicant recommended that he would kill all entertainment, whether indoor or outdoor, at 11 p.m.

I'm comfortable with 11 p.m. as long as it's specified in the CUP as the entertainment.

Yeah, I'm hoping that staff will be able to clarify. So regardless entertainment at 11 p.m.?

Regardless of indoor or outdoor.

That's what the applicant said. If we can get some clarity from the applicant. Indoor or outdoor entertainment?

Could we ask the applicant to come here, please? We're kind of turning ourselves into knots trying to find out what you're asking for, among other things.

Because I think the 11 PM concern on the commission is mostly for the outdoor entertainment use. Is that correct?

That's perfectly fine by me. Perfectly fine by me to end any.

All entertainment at 11?

So any like bands or amplified that's outdoors, if there happens to be a private event, sometimes they will bring a system, but they would be completely inside in a private party. It wouldn't be a public event, so. Okay. So, so then I'm not sure how you would work that.

So then outdoor or indoor is a material all entertainment to stop at 11. Is that what we're saying?

No, I believe he, I believe. So yeah.

So outdoor entertainment, 11.

Okay. Absolutely fine. And indoor, what are you asking?

Indoor? I would, I would say probably 1am as well. However, um, it would be something like very, very limited, nothing that would affect the neighbors. And it would be completely inside, and it wouldn't be a band.

And you're saying since 2017, your neighbors have had no problems with the indoor entertainments? With the indoors, no.

And then also, I don't know if it's possible, is there any possible way to... limit or cease parking in the large parking lot past midnight? Is that a possibility?

That would take away any of their... Actually, you want to lose parking past midnight. You want to take away the option of your guests parking there past midnight.

Yeah, they can leave if they're already parked, but no one can go in there past midnight.

I mean, I think that would limit a lot of... No, I know.

I didn't know if that's complicated.

Yeah, I figured it's complicated. I just want to summarize. Sure. Entertainment, outdoor, you're asking. Outdoor, 11. Indoor, 1. Sure. Okay. Now... normal operating hours, Thursday to Friday, what are you asking for?

So Thursday to Sunday. Thursday to Sunday, I'm sorry. Thursday to Sunday till 2.

Okay.

I highly doubt that would ever go that late or very early. limited or not very long, but yes. Okay. And then alcohol service, 45 minutes before closing, regardless of when it is.

Correct. Okay. At least I wanted to know what it is you're asking for. Sure. Okay. Does anyone have questions for Dawood?

Sorry. And then Monday through Wednesday is till 10, correct?

Correct. Okay. All right, thank you. Hopefully we won't call you back again.

So chair, if I could make this even a little more complicated for you. Sure. Defining indoor versus outdoor area is going to be very difficult because here's what's occurred over the decades. As you heard the applicant speak during their original presentation, they've taken that once open outdoor patio that was literally at the back of sidewalk on Yale and fully enclosed it. It has a roof. It has three walls. So it feels very enclosed and feels very interior and it feels like they feel that's a mitigation measure to the street if you look at the the space that originally if you go back 30 years that was open to sky and As you heard, some of the neighbors refer to a sound wall. So now stucco plaster interior sound walls have been placed on what used to be completely outdoor area on the east side of that space with a little raised platform performance area. And then about half of that outdoor area has a hard lid ceiling that with skylights in it that are plaster finish drywall plaster finish and then the rest of that outdoor space between the newly enclosed outdoor patio and that lid space with skylights there's a retractable awning So to me, when you say outdoor, it's that retractable awning area and everything else is indoors. So it's very complicated now because I can't, I mean, if I can't look at that floor plan on the screen with a laser pointer and say, here, this area, that area. So it's, If I had it color-coded in a slide, I could probably do that better. Not to make this way more complicated than it needs to be, but this indoor-outdoor discussion has been changing over the decades and just changed again recently.

It sounds like what you're saying is the area under the retractable awning is, by definition, outdoor. Everything else is indoor. Would that be a good definition? Miss Goose is breathing hard. What is your definition?

We don't have a definition because... I mean, that raised platform area that's closest to the neighbors where they put those sound walls on both the ceiling lid and exterior walls also has two doors that open, two French doors with glass in them. So it's, again, a complicated... description of what used to be outdoors is now somewhat indoors, but somewhat outdoors. It's like indoor outdoor space really is what it is. And so it's complicated for me to say indoor stops at 11 or outdoor stops at 11. It moves indoor till one.

So. Director on one of the plans, there were three areas that were indicated as possible entertainment areas. Would it be possible for us to ask the applicant to. Yeah.

I'd like to clarify. Hold on. Before you do that, could we bring up the schematic?

Perfect.

All right. So, Davud, what is your definition of outdoor and indoor here?

Do you have a pointer? I don't think it works on that screen, does it? I don't think the LED pointers work on.

That's fine. The part that I'm considering.

Can you give him the mouse? Does he have the mouse for the screen?

The part that I'm considering outdoor is the area that Brad is, yeah. The part that I'm, there you go. The part that I'm considering outdoor is the one that he is pointing out, pointing at, that he is saying can be indoor or outdoor. So I'm considering that outdoor. So to me, no entertainment there at all.

That's our understanding. Is that correct?

Okay. Just so that you know.

So your version of indoor would be the two rooms, the two private rooms?

Anything that can be fully closed with doors and locked. And that is nothing but what he's talking about, I consider completely outdoor.

But now your patio that is adjacent to Yale, or adjacent to the front street, I guess, that is now enclosed, but that's considered indoor, correct? Correct. With the windows?

I'm not sure what that's considered. There's no room for entertainment there anyway. So I would never have. And I still consider that outside. I always have. I would not have any entertainment there.

Are we comfortable with that definition of outdoor versus indoor? And then so we can stick the 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. in there.

I'm comfortable with it, and I really don't want to delay anything, but I was wondering if we need to continue this to give staff a chance to put the correct language in the CUP so that we know exactly what's being asked for and so that staff knows what they have to enforce.

I have faith in the staff, and let's see if they can wordsmith it as we sit here.

That'd be great.

Let's give them a chance.

I'm just concerned that... Or should we take a 10-minute recess so you guys can try to wordsmith it? Would that help?

Yeah, I mean, I think we could wordsmith it to define in the condition separating indoor-outdoor area as we refer to as the space between the historic bungalows. I mean, that's kind of how it's been referred to And so I think when you look at all these enclosed spaces dining areas here that have as the applicant said closing doors and windows and four walls and a roof and then you come up to this bungalow here. and this bungalow here and the restroom areas, I would define that as the space between the historic bungalows being defined as outdoor space and I think we understand what that is and we'd certainly get a floor plan. As you can see, one of the conditions in the resolution requires that it gets very specific with floor plans. on the condition H, a detailed description of all types of events, including floor plans, demonstrating seating arrangements, food areas, alcohol. That leaves a lot to a next step of them coming to staff and saying, these are the type of entertainment areas and these are the floor plans. So like if we're going to have dancing at a wedding, we move the chairs and tables and that's floor plan number two. And so the reason we put that four-pointed bullet point item h in there so we could work out all those details and i think that allows us to we know the intent of the commission those floor plans are going to allow us but i think defining it as between the bungalows works for tonight's resolution and then the following condition i is just again meant to protect the the neighbors and saying you can't operate as a you know a full-blown

standalone bar nightclub dance club and i think that's that protects the neighbors um so could you let's say in five minutes do a little bit of wordsmithing of that of the hours opening hours entertainment hours outdoor indoor while we take a break we can do that yeah okay why don't we take it it's 8 45 let's take a five minute break we'll be back at 8 50 okay it's in 10 minutes 8 55 Wow. Nobody respects this. Okay. Let's try this again. All right. So Mr. Johnson and Ms. Goose have brought us a new version. Would one of you like to walk us through what you changed? I'm sure we could read it. Sure.

If you look at the single page three of the resolution, we modified... Under section 3 C the business operation hours and we kept the Monday through Wednesday at 9 am to 10 pm and we changed Thursday through Sunday from 9 am to 2 am and and change the word to business operation rather than alcohol sales. because we are assuming that they match each other. And then adding D that alcohol, the sale and service of alcohol shall end 45 minutes before closing time. And then finally under E, all live entertainment and amplified music shall end in the courtyard at 11 p.m. and all other indoor areas at 1 a.m. And the reason we wrote courtyard is because it was really hard to see on the floor plan because the font is very, very small. But that entire area that I was defining as partially covered by drywall and skylights and the retractable area is identified on the floor plan as courtyard, so we're comfortable when that other condition I mentioned before the break about bringing city staff describing the events and floor plans, we now define that as courtyard because that's how the plans call it out as. So I think we're comfortable with that.

Any commissioners have questions for Mr. Johnson or Ms. Guse regarding the changes?

No.

Just great job putting that together in 10 minutes. I told you I had faith in them. Commissioner Williamson?

Were we, so the Monday through Wednesday, 9 a.m. to, was it not supposed to be 11 or was it 10? It was 10. I misremembered.

Even in the applicant's statement.

Thank you.

So we are all happy. Should we move to a motion then? In which case?

We probably should discuss the findings before we do a motion.

Please do.

Who's willing?

Apparently, you're it.

OK. Richard, return to the findings. Sorry about that. Well, clearly, because it's an existing business and existing facilities, this is exempt from CEQA, category exempt from CEQA. The existing restaurant is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the bar expansion and continue operation of the existing restaurant. um the site for the pros use relates to the streets and highways properly in that the adjacent streets will be able to accommodate the amount of traffic generated by the existing restaurant use and the proposed expansion is a relatively minor expansion and will not detrimentally impact the traffic generated around the village The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the zoning in which it is located or have an adverse effect on adjacent property in that the onsite sale of a full line of alcoholic beverages and operation of a full service restaurant with a bar is appropriate as long as such as occur in conjunction with the food menu and food service hours as required by the municipal code. The proposed bar expansion and continued dining and alcohol sales are consistent with the Claremont Village land use designation in the general plan and the proposed use is consistent with goal 2.3 of the general plan, which encourages the accommodation of a range of land uses that meet the needs of the city and consistent with policy 3.14 of the general plan, which encourages the city to pursue businesses that add to the city's economic base. and the proposed use will not endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or welfare in that the sale of alcohol is provided as an ancillary use to the primary use as a restaurant establishment. And with that, somebody should make a motion.

Okay, who would like to make a motion?

Chance. I'll make the motion that we adopt the resolution of the planning commission of the city of Claremont, California, approving the request for a conditional use permit amendment file number 99-C09AMD to amend the floor plan and add entertainment uses. And at an existing ABC license bona fide eating establishment in an existing restaurant space, Walters, located at 310 Yale Avenue, and beef are with the As amended in section three to limit the entertainment hours and the hours of operation into two separate categories and be find this item exempt from environmental review under the California environmental quality.

Second, can we have had emotional and second could we have a roll call please.

Commissioner Callaway? Aye. Commissioner Davis? Commissioner Rosenbluth?

Aye.

Commissioner Williamson? Aye. Vice Chair Wong?

Aye.

Chair Rameen?

Aye. The motion passes, five votes for, one absent. The applicant or any other person may appeal this decision within 10 calendar days. Thank you. And now we move on to reports. Does the staff have any reports or updates?

I do. I have a summary of city council actions that have taken place since between our last meeting and tonight. So on September 10th, items that would be of interest to this commission included on the consent calendar item, there was a second reading and adoption of an ordinance revising the fire hazard severity zones for the city of Claremont. There was also another consent item authorizing the city to engage Galvin Preservation Associates for a CEQA document preparation for Western Christian School. So that's an item that will be coming before this commission several months down the road. Those documents do take generally six to nine months to prepare. It's an expansion of the existing private school there on Patua Avenue, just north of Baseline. There also was a consent calendar item to finally get a new roof replacement at the Garner House. It's been requested by Claremont Heritage for a long time and overdue. So that's a unique historic building that's getting wood shingles put back on it and will not leak for a number of years, hopefully. Another big item that was granted that night on consent was award of contract for, again, another long-awaited project of a female locker room addition to the police facility. So this has been obviously debated for decades, expanding the police department. And we're excited. It's an expensive addition, but it's definitely needed with the change of personnel in the police department over the decades. So that was approved. And that's it for council action items. And as far as upcoming planning commission items, we currently do not have items scheduled, but that can change at any moment, depending on our applicants and the planners working with them. So that's all I have to report tonight.

Thank you. Do any members of the commission have any comments or reports?

I do. And this is kind of a first. I wanted to share this with my fellow commissioners here. This is in the paper this morning, the LA Times. Senate Bill 79, which has squeaked through the legislature and is headed to the governor's desk. We should all kind of

No.

The summary of what this will entail, namely for us in claremont since our depot is classified under the tier one zoning, because it is heavy rail not light rail. This legislation would allow. residential structures six to nine stories high. um within what a quarter mile or something like that uh of the um transit facility so this is just a quick summary but um i thought that that just came this morning it might be pertinent

Director Johnson has something to say. One slight clarification to the comment in the news article. We're actually defined as a tier two, and this has been a moving target. It was first a tier one, and then a tier two, and then a tier three. There was a slew of amendments in the final days and hours leading up to the vote. Tier 3 was actually removed out altogether. And so now we fall under a Tier 2 because Metrolink doesn't, as a heavy rail, doesn't qualify because it doesn't have enough trips per day. But the future Gold Line Station light rail, identified as Metro's A-Line, does qualify. So, yes, it's massive...

A line is not light rail? It is. And it does qualify for that. That's a tier two, yes. Okay. So we're not, okay. And a tier two.

And how many stories would that make it?

Five to eight.

So that would be six stories within the first quarter mile radius around the stop. And then in the next quarter mile radius, it would allow five story buildings. So, yes, a pretty massive change to zoning rules in local cities that are affected by that legislation.

Other thoughts, other additions from commissioners?

Just make one comment. We had a really nice commissioner recognition dinner. I know it was a soul. I forgot what the mayor coined me as, the sole survivor on the planning commission. But we had a great time, and hopefully everyone can calendar it next year.

I was so disappointed not to be able to join you. I'm sorry, I was sick. Nothing catching. So I can't.

Well, I was gnashing my teeth on the 101 in Encino. Stuck.

Exciting. All right. Well, thank you, everybody. Let's adjourn. The next regular meeting of the Claremont Planning Commission will be held on October 7, 7 p.m. in this council chamber. Thank you, everybody.

I don't know.