Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-1991 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange June 17, 1991 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: Chairman Bosch STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Bob VonSchimmelman, Assistant City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice-Chairman Scott chaired the meeting in Chairman Bosch's absence. IN RE: MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 1991 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve the Minutes of June 3, 1991 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Bosch MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1136-91, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1906-91, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1381-91 - DONALD J. HUNT AND DEAN EVANS: A request for a zone change to establish zoning classifications of C-1 (Limited Commercial) and R-3 Residential, Multi-Family) on property located north of Chapman Avenue, west of McPherson Road and east of the residences facing Malena Drive. Also requested is a conditional use permit to allow the construction and operation of a self-storage mini-warehouse facility, and to allow construction of a two story structure within 70 feet of a single family district. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1381-91 has been prepared to assess the environmental impacts of this project. A full staff report was presented by Ms. Wolff. The project site is approximately 2 1/2 acres and it consists of former railroad right-of-way. A portion of the property is Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1991 - Page 2 R-1, R-3, R-2 and C-1. The application is to place a C-1 zoning on the unzoned southern portion of the site and a R-3 zoning on the unzoned northerly portion of the property. The associated development project is the construction of a self-storage facility. This type of development is permitted in all zoning districts within the City subject to issuance of a conditional use permit, except in the R-1, R-2, 0-P and C-P zoning districts. This project includes construction of three buildings: 2 one-story buildings and 1 two-story building and a total of approximately 70,000 square feet of storage space. Also, a 3,000 square foot office and resident manager's unit is proposed. The storage units are divided between those which have exterior access through roll up doors and those with interior access, which can be gotten to through a network of interior hallways. The project site would be secured by fences and gates and access would be via McPherson Road. Access onto Chapma n Avenue would be restricted to emergency access only. This type of use is one of low intensity and self-storage units generally have little activity or traffic occurring on a daily basis. The self-storage type of use might be acceptable within the mixed-commercial/residential setting. This particular property, however, is faced with a number of unusual outside constraints. One of these constraints is the long and narrow configuration of the property and the presence of a gas and jet fuel pipeline easement, which extend the entire length of the site from north to south. No buildings can be constructed over the pipeline; therefore, only interior driveways are allowed on top of that pipeline easement. A part of the project site is higher than the single family residences located immediately west and the site cannot be lowered due to the coverage required over the pipeline. The proximity and scale of the proposed buildings and the intervening setback and landscaped areas become significant issues in the determination. Another issue is the southerly building on the site will abut and actually wrap around a couple of feet the existing office building- which is located east of the project site. That is due to the existing office building's encroachment onto the project site. It is possible the proposed placement of the new storage building could create a condition of non-compliance with the State building code for that existing building. The fencing on the residential properties to the west is not on the property line, but is actually located two to three feet west of the property boundary and it is on the residential lots. The City's zoning ordinance does not allow the placement of a parallel property division wall on the property line because of the possibility of allowing trash and brush to accumulate between the two walls. Therefore, the developer has Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1991 - Page 3 proposed a wrought iron fence which is a see-through fence to maintain visibility and access through to that area. The proposal still does create an area between the two fences where maintenance is more difficult. Commissioner Scott asked how long the wall has been in existence? Ms. Wolff was not sure how old the housing tract was, but thought the fence was constructed as part of the original tract development. Commissioner Scott asked the City Attorney if a wall has been up for that length of time, does that not establish a new property line as long as it has been maintained by the property owners through the years? Mr. Herrick responded it may result in that, but ordinarily that is determined through the judicial branch. It depends on the circumstances and facts surrounding the length of time it was there and the knowledge of the two parties. There would have to be a claim of right and that may not be present. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Bruce Jordan, 15375 Barranca Parkway, Irvine, represented the applicant. They have been working the past several months to address some concerns that have been brought to their attention. They feel they have solutions to the issues raised this evening. This is an old railroad right-of-way. It is a rather difficult piece of property to develop. The zoning and it's relationship to Chapma n, suggest that other types of commercial uses would be difficult to develop. They believe the self-storage will be a viable use and be beneficial to the residents. The site has a number of occurrences g oing on with storage of industrial equipment, construction materials and debris. Also, many trucks use McPherson to gain access to the Owl Sand and Gravel area, which brings dust and noise. This will be screened from the residential neighborhood by virtue of the buildings as they will provide a buffer. They have read the staff report and concur with the conditions, with the exception of one: Condition 37. He prepared an illustration and handed it to the Commissioners showing a solution of enhancing the landscaping on the west side of the project. Due to the restraints of the easements, they don't have much area to place landscaping. They have consulted with the Santa Fe Pipeline and per their division Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1991 - Page 4 engineer, permission was given to put trees in the planters in the areas indicated on the exhibit. They would like to put no new wall in that location and be able to plant the trees to allow additional landscaping for the area to become vegetated. This would not create a double wall situation. They will be providing a 24-hour on-site resident manager and do not have a problem with policing the potential problem areas due to debris. Once the buildings are built, the debris will be significantly reduced. Their hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.. After that, the site will be secured. They will not be proposing any light that will glare into the adjacent residences. The Design Review Board had suggested that perhaps Building C would be better located 10 feet from the property line. He though t in their assessment of the situation, they incorrectly interpreted a couple of areas: In their letter of May 22 to staff, it states the height of the single story structure when increased by the 30 inch parapet wall, as required by U.B.C. and aggravated by the 4 to 6 foot grade differential, would create an overbearing condition. The retaining condition is not 4 to 6 feet. It's maximum is 3 feet. Per Section 1709 of the U.B.C., a parapet at that location is not required due to the non-combustible roof materials that will be provided. The applicant proposes a one-story use with no openings so there would be no loss of privacy. That area would be secured and would have access by a gate. In that area, they propose to provide drought tolerant landscaping with trees to buffer the back side of Building C. The Design Review Board suggested that perhaps enhanced treatment of that wall might be appropriate. The best solution is to leave it quiet and simple, and put dense landscaping as a barrier in there. He requested an amendment to Condition 37 to read as 5 feet from the property line, which is consistent with the R-3 zoning requirements. Commissioner Cathcart wanted clarification on the applicant's exhibit regarding the continuous planter strip, from the back of the wall to the inside of the curb -- is that 3 feet? Mr. Jordan responded affirmatively (it varies between 2 and 3 feet between the property line and wall) . He said when they submitted the first site plan for review, they had shown a number of parking spaces adjacent to that wall. Staff did not want them to park recreational vehicles in that area. It was staff's suggestion to put the triangular, diamond shaped planters in there to prevent that from happening. They would not be opposed to putting a straigh t curb in that location to gain an additional 3 foot landscaped strip. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1991 - Page 5 Commissioner Cathcart asked how they planned to irrigate that landscaping? Mr. Jordan said they would run a soaker hose down on their side of the property line that would adequately irrigate that area. Commissioner Scott stated a normal tree well is 4 feet. It would be difficult to put a tree in a 3 foot area. Commissioner Master commented on the appropriateness of the existing screen wall being used as a retainer wall. He asked if the applicant's engineer has looked at that for potential problems? Mr. Jordan said the planter would be allowed to be graded and they would reduce to some extent any retaining condition that is there. He has been unable to verify if the design of that wall was for a retaining condition or not. There is earth against it. It's in the neighborhood of zero starting at Chapman and progresses at the day labor office to about 30 inches in height. For a 6 foot wall constructed by today's standards, that's not a problem to retain that without having an engineered condition. They don't have a problem fixing anything that is a substandard condition or painting the wall. Commissioner Cathcart asked what type of tree was proposed for that area? Mr. Jordan said there would be 5 to 6 feet of open area. The property line is in the center of that area. They would be able to put the tree to the rear. One that comes to mind is a Silver Dollar Eucalyptus. However, they were open to suggestions from staff. Those speaking in opposition Michael Franco, 215 North Malena Drive, presented several concerns on behalf of his neighbors. They revolve around the dead space that would be created adjacent to the site and on the height of the grade differing with the existing grade on the residents' side of the wall. The existing wall is not reinforced; it's not made to be a retaining wall. The road adjacent to the residential properties would be at a higher level; even reducing it slightly to reduce some of the pressure against the wall would leave a grade substantially higher. This will create an invasion of the residents' privacy. It's his understanding the pipe line was put in 5 years after the tract was built. The dirt coverage was required because of the pipe line. He asked about the 5 foot setback and wall? Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1991 - Page 6 Ms. Wolff responded building setbacks for residential properties are 10 feet for a single story addition to the house. If the City requires this development to landscape that portion of the residential property, it may become a legal issue. John Allen, 2932/2936 Pearl Drive, was opposed to the hours of operation. He understands condominiums are proposed to be built on the corner. When driving into the area a person will see 600 feet of building with no landscaping. It will look terrible. Niall Elliott, 8011 Driftwood Drive, Huntington Beach, general partner for the office building on the northwest corner of McPherson and Chapman. His objection is that the site plan shows the railroad as being 60 feet wide. It's his contention it is only 50 feet wide. Their property is 77 feet wide, per the plans. He is in a dispute with the railroad over 10 feet of his property. He wanted to know if the applicant had a grant deed from the railroad company or a title policy showing property to be 60 feet wide. Commissioner Cathcart asked Mr. Herrick if he knew of pending litigation? (No, not that involves the City.) Vicky Nouse, 261 North Malena, has noted a gradual increase in the level of the land behind the fence. The wall is not designed for this. Also, 3 feet of that property is on their property line. Perhaps they should plan a little more carefully; it was a little vague and should be studied more. Jean Franco, 215 North Malena, was informed that the developer would be required to have a 6 foot wall on his side of the property. It would mean an 8 foot wall on their side to ensure privacy. There is a safety issue now. Anyone could hop the fence and break into someone's home. They would like to have the current wall removed and put up a new block wall in on the property line with the appropriate grading and reinforcements. Most of trees seen in the pictures are in her backyard and they will be removing them soon because they are overgrown. Rebuttal Mr. Jordan said the only reason they did not propose a new wall was because it was pointed out to them that it would create a violation of the City ordinance to have two walls. They are not opposed to putting a new wall on the property line and design it to accommodate whatever retaining condition is necessary. They would be prepared to put in a new wall and have the homeowners remove the old wall. This Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1991 - Page 7 project will enhance security and not create a worse situation. They have spent several months with the railroad and title insurance company. An ALTA survey has been issued that indicates that the property width is 60 feet wide. A title company is prepared to issue title insurance ensuring that 60 foot width. If it does not borne out, they will not take it upon themselves to build over someone else's property line. They only want to build on their property. They are more than willing to work with the City to design that wall. If the Commission wishes for them to enhance the treatment of building walls, they will do that. Commissioner Murphy asked if the use for this facility would be for storage only? Mr. Jordan replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Scott asked if the applicant were aware of condition #5 which indicates a maximum 6 foot wall to be built and it should say on the high grade side. (Yes. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart was concerned that staff believed the best solution is for the developer to take down the existing wall and build a new 6 foot wall. However, the developer has stated an unwillingness to pursue this alternative. Mr. Jordan has indicated he's not opposed to building a new wall, but was unsure that all the homeowners would like that. He would like to add a condition whereby the applicant gains the ~ approval of the homeowners, remove the existing wall and build a new wall from his side of the property line. There is a grading problem and it's growing. In that landscaped area, there is to be a French drain, a gravel perforated pipe, if it becomes a parallel planter. He was concerned about draining water across there into the residences. The developer is creating a canvas for graffiti. He would like to see whatever parts of the structure that are visible, not hidden, that an architectural treatment be done to inhibit graffiti. Commissioner Murphy said with the input of pending litigation, must the City wait for pending findings? Mr. Herrick said the City would not be obligated to wait for the outcome of the litigation. The City is entitled to rely on public documents of public record to the extent that they clarify what can be conditioned. It would be prudent to require that the signed title insurance policy be presented to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. It would also be appropriate to add a condition that would void the C.U.P. in the event that title is not properly established. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1991 - Page 8 Commissioner Master said a condition stating the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. should be added. Commissioner Scott brought up the issue regarding the property line setback in condition 37. The Commission decided to leave the condition as written. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend to the City Council to accept the findings of the Environ- mental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1381-91 as the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Bosch MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1136-91 and Conditional Use Permit 1906-91 with the conditions listed in the staff report and adding the following conditions: 40. That the applicant shall obtain approval from property owners to remove the existing block wall on the residential parcels along the site's western property line and shall construct a block wall on the property line, 6' in height as measured from the high side. 41. Building faces visible from McPherson Road shall be designed to discourage graffiti and shall have an architectural treatment which includes the use of anti-graffiti paint. 42. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to planning staff a title report confirming the site size is as presented to the Planning Commission. If the title report cannot confirm the parcel size, this Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void. 43. The self-storage facility may be open to the public from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m, only. 44. The site plan shall be revised to delete the triangular tree wells and to instead incorporate a continuous 3' wide landscaping planter (excluding curbs and walls) along the western property line between Chapman Avenue and Building "C" adjacent to the residential parcels. A french drain or other means shall be provided to eliminate adverse drainage impacts onto neighboring residential properties. AYES: Commissioners NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Bosch IPd RE: NEW HEARINGS Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1909-91 - CALVARY CHAPEL OF ORANGE: A request to allow the operation of a church in an industrial district within an existing multi-tenant industrial complex, and to allow the joint use of the existing industrial complex parking facility. This project is located at 1525 Orangegrove Avenue, Suite A. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1991 - Page 9 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. A full staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Dave Daniel, 469 S. Greengrove Drive, represented Calvary Chapel of Orange. They are seeking a C.U.P. to have a more permanent facility for their church. Church services are held at 9:30 a.m. Sunday, 6:00 p.m. Sunday, and the operating hours of the industrial park are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Week night services are held at 7:00 p.m. The square footage of the building is 6, 0 00 square f eet. There a re 116 marked parking s talls available. Also, an additional 66 spaces across the street, which they have permission to use. Curb parking is also available. Approximately 70 adults and 70 children attend this church. Commissioner Murphy drove by the site was concerned about the required parking. Will the fencing be taken down to utilize the parking behind Building 2? Steven Spangler, 2138 Aster Place, Trico Realty, the owners of the questions regarding required parki property at 1521-1539 Orangewood, the church to use. A conflict of for other tenants. Costa Mesa, represented complex. He answered ng. They also own the which they are allowing interest does not exist Ms. Wolff clarified that the count for the 116 spaces fall between that dual row of parking behind Building 2. The property line is drawn incorrectly on the map; it's to the west. One row of parking would be counted. Commissioner Murphy thought the area should be cleaned up because of the inability to park on that side of the building. Commissioner Scott reiterated if the 116 spaces are not available, then the permit will not be issued. He asked the applicant if he were aware of condition 2 -- TSIP fees of 7,200? (Yes.) Those fees were required to be paid prior to occupancy of the building. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1991 - Page 10 Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1909-91 with the conditions as noted, including the change to condition 2 to mention prior to occupancy, payment of TSIP fees shall be required. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Bosch MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1911-91 - SOUTHEAST COUNCIL OF ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG PROBLEMS, INC.: A request to allow the establishment of a residential alcohol and drug rehabilitation facility, within an existing building currently used as a professional office. Property is located at 307 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. This application is for the property located across the street from City Hall and commonly known as the Royer Mansion. It is located in Old Towne in the C-1 District on Chapman Avenue. The proposal is to establish a residential treatment facility for alcohol and drug rehabilitation. The program is targeted to serve women with children. The facility would provide training and counseling and is not a medical treatment facility. This type of facility would be licensed by the State Department of Social Services and the applicant indicates funding will be provided by the County of Orange Health Care Agency. The proposal includes a total of 34 participants, which can be housed in the facility. This includes women with their children under the age of 8. Each woman is allowed up to two children. Four to six staff members will be present to supervise the daytime program and one staff person will be present during the night time hours, although there will not be a resident staff person on site. School aged children at the facility will attend local schools. The property currently provides 17 parking stalls and the traffic impact of the proposed use is similar to that of the existing office use. Only minor interior alterations are proposed. The changes have been evaluated by the City's Historic Preservation Planner and are not anticipated to impact the building's historical significance. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1991 - Page 11 Commissioner Scott stated for the record the Commission received a letter from Mr. Boice, President of Old Towne Preservation Association, who indicated they were not for nor against this project. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Lynne Appel, 5187 Cumberland Drive, Cypress, Director of the Southeast Council of Alcoholism and Drug Problems, a non-profit corporation, which is the largest facility of the National Council on alcoholism and related dependents in the United States. They have read the staff report and are willing and able to concur with all of the conditions and recommendations. The Southeast Council has been operating licensed programs for over 20 years in the State of California. They are fully conversant with fire and safety codes, special problems regarding children and mothers and are prepared to implement a program of the highest quality to the integrity of the environment around them. The following people spoke in favor and supported this project: Vince Faragamo, 6715 Horseshoe Drive, Orange. William Edelman, County of Orange Drug Program, 405 West 5th Street, Santa Ana. Ronald LaPorte, County Alcohol Programs, 1200 North Main X830, Santa Ana. Tom Wadkins, member of the Orange County Drug Advisory Board, 874 Town & Country, Orange. Jacqui Cody, 12029 Dolan Avenue, Downey. Debbie Bu stama nte, 757 Loma Vista Drive, Long Beach. Bud McDonald, Chairman of the Board and co-founder of the Southeast Council on Alcoholism and Drug Problems, 9415 Brook Park Road, Downey. Patricia Famous, 133 North Grand, Orange. Jillianne Palapino, 757 Loma Vista Drive, Long Beach. Ed Chaveye, 1992 Williams Lane, Huntington Beach. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine Street, Orange. Peggy Montapoly, 700 West LaVeta, Orange. Judith Youstead, Executive Director of Woodglen Recovery Junction, 2514 West Orangethorpe, Fullerton. Doris Lemagna, Administrator of the Villa in Santa Ana. Nancy Walker, 8205 7th Avenue, Downey. Nancy Harless, 411 North Hacienda Drive, La Habra. Larry Bonam, 332 South Olive, Orange. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1991 - Page 12 Those speaking in opposition: William Warne, 400 East Chapman Avenue, Orange. Al Rickey, 4000 East DelValle, Orange. John Aust, 307 East Chapman, Orange. Brenda Gess, 168 North Center, Orange. Donald St.Jean, 212 South Grand Street, Orange. Barbara Gail Hewitt, 143 North Grand, Orange. Dan Slater, 278 North Pine, Orange. Bill Coukoulis, 404-B West Tularosa Avenue, Orange. Jennifer Kushner, 307 East Chapman Avenue, Orange. Greg Lewin, 127 North Grand Street, Orange. They were not opposed but the issue is that type of use. The area and the Royer Mansion children and parking businesses out of the business people. They of the downtown area. children; the stairs located in the basement to the need for this type of Program, the location is not the best for this is designed to be Office-Professional is an office now. A play area for are also concerns. By moving downtown area, it will not help the do not want to see the deterioration The building is not safe for and windows are unsafe. The spa should be removed. Rebuttal Robert Klotz, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, 650 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa, said the State of California has declared a policy for every city to encourage and permit a siting of an adequate number of alcohol and drug treatment centers. He feels this is an appropriate location and it meets the needs of the program and requirements of the City. Commissioner Master responded the State does not exempt the City from safety and health code requirements, and safety is one concern of this project. The State may favor such developments, bu t questions may arise that deal with safety and code concerns that must be addressed by the City. Ms. Appel said they have been fortunate to never have had or been cited for an accident due to negligence or not abiding by the proper codes. They are certified and licensed by the State of California and examined on a yearly basis. The County will be visiting them often. They cannot relax their standards of safety and quality of care of their residents. The Commission asked if there were other locations in mixed-use zones? Ms. Appel responded affirmatively and would provide a list of these places. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1991 - Page 13 CORRECTED PAGE In response to the issues raised, Care Manor was considered; however, it's on the market for over 4 million dollars. Over- crowding is a concern; would they consider a change to a smaller number of beds? The space that will be utilized will be all buildings plus the basement. The number of beds they are allowed to put in that building and be licensed would have to be deemed to be acceptable for the number of square feet for the site. They feel the building can accommodate 34 people considering there will be no more than 15 adults at any one time (the rest are minor children). The mothers will not have personal vehicles while in residence. Staff and designated visitors would have vehicles, and the Southeast Council has a van to transport residents to various activities. They did not have a problem with obtaining parking permits for the designated visitors. Residents do not bring pets with them and they do not object to a condition restricting pets from the shelter. Outdoor recreation was also a concern. There are plans to use local parks, the Y.W.C.A. and to enclose part of the yard for a small play yard. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart would like to add more conditions if the C.U.P. were approved: a 6-month or 1 year monitoring period, trash enclosure be redirected, no pets be allowed in the facility. He suggested a continuance for the staff and applicant to work out the concerns voiced earlier. Commissioner Murphy requested specific conditions be added: (1) That the plan for outdoor play and recreation areas be submitted to staff for final review; (2) An access security system be administered and implemented in the spa area of the basement to ensure and secure the safety of the children involved at the facility; and (3) Security for access, entrance and exit from windows on the second story. Currently, there is an ability to slide the window open and no particular protection against moving outdoors. Commissioner Master would like to know what measures would be taken for security issues. Commissioner Scott said the State's requirements are usually greater than the City's as far as security measures. The Commission asked for the applicant's concurrence regarding a 30 day continuance. Because of contractual obligations to the State, it would not be possible for a continuance. They must file and start their program within 90 days and it is al- ready 45 days. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1991 - Page 14 CORRECTED PAGE Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1911-91 with the conditions so noted, requiring the applicant to work with staff regarding a revised site plan to address the outdoor child play area -- plan to be submitted to staff for final review; the question of 34 beds (whether it's appropriate to the State for the area provided in the building), security measures for the spa, second floor access security, as well as general security on site. Specifically, an access security system be administered and implemented in the spa area of the basement to ensure and secure the safety of the children involved at the facility; and security for access, entrance and exit from windows on the second story. Additionally, other conditions include limiting number of residents to the State's minimum requirements, not to exceed 34; no pets allowed; one year review process via a public hearing and report by the applicant; and trash enclosure. Condition 2 shall be amended -- the driveway at Chapman shall be posted for entrance only; then delete the driveway on Grand shall be posted for exit only (because Grand could function both as ingress/egress). AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Bosch MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1913-91 - SOCIAL MODEL RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC. A request to allow an adolescent residential alcohol treatment facility in the R-3 (Residential Multiple Family) zone. Property is located at 525 North Parker Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. A full staff report was presented by Ms. Wolff. The location of this property is on Parker Street in the short dead end street, north of Walnut. The parcel is 1700 square feet. It contains an existing residence and also a 5,000 square foot industrial warehouse building located to the rear. The property is located in the R-3 zone. The proposed facility is a 24 bed facility for teens, 12 to 17 years old. It's a residential alcohol treatment facility. Staffing is provided by three persons during the day and two people at night. The program is highly structured and supervised and it includes counseling, rehabilitation and an academic program for the youth. It's not a medical program. It's a 24 week program and it's to be funded through. the Orange County Health Care Agency and licensed by the State Department of Social Services. The use of the existing building will be changed, but only minor modifications are proposed, including handicap access to the buildings and Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1991 - Page 15 modifications to the warehouse building to eliminate the windows that are out toward the perimeter of the property. Seven parking spaces are provided for staff and visitors. Program participants are not allowed to have cars. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Bud Hayes, 4267 Lasalle Avenue, Culver City, passed out a written copy that summarized his presentation. They are funded by the Orange County Board of Supervisors and are under the same time constraints as the previous applicant. If they don't complete their project on time, they must give the money back to the State. The purpose of the program is to alleviate a significant gap in treatment in Orange County for adolescents. There is no service of this type in Orange County at this time. The primary group of people they are here to serve are young people between the ages of 12 and 17 whose parents/families do not have either insurance or benefits to pay for expensive treatment or the cash to pay for it themselves. The site selection was a long and difficult process for them. They spent eight months in coming to a decision about the site. They contacted all the neighbors within a 300 foot radius, as well as the property owners in the condominium complex across the street to explain what they were going to do. They invited everyone to an open house held last Monday night. He presented statistics about young people who drink and explained the program's goals. They have read the staff report and found it to be favorable. Only two concerns were expressed by the neighbors to him directly. One was property values and the second was the concern that the kids would be criminal-type individuals. The program does not target youths who are involved in the juvenile court system. They will be screening all applicants for violence or any other types of behavioral problems. They have already filed for a license with the State of California. There will not be a 24 passenger van utilized at all. There will be two 12 passenger vans and one will be based on site. The other will be used by the program director. There is no need for a short term curb side drop off activity of any type. The project does demonstrate that it's a sound use of the land; it's an allowable use and it's proposed in response to a need for services in the community. He requested an exemption from condition 13 - TSIP fees. Ms. Wolff believed the traffic engineer said prior to the meeting there would not be TSIP fees for this project. Commissioner Cathcart was concerned about the noise problem in the rear court yard. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1991 - Page 16 Mr. Hayes was aware some neighbors were concerned about the loud rock and roll music. A block wall was discussed. One of the house rules they have is that young people are not allowed to bring personal or portable stereos into the program. They will allow walkmans to be used during personal time when appropriate. Laurie Fr iedman, architect, 125 Palisades Avenue #104, Santa Monica, participated in the site search for this project. They looked at a number of sites and this site seemed the most ideal. The aesthetic issue was addressed. Exterior alterations will entail one hour fire walls. The living space will be focused inward. They are not adding extra square footage. This project will be a real asset to the neighborhood. They will be adding windows toward the back of the court yard because ventilation is needed for the bedrooms. The building will be fully sprinklered and upgraded to code. Those speaking in favor of this project Mary Pritchett, 3302 Quail Run, Los Alamitos. Beverley Gillett, 2202 E. Denise Avenue, Orange. Ronald LaPorte, County Alcohol Programs, 1200 N. Main #830, Santa Ana. Craig Taufer, 300 Cagney Lane, New port Beach. Michele Scott, 2943 Rounsevel Terrance, Laguna Beach. Jody Mathews, 4900 East Chapman, Orange. Those speaking in opposition Paul Flowers, owns the two properties at 533 and 541 North Parker, addressed the future development of the area and what he thought was the highest and best use. He thinks the programs are necessary, but there are problems with these types of facilities. How will this affect the people living next door? He said the reason the owner cannot sell this piece of property and is leasing it, is because it is a bodge podge. It's not a "beautiful" piece of property. The highest and best use of the property is for apartments and condominiums. It's not functional now and should be torn down and rebuilt. Rebuttal Mr. Hayes said the property does need a lot of work and it is a beautiful property; it has a wonderful feel. In addition, the County of Orange has guaranteed the funds to go through and carry out and complete the plans as submitted. The property will be more beautiful when completed. The owners prefer not to sell their property, Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1991 - Page 17 but would rather see the property used by a group that will help people. He spoke to neighbors who could not be at the public hearing: Dorthea Sayer, 625 Walnut; JoAnna Roscoe, 611 Walnut; Jennifer Sweeney, 700 Walnut and they supported this project. This is an allowable use and he takes issue regarding the highest and best use of the property. They are adding parking spaces and will have strictly controlled noise standards. The neighborhood will not suffer deterioration because of their program. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart said since the property is zoned R-3, the owner could put 8-10 living units there which would generate a considerable amount of traffic. He doesn't think the traffic issue is valid. Seven off-street parking spaces doesn't seem to be out of line for that size of property. The applicant is going to have to bring the building up to code because of State requirements. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to approve Conditional Use Permit 1913-91. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Bosch MOTION CARRIED Ms. Wolff explained the 15-day appeal period to those in the audience. IN RE: OTHER ITEMS Commissioner Murphy suggested a "Guidelines for Presenting to the Planning Commission" as being a helpful tool for the public to follow. This could be in the form of a one-page summary and be made available to the public at large so that they could understand the public hearing process. He requested staff to prepare a draft of these guidelines for the Commission's review. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on July 1, 1991. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Bosch MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. sl d